I had the tremendous opportunity of attending a conference this year called Stepping Up, Stepping Back about how unions must revitalize themselves and attract young workers – especially women.
The conference report makes no bones about it: unions are at a tipping point and risk losing relevance unless they become more reflective of the demographics of the workers they represent. And if unions don’t make changes, young women activists in particular will give up and invest their energies elsewhere.
The report says union structures are to blame – that they are shutting young women out of leadership. “Union political structures reward incumbents regardless of results,” it says.
One of the report’s recommendations is term limits, which I proposed at the 2010 CMG Convention. The motion was narrowly defeated though more than half the delegates were in favour (it needed 2/3 majority).
With these issues weighing on me, I decided to step down as president of the CMG and prompt a new generation of leaders to come forward.
But I’ve been saddened to learn that even in 2010, this election is turning out to be split down gender lines. And some older, mostly male leaders are actually telling people that some younger women candidates “just aren’t ready”. As far as I can tell, this sweeping statement is never applied to any of the male candidates.
They just aren’t ready? In this race, there are candidates with much more union experience than I could have imagined having when I became president twelve years ago. There are people with track records of actually solving problems, chairing tough committees and doing the really difficult work of unionizing new workplaces by signing workers up one-by-one. One (Carmel Smyth) is even the president of the CMG's biggest single unit (CBC Toronto, with more than 2000 members!!!).
I hope that if you hear that “they just aren’t ready” line – you ask precisely what it means. What has the other candidate done that makes them more “ready”? That’s the only way to get at the roots of this gender-biased slur.
Our skills and experience as media employees don’t necessarily prepare any of us to lead a union. Being ready means being ready to listen, to learn and to lead. You need the instinct to know what members want, the ability to make priorities happen, the smarts take on office and staff management functions, and the will to enlarge the network of people in leadership roles so you can avoid entrenching an insider clique.
This election is about members choosing who is most ready to truly represent them.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
A reminder about how dangerous our work can be
Being a news camera operator is one of the most physically demanding, and as we've been sadly reminded today, dangerous jobs in our industry.
Let's keep our fingers crossed for City-tv cameraman Bill Atanasoff who was hit by a car as he was shooting a separate police investigation in Toronto late last night. He had pulled up to the scene where other journalists were newsgathering, crossed the street to start shooting and was hit by the car.
Atanasoff was thrown several metres by the impact, in full view of the other media and police. He is in hospital in critical condition with injuries to his neck, skull and legs.
Police say they don't know if Bill's camera obscured his vision of the street or the oncoming car.
We know camera operators are incredibly vulnerable to injury. They are often looking through eyepieces and rushing to get to a scene at the same time -- meaning their own vision is obstructed and balance jeopardized. We know alot of shooting goes on in busy areas often at night and in bad weather. We know alot of news gathering takes place in unruly crowds and angry confrontations. And we know people are working longer hours, travelling further and doing more.
So let's take a moment to think about what we do, remember to be careful in what is a stressful profession, and talk openly to one another when we think enough is enough.
Let's keep our fingers crossed for City-tv cameraman Bill Atanasoff who was hit by a car as he was shooting a separate police investigation in Toronto late last night. He had pulled up to the scene where other journalists were newsgathering, crossed the street to start shooting and was hit by the car.
Atanasoff was thrown several metres by the impact, in full view of the other media and police. He is in hospital in critical condition with injuries to his neck, skull and legs.
Police say they don't know if Bill's camera obscured his vision of the street or the oncoming car.
We know camera operators are incredibly vulnerable to injury. They are often looking through eyepieces and rushing to get to a scene at the same time -- meaning their own vision is obstructed and balance jeopardized. We know alot of shooting goes on in busy areas often at night and in bad weather. We know alot of news gathering takes place in unruly crowds and angry confrontations. And we know people are working longer hours, travelling further and doing more.
So let's take a moment to think about what we do, remember to be careful in what is a stressful profession, and talk openly to one another when we think enough is enough.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Cutting his way to being "digital first"
Funny how the media doesn't report on how it's decimating itself.
Both CBC and CTV reported today on how 42 Ottawa Citizen staffers are taking the buyout offered by new Postmedia owner Paul Godfrey last month. The Citizen itself was strangely silent about it. Ever wonder why big general buyouts are the staff-cut method of choice? So there's no noise. No "L" word, as in layoffs. But the positions are still lost; the expertise gone and there's no added value to anyone.
Trouble is, this is only the tip of the iceberg at Postmedia. The numbers of positions being lost across the whole former Southam/Canwest (Montreal Gazette, Regina Leader-Post, Vancouver Sun and Province, Victoria Times Colonist and others) chain are at least triple that number of 42 and there are plans to centralize the business and advertising operations in a single city. If you read one of these papers, your local newspaper will be local in name only. Godfrey talks about being "hyper local" in news content but beware. Unless there's evidence of hiring people to do local news...those are just cute words. The strategy appears to be to cut an already lean newspaper empire to its very core, go public next summer and sell it all for profit.
Forget the demographic deficit. We have an information deficit.
Both CBC and CTV reported today on how 42 Ottawa Citizen staffers are taking the buyout offered by new Postmedia owner Paul Godfrey last month. The Citizen itself was strangely silent about it. Ever wonder why big general buyouts are the staff-cut method of choice? So there's no noise. No "L" word, as in layoffs. But the positions are still lost; the expertise gone and there's no added value to anyone.
Trouble is, this is only the tip of the iceberg at Postmedia. The numbers of positions being lost across the whole former Southam/Canwest (Montreal Gazette, Regina Leader-Post, Vancouver Sun and Province, Victoria Times Colonist and others) chain are at least triple that number of 42 and there are plans to centralize the business and advertising operations in a single city. If you read one of these papers, your local newspaper will be local in name only. Godfrey talks about being "hyper local" in news content but beware. Unless there's evidence of hiring people to do local news...those are just cute words. The strategy appears to be to cut an already lean newspaper empire to its very core, go public next summer and sell it all for profit.
Forget the demographic deficit. We have an information deficit.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Sign of hope for free TV in small-town Canada
Last Friday, when the CRTC approved the application by cable and satellite giant Shaw Communications to take over Canwest Global, it also took an important step to ensuring Canadians in smaller towns continue to have access to free, over-the-air TV after the switch to digital in 2011.
The CRTC told Shaw that, within the next five years, it must upgrade some 66 transmitters, mostly in the interior of BC, central and northern Ontario and Nova Scotia, serving smaller markets. It includes places like Sudbury ON, Kamloops and Kelowna BC, and Sydney NS that would have otherwise lost free TV signals after the transition. Previous owner Global had planned to shut down some of the existing analog transmitter in each of these 66 locations on August 31, 2011, and keep the others running only as long as they still worked.
The Guild has driven people crazy talking about the potential of free digital TV in smaller markets, using the ability of a single transmitter on a single frequency to send out up to six channels where an analog transmitter can only send out one. It's called digital multiplexing and, perhaps due to sheer repetition, or because the CRTC wants us to go away already, the Commission also said in the Shaw decision that it is "persuaded of the benefits of multiplexing with respect to the promotion of media diversity and access, and its potential to offset some of the negative impact resulting from media consolidation."
What multiplexing means concretely for the Sudburys, Kamloopses, Kelownas and Sydneys of the world is the potential for viewers to get more than just Global for free. Shaw has said it would consider multiplexing, and therefore sharing with other broadcasters, in some of these 66 locations. And perhaps what the CRTC is saying is that it would be good for media diversity if a new local TV service were launched in these places (perhaps a true community station?) that could piggy-back on the Shaw transmitter.
The ironies in this are delicious. First, that it's cable giant Shaw that is the first with a national TV network to commit to over-the-air TV in smaller communities in Canada. Way to go. Second that Shaw might well end up helping independent community TV. This may be a pay of patching things up with supporters of independent community TV after the scrap they had earlier this year over the country's community TV policy and where the $120 million in cable money that's supposed to be devoted to "local expression" is really being spent.
Over to you, mayors of smaller communities. You can bring several channels of free TV to your city. Any takers????
Meanwhile, there's a growing chorus of support for free, over-the-air TV, especially among those in major cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver and those who live along the US border who are already receiving the new high-quality digital signals for free. You can see the latest love letter to over-the-air TV here and an article about how to get free TV here.
The CRTC told Shaw that, within the next five years, it must upgrade some 66 transmitters, mostly in the interior of BC, central and northern Ontario and Nova Scotia, serving smaller markets. It includes places like Sudbury ON, Kamloops and Kelowna BC, and Sydney NS that would have otherwise lost free TV signals after the transition. Previous owner Global had planned to shut down some of the existing analog transmitter in each of these 66 locations on August 31, 2011, and keep the others running only as long as they still worked.
The Guild has driven people crazy talking about the potential of free digital TV in smaller markets, using the ability of a single transmitter on a single frequency to send out up to six channels where an analog transmitter can only send out one. It's called digital multiplexing and, perhaps due to sheer repetition, or because the CRTC wants us to go away already, the Commission also said in the Shaw decision that it is "persuaded of the benefits of multiplexing with respect to the promotion of media diversity and access, and its potential to offset some of the negative impact resulting from media consolidation."
What multiplexing means concretely for the Sudburys, Kamloopses, Kelownas and Sydneys of the world is the potential for viewers to get more than just Global for free. Shaw has said it would consider multiplexing, and therefore sharing with other broadcasters, in some of these 66 locations. And perhaps what the CRTC is saying is that it would be good for media diversity if a new local TV service were launched in these places (perhaps a true community station?) that could piggy-back on the Shaw transmitter.
The ironies in this are delicious. First, that it's cable giant Shaw that is the first with a national TV network to commit to over-the-air TV in smaller communities in Canada. Way to go. Second that Shaw might well end up helping independent community TV. This may be a pay of patching things up with supporters of independent community TV after the scrap they had earlier this year over the country's community TV policy and where the $120 million in cable money that's supposed to be devoted to "local expression" is really being spent.
Over to you, mayors of smaller communities. You can bring several channels of free TV to your city. Any takers????
Meanwhile, there's a growing chorus of support for free, over-the-air TV, especially among those in major cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver and those who live along the US border who are already receiving the new high-quality digital signals for free. You can see the latest love letter to over-the-air TV here and an article about how to get free TV here.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Good news: Sun TV's straight talk takes a turn
Quebecor is retreating on its bid to force all Canadian cable subscribers to pay for its proposed Sun TV News ... aka Hard News, Straight Talk ... aka Fox News North.
This is a victory. The about-face comes after thousands of Canadians voiced their opposition through organizations such as OpenMedia.ca and Avaaz.org to what was perceived as a politically-connected corporation trying to get a special deal via the Conservative government. This appears to be a rare example of the public getting involved and forcing a shift in the broadcaster's plans.
The CRTC has been planning a hearing on the Sun TV News application (we'll soon see if that hearing goes ahead). The Guild made a written submission supporting the existence of the new channel, with conditions, and objecting to the request for the special treatment.
Among the conditions, we proposed that Quebecor commit to a base level of editorial staff for the new channel, based on concerns about Quebecor's recent commitment to news and journalism at its other outlets. The company has cut hundreds of newspaper jobs cut across the country in the last two years and yet says it will rely heavily on these print journalists to feed the all-news TV network. And then there's the way Quebecor values its newspaper operations in Quebec, where a lockout at the Journal de Montreal is now in month 20; a lockout at the Journal de Québec ended in 2008 after a year and a half.
The Guild also proposed that the CRTC hold a hearing on the definition of news programming. While news is clearly dear the CRTC - they set up that local program fund in 2008 to support it, and that's good - no definition of it exists in broadcast policy. That's dangerous when media owners such as Quebecor, with the Sun TV News application, and Corus, with the Local 1 application, cleary want to stretch the boundaries.
This is a victory. The about-face comes after thousands of Canadians voiced their opposition through organizations such as OpenMedia.ca and Avaaz.org to what was perceived as a politically-connected corporation trying to get a special deal via the Conservative government. This appears to be a rare example of the public getting involved and forcing a shift in the broadcaster's plans.
The CRTC has been planning a hearing on the Sun TV News application (we'll soon see if that hearing goes ahead). The Guild made a written submission supporting the existence of the new channel, with conditions, and objecting to the request for the special treatment.
Among the conditions, we proposed that Quebecor commit to a base level of editorial staff for the new channel, based on concerns about Quebecor's recent commitment to news and journalism at its other outlets. The company has cut hundreds of newspaper jobs cut across the country in the last two years and yet says it will rely heavily on these print journalists to feed the all-news TV network. And then there's the way Quebecor values its newspaper operations in Quebec, where a lockout at the Journal de Montreal is now in month 20; a lockout at the Journal de Québec ended in 2008 after a year and a half.
The Guild also proposed that the CRTC hold a hearing on the definition of news programming. While news is clearly dear the CRTC - they set up that local program fund in 2008 to support it, and that's good - no definition of it exists in broadcast policy. That's dangerous when media owners such as Quebecor, with the Sun TV News application, and Corus, with the Local 1 application, cleary want to stretch the boundaries.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Canadians in for a rude shock after transition to digital TV
The major deadline in Canada's transition to digital TV is now less than one year away, but you'd never know it from the deafening silence on the issue.
Beginning next September 1, Canadian over-the-air TV viewers in 32 cities will need digital equipment to continue watching television. They will need either a newer TV with a digital receiver or a converter box for their older analog set.
But it's Canadians in the other cities, towns and rural areas that are in for the really rude shock. Starting in less than a year, their local stations will start unplugging the analog over-the-air transmitters and replace them with ... nothing. If you want to watch TV in those areas, you'll need a cable or satellite hookup, unless you are close enough to US stations to pick those up over the air.
It is quite a shock to compare the before-transition and after-transition maps of Canada. Check it out.
Here's a live version of the after-transition map, where you can see what stations will be available in what cities:
View Free digital TV in Canada/La télé numérique gratuite au Canada in a larger map
Don't forget to compare it to the map of where free, over-the-air TV is available today.
Meanwhile, viewers in the US, where the transition is already more than a year old, and Canada who have tried digital over-the-air TV seem to love it. First, there's no monthly bill. Second, the picture quality is great. There is evidence of a growing grassroots movement in favour of over-the-air TV.
Too bad so many smaller-town and rural Canadians are slated to be thrown under the digital bus.
Beginning next September 1, Canadian over-the-air TV viewers in 32 cities will need digital equipment to continue watching television. They will need either a newer TV with a digital receiver or a converter box for their older analog set.
But it's Canadians in the other cities, towns and rural areas that are in for the really rude shock. Starting in less than a year, their local stations will start unplugging the analog over-the-air transmitters and replace them with ... nothing. If you want to watch TV in those areas, you'll need a cable or satellite hookup, unless you are close enough to US stations to pick those up over the air.
It is quite a shock to compare the before-transition and after-transition maps of Canada. Check it out.
Here's a live version of the after-transition map, where you can see what stations will be available in what cities:
View Free digital TV in Canada/La télé numérique gratuite au Canada in a larger map
Don't forget to compare it to the map of where free, over-the-air TV is available today.
Meanwhile, viewers in the US, where the transition is already more than a year old, and Canada who have tried digital over-the-air TV seem to love it. First, there's no monthly bill. Second, the picture quality is great. There is evidence of a growing grassroots movement in favour of over-the-air TV.
Too bad so many smaller-town and rural Canadians are slated to be thrown under the digital bus.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Richard Stursberg: early thoughts about a demonized man and his impossible job
Richard Stursberg fired. Those words aren't in the official CBC release (see italics below), but they might as well be. Reports are that he was escorted out of the building today. I can't think of a more significant development at the CBC in years.
"Hubert T. Lacroix, president and CEO of CBC/Radio Canada, announced today the departure of Richard Stursberg, executive vice-president, English services, from CBC/Radio-Canada effective today."
Stursberg has been the head of English-language programming since 2004. I often thought of him as the Dick Cheney of the CBC, in the way he approached his power, his influence and the way he was openly derisive of different points of view. He took on battles that changed peoples lives, yet he seemed oblivious to the impact he had.
Most significantly, Stursberg took the CBC -- our public broadcaster -- down a very commercial road. It was his way of dealing with tepid funding and unreliable support from the federal government. Programs were judged as successful only by ratings, not by the value they may contain for public discourse or the public record. In fact, he rarely talked about the CBC as a public broadcaster. He once referred to programs about Rene Levesque and Pierre Trudeau as "goddamned legacy programming" in one heated discussion with me about his approach to public broadcasting.
Under his tenure, the CBC locked out its employees in 2005, shut down the CBC design department in 2007 -- ending the CBC's own ability to make sets and create costumes and props, and hired U-S based TV consultant Frank Magid to advise local news programs about how to be quick and snappy -- and talk alot about crime and weather.
Yet it should be said that Stursberg resuscitated local TV programming too by creating the 90-minute supper-time newscasts and the 10-minute late night newscasts -- even if wasn't necessarily because of the value of local journalism but because of the chase for the elusive eyeballs. He brought a lot of in-house production back to the network (even if he dismantled the department that supported that production).
He was a lightning rod for all kinds of opinion, a man easy to demonize. He was mercurial and surprisingly undiplomatic in meetings with staff.
Yet at the end of the day, what matters is why he's leaving.
"We are in the midst of developing a new strategic plan that will guide CBC/Radio-Canada through the next five years. This is the opportune time to bring new leadership...." the release says.
It seems apparent by reading between the lines of the CBC release is that the "new strategic plan" is linked to his departure/firing. What is that strategic plan? Let's hope it's a departure from the overly commercial approach that Stursberg pushed for so many years. Let's hope the new strategic plan values programming that's made in the public interest as much as for the potential "eyeball" numbers. Even better, let's hope this marks the end of the "Ottawa isn't going to give us any more money, so let's just deal with it" approach that's particularly depressing. It's time for this CBC administration to move forward post-Stursberg by embracing its public mandate, by reaching out to Canadians and working with them to make a strong case for a really public public broadcaster.
"Hubert T. Lacroix, president and CEO of CBC/Radio Canada, announced today the departure of Richard Stursberg, executive vice-president, English services, from CBC/Radio-Canada effective today."
Stursberg has been the head of English-language programming since 2004. I often thought of him as the Dick Cheney of the CBC, in the way he approached his power, his influence and the way he was openly derisive of different points of view. He took on battles that changed peoples lives, yet he seemed oblivious to the impact he had.
Most significantly, Stursberg took the CBC -- our public broadcaster -- down a very commercial road. It was his way of dealing with tepid funding and unreliable support from the federal government. Programs were judged as successful only by ratings, not by the value they may contain for public discourse or the public record. In fact, he rarely talked about the CBC as a public broadcaster. He once referred to programs about Rene Levesque and Pierre Trudeau as "goddamned legacy programming" in one heated discussion with me about his approach to public broadcasting.
Under his tenure, the CBC locked out its employees in 2005, shut down the CBC design department in 2007 -- ending the CBC's own ability to make sets and create costumes and props, and hired U-S based TV consultant Frank Magid to advise local news programs about how to be quick and snappy -- and talk alot about crime and weather.
Yet it should be said that Stursberg resuscitated local TV programming too by creating the 90-minute supper-time newscasts and the 10-minute late night newscasts -- even if wasn't necessarily because of the value of local journalism but because of the chase for the elusive eyeballs. He brought a lot of in-house production back to the network (even if he dismantled the department that supported that production).
He was a lightning rod for all kinds of opinion, a man easy to demonize. He was mercurial and surprisingly undiplomatic in meetings with staff.
Yet at the end of the day, what matters is why he's leaving.
"We are in the midst of developing a new strategic plan that will guide CBC/Radio-Canada through the next five years. This is the opportune time to bring new leadership...." the release says.
It seems apparent by reading between the lines of the CBC release is that the "new strategic plan" is linked to his departure/firing. What is that strategic plan? Let's hope it's a departure from the overly commercial approach that Stursberg pushed for so many years. Let's hope the new strategic plan values programming that's made in the public interest as much as for the potential "eyeball" numbers. Even better, let's hope this marks the end of the "Ottawa isn't going to give us any more money, so let's just deal with it" approach that's particularly depressing. It's time for this CBC administration to move forward post-Stursberg by embracing its public mandate, by reaching out to Canadians and working with them to make a strong case for a really public public broadcaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
