Lisa LaFlamme, CTV News, and Bad Executive Decisions

There will be no bittersweet on-air goodbye for (now former) CTV nationwide news anchor Lisa LaFlamme, no ceremonial passing of the baton to the future era, no broadcast retrospectives lionizing a journalist with a storied and award-winning career. As LaFlamme announced yesterday, CTV’s father or mother business, Bell Media, has made a decision to unilaterally conclusion her deal. (See also the CBC’s reporting of the story right here.)

Though LaFlamme herself doesn’t make this assert, there was of study course instant speculation that the network’s selection has anything to do with the fact that LaFlamme is a lady of a sure age. LaFlamme is 58, which by Television set expectations is not accurately young — besides when you compare it to the age at which common males who proceeded her have still left their respective anchor’s chairs: look at Peter Mansbridge (who was 69), and Lloyd Robertson (who was 77).

But an even a lot more sinister concept is now afoot: rather than mere, shallow misogyny, evidence has arisen of not just sexism, but sexism conjoined with company interference in newscasting. Two evils for the cost of a single! LaFlamme was fired, suggests journalist Jesse Brown, “because she pushed again towards just one Bell Media executive.” Brown stories insiders as declaring that Michael Melling, vice president of news at Bell Media, has bumped heads with LaFlamme a number of occasions, and has a background of interfering with news coverage. Brown even further reviews that “Melling has continually shown a lack of regard for gals in senior roles in the newsroom.”

Pointless to say, even if a personal grudge plus sexism reveal what is heading on, here, it nonetheless will look to most as a “foolish selection,” a single guaranteed to induce the business headaches. Now, I make it a policy not to dilemma the small business savvy of knowledgeable executives in industries I never know well. And I suggest my learners not to leap to the summary that “that was a dumb decision” just mainly because it is one particular they never comprehend. But nonetheless, in 2022, it is tricky to picture that the company (or Melling more particularly) didn’t see that there would be blowback in this scenario. It’s 1 detail to have disagreements, but it’s yet another to unceremoniously dump a beloved and award-profitable girl anchor. And it is weird that a senior government at a information group would assume that the truth of the matter would not appear out, offered that, just after all, he’s surrounded by people whose work, and personal commitment, is to report the news.

And it’s tough not to suspect that this a significantly less than delighted transition for LaFlamme’s substitution, Omar Sachedina. Of course, I’m sure he’s content to get the position. But though Bell Media’s push launch prices Sachedina declaring graceful things about LaFlamme, absolutely he did not want to assume the anchor chair amidst popular criticism of the changeover. He’s having on the purpose underneath a shadow. Probably the prize is well worth the cost, but it’s also tricky not to envision that Sachedina experienced (or now has) some pull, some capability to influence that manner of the transition. I’m not expressing (as some undoubtedly will) that — as an insider who appreciates the true tale — he should have declined the task as unwell-gotten gains. But at the really the very least, it appears good to argue that he should have utilised his influence to form the changeover. And if the now-senior anchor does not have that sort of affect, we really should be anxious certainly about the independence of that job, and of that newsroom.

A last, associated observe about authority and governance in elaborate businesses. In any moderately well-governed organization, the selection to axe a important, public-going through expertise like LaFlamme would require indication-off — or at least tacit approval — from far more than just one senior government. This indicates that 1 of two points is correct. Both Bell Media isn’t that sort of perfectly-ruled business, or a huge amount of folks were included in, and culpable of, unceremoniously dumping an award-profitable journalist. Which is worse?