sowny.net | The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

May 31, 2019 11:25 am  #1


CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

"The CBC’s flagship television news broadcast, The National, totally dropped the ball Wednesday night. Here’s the hot news story they were not following: The cutesy, chattering four anchors of The National — Rosemary Barton, Adrienne Arsenault, Andrew Chang and Ian Hanomansing — were in Toronto that day shilling for advertising dollars at a TV marketing conference..."

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-our-public-broadcaster-now-has-journalists-shilling-for-private-ad-dollars


"Life without echo is really no life at all." - Dan Ingram
 

May 31, 2019 11:37 am  #2


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

Are Terry's pants full again?

 

May 31, 2019 12:59 pm  #3


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

Shut it down. 

 

June 1, 2019 9:54 am  #4


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

The FP Editorial room is a rancid-smelling hospice ward teeming with demented yobs.

 

June 1, 2019 11:33 am  #5


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

Don't hold back.  How do you really feel about it!

 

June 1, 2019 3:10 pm  #6


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

Upfronts are sales pitches, not "marketing conferences". It's not a conference if the entire point of the presentation is "hey ad people, buy into our brand, here's two hours of forward-looking statements".

 

June 1, 2019 6:07 pm  #7


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

Hopefully, the CBC will accidentally admit to committing fraud in their spin again.

 

June 2, 2019 6:21 pm  #8


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

Retaw wrote:

Hopefully, the CBC will accidentally admit to committing fraud in their spin again.

Agree totally with Retaw.  Having done 7 upfront's for CTV we always had Lloyd as part of the presentation.  Nothing new having your anchors at the event.

 

June 3, 2019 6:01 pm  #9


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

What a foolish and somewhat misleading headline as is the referenced link using the term "fraud".  Are we seeing a return to trash talk without the aid of "ziggy" and company.  Do we need new lows?
There is zero news here.  CBC continues to draw public funding as it has for decades.  Audience forecasts, upfront buzz and podcasts are nothing new.  Questioning fraud from a one year ago discussion is not cool. Taking a cheap shot at person's integrity in an arena of anonymity and pseudonyms is utter trash.  Moderator, do you agree?

 

 

June 3, 2019 7:17 pm  #10


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

Bentwater wrote:

What a foolish and somewhat misleading headline as is the referenced link using the term "fraud".  Are we seeing a return to trash talk without the aid of "ziggy" and company.  Do we need new lows?
There is zero news here.  CBC continues to draw public funding as it has for decades.  Audience forecasts, upfront buzz and podcasts are nothing new.  Questioning fraud from a one year ago discussion is not cool. Taking a cheap shot at person's integrity in an arena of anonymity and pseudonyms is utter trash.  Moderator, do you agree? 

Given your post, I’m pretty sure you won’t necessarily agree with what I have to say. But here it is anyway:
 
This forum was created as a discussion place for radio and TV in general and Ontario and Western New York in particular – and I might add, by the very thread starter who’s headline you’re objecting to. Linking to a controversial newspaper article is often a part of that discussion, and I don’t think the Financial Post will ever be mistaken for say, the National Inquirer.
 
That said, my primary concern is not whether those who post here agree or disagree – that’s what makes it interesting. Instead it’s the tone of those who put up their messages. Ziggy was abusive and mean, deliberately picking fights over non-existant issues that he searched high and low to make up. And I don’t believe one thread equals a return to those dreaded days.  
 
I’ve reread the posts here and while the comments may be controversial, I don’t find them especially angry or hurtful to other members.
 
And I would point out that it was the Financial Post that used the word “shilling.” Whatever you think of Post Media, their lawyers clearly didn’t have a problem with it or it would never have made it to print. Posters here simply made use of that word in giving their own reactions. It was an opinion piece and I take it you don’t share that opinion. And that’s OK. I invite you to counter it in whatever way you wish.
 
As for the “fraud” word, I’ll admit I’m not entirely comfortable with it. But not enough to purge it from these pages. Again, it’s one single poster’s opinion, not a fact. And whether I concur with his/her point or not, everyone has the right to their own views. If I were to start censoring messages I personally didn't agree with, we would likely cease to exist very quickly.
 
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: It’s OK to disagree. It’s not OK to be disagreeable. I don’t think this thread crosses that line.
 
I’m not sure that will satisfy you, but at least I wanted you to have the courtesy of what I hope is a thought-out reply.

 

June 3, 2019 9:14 pm  #11


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

The fraud comment is just a joke. CBC sold ad space for The National projecting a viewership increase. The National suffered a viewership drop. CBC's PR people then claim they were always expecting a decline. If that was the case, why'd they sell advertisers on a viewership increase? Intentionally misrepresenting a business transaction is usually considered fraud.

In reality, CBC's hubris probably had them under the impression they'd experience a viewership increase. That didn't happen, so to save face they lied.

 

June 4, 2019 9:14 am  #12


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

RadioActive, thanks for your thoughtful and well-structured reply.  I am more than satisfied with your perspective and largely agree with your sentiments.  It's possible I did not flag the concern I raised articulately.  It certainly was not the thread starter's topic at issue, whatsoever.

I, too, am not entirely comfortable with the word fraud.  When fraud is connected or associated with any person (specifically by name), be it in a question or statement, it could be construed as accusatory.

In Retaw's post a link was provided dating back to April 13 of last year that cited a quote by a Jennifer McGuire questioning whether she admitted to committing fraud.
 
One year later: "Hopefully, the CBC will accidentally admit to committing fraud in their spin again."  It could be viewed as an assertion that Jennifer indeed commit fraud, in the absence of fair and reflective context. 
As we use online handles for anonymity, it seems like associating someone's real name with fraud could be grounds for litigation from Jennifer's counsel?  Contextually, Jennifer's name appears to be trashed in an online forum comprised largely of professional broadcasters and journalists.

RA, I've known you be be a class act from this board.  As moderator, you likely have more skin in the game than we.

Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.  This type of discussion is healthy and constructive.  If you are comfortable with the posts after thoughtful review, that's all good with me.
 

Last edited by Bentwater (June 4, 2019 9:15 am)

 

June 4, 2019 9:27 am  #13


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

And I appreciate your equally thoughtful response. There are a lot of differing opinions here - especially when it comes to the CBC! And overall, that's probably a good thing. 

One thing I like to encourage is considering all sides. That's why I read the Star, the Post, The Sun and sometimes the Globe online. And then I'll make up what little is left of my mind on an issue.

To me the biggest problem these days is that everyone just wants to hear their own sides reflected in either social media or legacy media and everyone who doesn't take that position is a luddite.

I think we've seen all too clearly in recent years where that extreme polarization can lead.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a cloud outside I have to go yell at!

 

June 4, 2019 5:02 pm  #14


Re: CBC anchors shill for private ad dollars

Bentwater wrote:

I, too, am not entirely comfortable with the word fraud.  When fraud is connected or associated with any person (specifically by name), be it in a question or statement, it could be construed as accusatory.

In Retaw's post a link was provided dating back to April 13 of last year that cited a quote by a Jennifer McGuire questioning whether she admitted to committing fraud.
 
One year later: "Hopefully, the CBC will accidentally admit to committing fraud in their spin again."  It could be viewed as an assertion that Jennifer indeed commit fraud, in the absence of fair and reflective context. 
As we use online handles for anonymity, it seems like associating someone's real name with fraud could be grounds for litigation from Jennifer's counsel?  Contextually, Jennifer's name appears to be trashed in an online forum comprised largely of professional broadcasters and journalists.

Her name is mentioned once by me, in the form of a question. The very next sentence acknowledges that she was just doing PR talk.