Bell makes Sweeping Cuts - Dan O'Toole and Natasha Staniszewski among them

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

Friedman looks like he got out of bed 30 seconds before going on air half the time so I'm not so sure being presentable is a cornerstone of being on a Sportsnet panel.

That is the issue - the double standard.

[alan21]

Originally Posted by Hockey-and_stuff

Friedman looks like he got out of bed 30 seconds before going on air half the time so I'm not so sure being presentable is a cornerstone of being on a Sportsnet panel.

I believe that was brought up as a double standard example actually. What if Cassie did the same thing? You'd hear nothing but bitching and moaning from countless people (women included).

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Unattractive women get unrepentant hate from male viewers. And their talent level is not the reason.

To be considered “talented” a woman has to be beautiful. It’s pretty sad.

Pointing out that Elliot Friedman makes no effort to look good is missing the point entirely.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Unattractive women get unrepentant hate from male viewers. And their talent level is not the reason.

To be considered “talented” a woman has to be beautiful. It’s pretty sad.

Pointing out that Elliot Friedman makes no effort to look good is missing the point entirely.

Exactly. There is a huge double standard in media.

This exchange basically underscores. It doesn't matter what she says - because she looks good saying it. That's the message.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I never hear a word Natasha says

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

But my god does she look good saying it

I fully expected people would object to what I said. That's fine.
I worked with women in media who wanted to be valued and respected for their work - not their looks.

I've said my piece.

[bigpete]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't think there is any reference or source for it.

It is simply an indirect way to say someone is beautiful - their looks are distracting. It is probably an old fashioned usage though, yes. (I am old)

I dunno, I usually don't hear a word my wife says and she's only like a 7.

[Poison]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I suspect that, particularly on a day that she lost her job, she would prefer that people remember and acknowledge her as someone who was good at her job, well informed about the topics she covered, and able to carry a show by being informative and entertaining.

I'll wait for additional comments about the stick also being up my bum.

You ask and you shall receive.
Keep that butt clenched.

[Locke]

Media is a hard gig. Its pretty ruthless.

I always thought Jay and Dan were more or less a package deal, odd that one got the axe and one didnt.

Did they have to have 'Feats of Strength' to determine which one got fired?

Like that scene in The Dark Knight.

"Unfortunately we only have one opening....*breaks pool cue in half*"

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Exactly. There is a huge double standard in media.

This exchange basically underscores. It doesn't matter what she says - because she looks good saying it. That's the message.





I fully expected people would object to what I said. That's fine.
I worked with women in media who wanted to be valued and respected for their work - not their looks.

I've said my piece.

I didn't hire her. Nor did I create the double standard.

Also, I am completely fine if looks were an important criterion for the male broadcasters as well. I do not wish for a double standard.

None of that changes the fact that she is gorgeous.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Unattractive women get unrepentant hate from male viewers. And their talent level is not the reason.

To be considered “talented” a woman has to be beautiful. It’s pretty sad.

I'm obviously not about to argue that it doesn't matter, because looks are clearly a part of why people are successful in that role and while it's also true for men, it's more true for women. But I don't know that I agree with the second statement. I'm thinking specifically about Rachel Nichols, who's not, yknow, unattractive, but I don't think anyone would say that she has her show because of her looks. And she's one of the most respected and talented NBA commentators out there, because she's great at what she does.

It's clearly harder for women to succeed this way, but if you truly kick ass at it, it's also possible to be right up at the top.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Locke

Media is a hard gig. Its pretty ruthless.

I always thought Jay and Dan were more or less a package deal, odd that one got the axe and one didnt.

Did they have to have 'Feats of Strength' to determine which one got fired?

Like that scene in The Dark Knight.

"Unfortunately we only have one opening....*breaks pool cue in half*"

Personally, I prefer Dan over Jay. Jay can be hilarious, but he is also kind of tiring. I thought Dan was great.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Bell and Rogers are the cheapest, greedy companies in this country.

Have you heard about the railroad monopolies in our country? You know, CN north of Edmonton and CP south of it?

[Cole436]

Real bad look to let go of an anchor with very public mental health problems a week after their mental health campaign.

Also it's really not worth trying to explain sexism to sexists.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Have you heard about the railroad monopolies in our country? You know, CN north of Edmonton and CP south of it?

Every single publicly owned corporation is run the same way. There is always a mandate to maximize profits.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Personally, I prefer Dan over Jay. Jay can be hilarious, but he is also kind of tiring. I thought Dan was great.

They can both be kind of a lot.

I like their highlight clips but I also echo the sentiment that they were at their best when they were just riffing off each other on a bit.

But how much value does that really hold?

As for Natasha (and I only use her first name because I dont want to butcher the spelling of her last name) I cant really comment because I cant say I really saw that much of her work.

Like I said, Media is a tough business. Maybe this will make room for younger people to come in? Maybe because the 'Elder Statesmen' broadcasters made too much? I really dont know.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm obviously not about to argue that it doesn't matter, because looks are clearly a part of why people are successful in that role and while it's also true for men, it's more true for women. But I don't know that I agree with the second statement. I'm thinking specifically about Rachel Nichols, who's not, yknow, unattractive, but I don't think anyone would say that she has her show because of her looks. And she's one of the most respected and talented NBA commentators out there, because she's great at what she does.

It's clearly harder for women to succeed this way, but if you truly kick ass at it, it's also possible to be right up at the top.

Systemic racism doesn’t exist, a black man can succeed at anything if he’s good enough! Lol.

I guess the exception disproves the rule. One woman did it, therefore it can’t be true.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Locke

They can both be kind of a lot.

I like their highlight clips but I also echo the sentiment that they were at their best when they were just riffing off each other on a bit.

But how much value does that really hold?

As for Natasha (and I only use her first name because I dont want to butcher the spelling of her last name) I cant really comment because I cant say I really saw that much of her work.

Like I said, Media is a tough business. Maybe this will make room for younger people to come in? Maybe because the 'Elder Statesmen' broadcasters made too much? I really dont know.

That’s the cycle. There’s an endless supply of young broadcasters that will work for nearly nothing
The quality of the product though continues to erode

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

I think its a case of Jay and Dan being the trailblazers a decade ago, among the first to really bring comedy and their own interactions to the forefront, and the sports highlights being almost secondary. Now everyone is doing it...on tv, podcasts, social media. "Sports Entertainment, Edu-tainment..." etc. have become part of the lexicon.

I'll miss them, but their early years before they left for the US were certainly the top of their game.

Yeah, when they returned, I had no interest in their show since it lost it's charm. But at that point, I wasn't watching any highlight show at all anyway, since I find the current format isn't suited for the new age of media thanks to social media and premium level content like subscriptions and podcasts/youtube videos.

But before they left to America, they were the pioneers of what sports highlight shows (and general news to an extent) are now. Jay during the Vancouver Olympics was one of the funniest things on live TV ever.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Real bad look to let go of an anchor with very public mental health problems a week after their mental health campaign.

Also it's really not worth trying to explain sexism to sexists.

Well they don't actually care about that mental health campaign. It's a checkbox.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

That’s the cycle. There’s an endless supply of young broadcasters that will work for nearly nothing
The quality of the product though continues to erode

Well...its already pretty bad as it is, to the point where I hardly even watch intermissions or highlight shows at all anymore.

So if its going to be slightly worse but significantly cheaper I'd probably make that call as an executive too.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Systemic racism doesn’t exist, a black man can succeed at anything if he’s good enough! Lol.

I guess the exception disproves the rule. One woman did it, therefore it can’t be true.

And this thread is effectively off the rails