CTV News Lisa LaFlamme has been let go

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Firebot

CBC journalism at its finest of course posting this ridiculous story and bashing Wendy's for their 'grey stunt'.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bra...amme-1.6562973

I get you don't like the CBC, but your hatred has blinded you to the most amazing part of this Canadian Press story:

CTV News also printed it

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/in-w...erts-1.6043360

[Wormius]

And “bashing” seems a little much.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Shazam

LaFlamme is suing Bell for $1.2million, so no, it's not going away anytime soon.

Go Lisa Go

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I get you don't like the CBC, but your hatred has blinded you to the most amazing part of this Canadian Press story:

CTV News also printed it

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/in-w...erts-1.6043360

Ah yes... I was waiting for the "this is canadian press" comment. I am well aware this is a CP article before I posted.

CBC published the story, end of story. They can choose not to publish a Canadian Press story if they do not agree with its premise and does not absolve them if they put in on the front page. The Canadian Press source can be any freelancer or reporter including affiliate CBC reporters (or CTV reporters). While the Canadian Press is a nom de plume, this blurb from the article seems to suggest direct CBC involvement in the development of the story. CP is not some mythical neutral news entity, its owned by several media groups and shares resources.

Wendy's and Dove did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did Bell Media, which owns CTV. CBC News has reached out to Sports Illustrated.

And CTV printing it? No controversy whatsoever in CTV printing that story there no sir.

National Post also posted it, well aware of how CP works. All media that blindly picked up this article looks bad.

[Roughneck]

The only thing interesting about the piece is that CTV News posted it, not that any of the other outlets did, because the other outlets aren’t currently getting dumped on by Dove and Wendy’s on social media. It’s the lack of awareness that got them into this mess in the first place.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Ah yes... I was waiting for the "this is canadian press" comment. I am well aware this is a CP article before I posted.

CBC published the story, end of story. They can choose not to publish a Canadian Press story if they do not agree with its premise and does not absolve them if they put in on the front page. The Canadian Press source can be any freelancer or reporter including affiliate CBC reporters (or CTV reporters). While the Canadian Press is a nom de plume, this blurb from the article seems to suggest direct CBC involvement in the development of the story. CP is not some mythical neutral news entity, its owned by several media groups and shares resources.

And CTV printing it? No controversy whatsoever in CTV printing that story there no sir.

National Post also posted it, well aware of how CP works. All media that blindly picked up this article looks bad.

I mean, you're literally describing how news works. I don't get the anger.

Firstly, it's a newsworthy story. And yes, that was absolutely a reactionary but planned Wendy's PR campaign to sell more burgers. They picked up a ton of earned media and good for them. They got to pat themselves on the back and feel good at the same time.

The 'bashing' (LOL, it wasn't anywhere near bashing) in the article is valid because these are the exact conversations I have in my line of work. It was a good campaign for them with some immediate wins but there is a legit flip side to it which is discussed in the article.

I'm not sure if I would've green lit the campaign... at least as quickly as they did (also, the Wendy's social media team is a fascinating case study for external corporate communications if you care to learn more).

Did Bell/CTV have a hand in pushing out this narrative? Oh god yes. It's pretty clear and I despise them for it.

From a PR perspective, the Wendy's campaign absolutely has potential to backfire. Interesting stuff and I can see it for what it is (a throwaway article not worth getting riled up about).

It's reasonable to acknowledge all of these things and not get upset about it.

[curves2000]

Although I doubt the VP who made the decision to let Lisa go, didn't have higher level approval, it now appears that he is "taking a leave of absence"

I don't think they handled this at all correctly and it is now hitting them financially or internally with HR issues, specifically with women.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9088738/m...lisa-laflamme/

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Although I doubt the VP who made the decision to let Lisa go, didn't have higher level approval, it now appears that he is "taking a leave of absence"

I don't think they handled this at all correctly and it is now hitting them financially or internally with HR issues, specifically with women.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9088738/m...lisa-laflamme/

A VP has some crazy autonomy when it comes to personnel decisions. There's a few decisions that require the board of directors, but this most definitely happened without their knowledge.

And I speak of this with my wife having dealt with an eerily similar situation at a top level (wont go in more details, but this story hits home hard and I really hope Laflamme gets some justice).

Once the firing happened, Bell chose to double down to protect their new executive, and they chose...very poorly.

There's also a lot more to the story (as usually is) and it is likely to be revealed that the reasons for the firing are even more sinister and dark then the allegations.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1563292537728962562

[Firebot]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1563295141435019264

https://twitter.com/user/status/1563316884291796992

They are literally playing musical chairs so that people eventually forget about their toxic culture from the top down and prepare for the ####storm they just learned is about to hit them.

[Firebot]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1563328146908524544

Bell CEO makes a statement.

Takeaways:

1. It's very obvious he had no idea about the firing based on his statement and had to find out the details behind her termination from below him.

2. His speech about how broadcasting in Canada is undergoing change and needing to adapt sounds very 'business' oriented. Problem is...they didn't cancel the 11 o'clock news. They outright solely replaced a middle aged women with grey hair with a man, months after comments by a VP on her grey hair. His speech doesn't match the actions taken.

3. They also are legally unable to admit any type of fault at this point. Any apology or admission of wrongdoing will be used against them in court. They are at the point of no return now, because they decided to double down on protecting their VP who had a clear personal vendetta or prejudice against her, instead of attempting to make things right from the start. Their only option was a settlement and confidentiality agreement behind closed doors, and it looks like this is about to be blown wide open where they will have no choice but to give LaFlamme a blank cheque.

This isn't going away Mirko. Buckle up.

[Firebot]

This just gets better and the wolves are hungry

https://www.canadaland.com/executive...eave-from-ctv/

So...that Wendy's story?

On Wednesday night, a source at CTV News tells Canadaland that the National News team was instructed to send a news script to Gray, an executive they had no prior experience with.

The piece, by reporter Heather Wright, concerned the ongoing fallout from the LaFlamme controversy, with consumer brands like Dove capitalizing on the incident to publicly support LaFlamme in their marketing campaigns.

According to two CTV sources, the piece was “gutted” by Gray, who ordered changes to the reporting, including, according to one source, the removal of Lisa LaFlamme’s Twitter video, in which she announced her exit from CTV.

The CTV National News team was so upset with the resulting piece that they did not air it.

On Thursday, they returned to the story, and this time did not submit it to Richard Gray. It aired unadulterated.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=...ylistPageNum=1

Here's that video obviously posted without Gray's approval (and great on them for defying the exec)

No doubt the garbage article I linked from earlier that came from 'canadian press' is directly linked to this. Hopefully we get details as that article was clearly done to undermine the recent campaigns less then 24 hours after the video got leaked.

[curves2000]

Excuse the bump but I thought I would post a message from the new anchor of CTV National News, Omar Sachedina. He touches on the departure of Lisa Laflamme, how much she meant to him as a mentor and welcomes everybody into their home.

One thing that is lost in this entire thing is that Omar is an excellent journalist and anchor who had the misfortune of having big shoes to fill at the wrong time due to a bad corporate decision. It will up an uphill battle for him and the news team. An excellent overall message from him. I wish him all the best as someone who is a fan of his.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.6056479

[bigtmac19]

Funny no mention of mysogyny?

[Looch City]

Looks like Rogers picked her up for CityNews, specifically for the Queen's funeral coverage it seems.

CityNews hires Lisa LaFlamme as special correspondent

LaFlamme's new employer, CityNews, said she will travel to London to provide daily television and radio reporting on the legacy of Queen Elizabeth and the transition to the reign of King Charles, and will lead live coverage of the Queen's funeral.

[...]

Rogers Sports and Media, the parent company of CityNews, said LaFlamme's reporting will be made available on all of its platforms.

"News coverage of such a pivotal moment in history is integral to achieving our mission of keeping Canadians connected and informed, and Lisa LaFlamme's incredible talent and wealth of experience are befitting of an event of this magnitude," said Rogers President Colette Watson.

With that said, still #### you Rogers and I hope your merger with Shaw fails.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Looks like Rogers picked her up for CityNews, specifically for the Queen's funeral coverage it seems.

CityNews hires Lisa LaFlamme as special correspondent




With that said, still #### you Rogers and I hope your merger with Shaw fails.

Good for her.

Finding work so quickly might be bad for her lawsuit though.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Good for her.

Finding work so quickly might be bad for her lawsuit though.

But covering the death of the Queen will be huge for her career.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Good for her.

Finding work so quickly might be bad for her lawsuit though.

I would assume the lawsuit is over wrongful dismissal due to ageism or sexism, etc.

Finding a new job right away actually shows she was still had excellent capacity at doing her job and may help the lawsuit.

I doubt the lawsuit is over the amount of severance she received, which getting a job this quickly could have impacted.

[CroFlames]

Yeah, just because she was successful in finding new work, doesn't invalidate the wrongful dismissal from her old company.

No matter how high profile the case.

Go Lisa. Kick these corporations in the balls. Hard.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I would assume the lawsuit is over wrongful dismissal due to ageism or sexism, etc.

Finding a new job right away actually shows she was still had excellent capacity at doing her job and may help the lawsuit.

I doubt the lawsuit is over the amount of severance she received, which getting a job this quickly could have impacted.

Haven’t read what the lawsuit is over specifically but I would think ageism or sexism are going to be awfully difficult to prove in court. My guess is that she is going to be seeking more in severance based on them not having just cause for termination, in which case her being able to find work so quickly may be a bit of a double edged sword from a legal perspective because while it helps her argument that she was wrongfully terminated it reduces any financial burden she would incur from her loss of employment and thus could reduce any amount she is awarded in damages as a result.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

But covering the death of the Queen will be huge for her career.

For sure, but that works against arguing that her termination resulted in a financial hardship to the tune of $1.2M.