The fix is in.
Information released today by Chuck Thompson, CBC’s Head of Public Affairs, reveals the broadcaster’s impending 3rd party investigation of the Ghomeshi scandal to be a pre-determined cover-up and whitewash.
Lawyer Janice Rubin’s report will never be released to the public. What’s more, the CBC now admits that Rubin has been contracted only to investigate past and present employees of Ghomeshi’s shows, Q and Play. Rubin has no powers to demand answers, and no mission to learn who knew what and when. Participation in the investigation seems to be entirely voluntary.
Most strikingly, Rubin has no mandate to look into CBC management’s role in the Ghomeshi affair whatsoever.
Yet management is already implicated. Here is what we know so far:
1. in 2010, a Q producer complained about Ghomeshi to a union representative, who took her complaint to Q Executive Producer Arif Noorani and to Kim Orchard, then the CBC’s Director of Arts and Entertainment. The producer says she is absolutely certain she included her allegations that Ghomeshi told her he wanted to “hate fuck” and “grudge fuck” her, and that he touched her inappropriately. She chose not to file a formal grievance, as doing so would mean facing Ghomeshi directly with her accusations, which she felt certain he would simply deny. This meant no paper trail was created.
Arif Noorani said to CANADALAND that when the union rep approached him with his employee’s complaint, “sexual harrassment” was not mentioned.
When asked if “abuse” of any kind was mentioned, Noorani did not respond.
Kim Orchard, now retired, also denied to CANADALAND that “sexual harrassment” was mentioned.
When asked if “abuse” of any kind was, she said “no”.
2. As reported in the Globe and Mail today, 6 members of the Q team met with Linda Groen, CBC’s Director of Network Talk, in July 2012 to complain en masse about Ghomeshi’s behaviour. Though sexual harrassment was not mentioned, the team reportedly described to management a culture of fear and manipulation created by Ghomeshi and tolerated and enabled by the CBC. The Globe writes that the Q staff had to meet away from the CBC’s offices so as to escape Ghomeshi’s awareness. Management’s failure to act on these drastic warnings will evidently not be examined by Janice Rubin.
3. In his infamous Facebook posted self-defence, Ghomeshi claimed that CBC management gave him the option to misrepresent to the public the reasons for his departure.
“I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision,” he wrote.
Unless Ghomeshi is lying about this (and the CBC has not denied it) the broadcaster was willing to conspire with Ghomeshi to hide from the public the true reason for his dismissal: that he showed them evidence that he had injured a woman.
There is evidence to suggest the CBC was keeping open the option to do just that:
At 3:58pm on October 24th, I tweeted what I had learned from a source that the CBC had put Ghomeshi on “indefinite leave,” CBC-speak for “fired”.
8 minutes later, CBC spokesperson Chuck Thompson tweeted a direct denial: “Jian Ghomeshi is not on indefinite leave from the CBC”.
by 5:30pm, the CBC had put word out through the Canadian Press that Ghomeshi was on “indeterminate leave”.
The semantic shuffle is curious. If the CBC simply fired Ghomeshi, why dispute the term “indefinite leave”? Better yet, why not just say that he had in fact been fired?
The answer may have been that as it was two days before Kevin Donovan and I published our expose on The Toronto Star’s website, the CBC’s brass were still hopeful that the truth might never come to light.
If that’s the case, we may never know.
****
Here is the new release from Chuck Thompson:
From: Chuck Thompson Sent: November 6, 2014 Subject: Terms of reference for Janice Rubin Mandate
Janice Rubin will be engaged by CBC/Radio Canada to carry out the following mandate:
(a) Current and former CBC/Radio Canada employees who worked on the “Q” or “Play” programs during the period in which Jian Ghomeshi hosted these programs and who have complaints, concerns or experiences they wish to share regarding harassment, discrimination, violence or other inappropriate workplace conduct during their work on these programs will be directed to contact Janice Rubin.
(b) Janice will make available to such employees an accessible and secure telephone number (with sufficient voicemail capacity) and email address through which they can contact her directly and she will acknowledge receipt of each message sent to her as soon after receipt as is reasonably possible
(c) Janice will arrange to meet each employee as soon as possible. Some employees may only wish to discuss with her their concerns or experiences without any further action being taken. However, if any employee has a specific complaint that they wish to have investigated, she will do so in accordance with applicable CBC/Radio Canada policies. Janice will gather all of the material facts, including the identity of all individuals involved, the specific conduct complained of and the date(s) and time(s) on which such conduct occurred.
(d) Janice will conduct all of your meetings as confidentially as possible. CBC/Radio Canada will fully co-operate with Ms. Rubin in completing her mandate and will ensure that she has access to any CBC/Radio Canada personnel to whom she may require access, and any CBC/Radio Canada documents to which she may require access, in the course of completing her mandate.
(e) Following the completion of her investigation, she will prepare and deliver to CBC/Radio Canada’s Vice President, People & Culture, or other individuals designated by CBC/Radio Canada, a final written report which sets out:
(i) A summary of the complaints, concerns or experiences shared by her, maintaining confidentiality to the extent possible;
(ii) Ms. Rubin’s findings to the extent you are able to make them with respect to each specific complaint that you are asked to investigate; and
(iii) Ms. Rubin’s recommendations as to any steps CBC/Radio Canada should take to resolve the complaints, concerns and experiences shared with her and to prevent similar issues from arising in the future, including any recommended changes to CBC/Radio Canada’s policies and procedures related to harassment, discrimination, respect in the workplace and workplace violence and the investigation of these issues.
(f) Following delivery of Ms. Rubin’s report to CBC/Radio Canada, she will meet with CBC/Radio Canada to discuss the same.
(g) The scope of your mandate may also be amended by agreement.
Chuck Thompson Head of Public Affairs CBC English Services
CANADALAND has learned that last year the CBC acquired NSA documents describing a major CSEC surveillance program, but the public broadcaster has been sitting on this news for over nine months, with no immediate plans to publish.
“I’m leaving without making a noise. You won’t see me anymore, you won’t hear me anymore, you won’t read me anymore.”
That’s the opening line of a letter (http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/votre-opinion/201409/14/01-4800128-ici-pre…) signed by 120 Radio-Canada on-call employees under the name ICI Precaires, frustrated with the work conditions and the complete absence of work security that has become the norm.
The last round of cuts at CBC/Radio-Canada were the worst to date says Alexandre Touchette, one of the Radio-Canada journalist who is part of the ICI Precaires collective. While most didn’t sign the letter with their name for fear of reprisal, Touchette agreed to give an interview to Canadaland.
“A lot of my colleagues don’t work anymore : they’re looking for jobs somewhere else or they already started new jobs,” he said. “They’re over it”.
On-call, or “casual” employees at Radio-Canada can’t count on any stability : they’re called in when needed, they pay union dues but don’t have any job security, pension or insurance plan. While most accepted these terms in the hopes of one day landing a permanent position, it’s been very common for casuals to move from one contract position to another for years, often with months of unemployment in between posts. On-call or casual employment as a road to a career at CBC/RC has always been bumpy, with plenty of dead-ends, roundabouts and cliffs. But since the current cutbacks it’s become a nonstarter, and an entire generation of producers and journalists is at risk of being lost to the broadcaster.
“Before… we were second-class workers but at least we worked,” said Touchette. Now Radio-Canada is cutting left and right and for on-call workers the future looks grim. And it’s about to get a lot worse: Hubert Lacroix announced last June that 1,500 jobs will be cut over the next five years.
Touchette started working for Radio-Canada in 2001. The following year hundreds of workers were locked out. Precarity was already at the time one of the issues at stake. Eventually a deal was reached, which included the creation of 132 new full-time jobs. Later the CBC would lock out 5 000 employees across Canada over contract renewal and… temporary workers.
“A lot of full-time employees are uncomfortable with the way we’re treated,” said Touchette, who notes that young workers are the hardest hit.
But the collective isn’t attacking full-time employees : they recognize those workers had to fight for the work conditions they now enjoy.
In 2007 Touchette left a full-time position in Ontario for a temporary position in Montreal.
Because of Radio-Canada rules regarding seniority, his move to Quebec was akin to starting from scratch.
In the past years he was able to find regular work and even some reporting gigs. But since last September he has found himself working sporadically, doing week-ends and four a.m. shifts.
“My partner wants me to find another job, (the cuts) have an impact on her obviously,” he said.
The ICI Precaires collective formed spontaneously a couple weeks ago.
“There was a desire to vent our frustration and to be heard,” said Touchette.
Ultimately, rules regarding seniority, the main criteria taken into account, should be revised, said Touchette.
“Early retirements should be allowed so that young people don’t end up the victims of a systemic injustice based on age,” he said.
But the letter also points out to the bigger trend of temporary workers across the board.
“Beyond us, there is a societal problem when in other places the same dynamics appear,” he said.
Radio-Canada declined to comment for this article.
CBC’s English service casuals, temps, and on-call producers face identical challenges, but have yet to organize or issue any kind of collective statement.
*The author of this post asked to have his byline removed because of ongoing relationships with Radio-Canada.
UPDATE: This post now has a byline.
Nobody calls themself a hipster, but thankfully Russell Smith is around to sort it all out.
Tibet coverge was subsidized by Chinese Government
EDITOR’S NOTE: from time to time, CANADALAND will post stories filed by journalists but spiked by their editors. CANADALAND has verified the identity of this article’s author, a National Affairs reporter with a major Canadian news agency that refused to run this piece. Submissions of spiked items can be sent to jesse@jessebrown.ca
Now that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has wrapped his ninth consecutive summer tour of Canada’s North, do you feel more informed about the issues facing the region and its people?
During this year’s pilgrimage to the territories, Harper visited the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories over six days, on the public’s dime. His office did not respond to a request for the full costs of either this recent trip or any of his previous eight.
During this year’s iteration, Harper made announcements about bringing broadband to northern communities and promoting agriculture in the region, spoke to supporters, participated in a Canadian Armed Forces exercise and vowed to find the missing Franklin expedition. He also managed to ruffle quite a few feathers when he rejected calls for an inquiry into the ongoing matter of missing and murdered aboriginal women.
His itinerary offered Canadians a glimpse at the stunning and unparalleled beauty of the territories.
But there were some stops he missed, that could have offered Canadians a deeper, fuller look at the region.
His annual trip is important, the prime minister said early on, during a speech in Whitehorse, because it helps bring to light the “unique challenges” citizens of the North experience. Going one step further, Harper said all Canadians should own those challenges.
“Because after all, Canada is the North and the North is Canada,” he said in Whitehorse.
In that vein, here are some items the prime minister could have included on his six-day trip that may have shed some light on those challenges facing the northern regions and communities few Canadians have the opportunity to visit.
The state of health care in the North is dire. Just last week, Statistics Canada reported that fewer than half of Inuit aged 15 and older report “very good” or “excellent” health – down more than 10 per cent since 2001.
That same report revealed 43 per cent of Inuit in that age range have been diagnosed with chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes and mood disorders.
Also absent from Harper’s itinerary this year was mention of the mental health issues facing northerners, despite the fact the prime minister toured the country’s suicide capital. Given the degree mental health and suicide has been in the news these days, surely it warranted a mention?
A staggering 63.3 people per 100,000 people in Nunavut killed themselves in 2011, when the national rate is 11, according to Statistics Canada. The rates in Yukon and NWT are lower, at 13 and 12.4 per 100,000 respectively, though those still rank among the highest in the country.
Statistics Canada data also paints a grim picture of the territories’ graduation rates, historically lower than the national rate. In 2010, the territorial rates were 69.1, 55.7 and 38.1 in the Yukon, NWT and Nunavut respectively, when the national rate was 78.3.
While Harper was in Iqaluit, he would have been close to the Baffin correctional Institute in Nunavut — an overcrowded, squalid facility the federal Correctional Investigator, Howard Sapers, described as “appalling.” Inmates there are kept in cells at up to four times the intended occupancy, and the jail’s guards are said to lack the resources to tackle to drugs and contraband flowing through.
Although the jail, like education and health care, fall under the territory’s jurisdiction, Ottawa and Nunavut have an agreement under which the territorial jail can sometimes hold federal inmates.
Harper also skipped the dump fire that has been burning toxic fumes in Iqaluit for more than 100 days, though a small group of protestors managed to call some attention to the environmental and health hazard while the prime minister was in the capital city.
Under Harper, the federal government has made investments in the North — recently in science and technology and increasing agricultural output (which would hopefully drive down the high price of food), as well as launching training programs to help locals take part in natural resource extraction, and creating the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency.
But if the goal of these annual trips is to help Canadians identify with the territories and the people who call the Great White North home, the prime minister will have to re-jig his itinerary. There is clearly a slew of humanitarian issues Canadians following Harper’s traipse around the North did not see.
Again, it’s the taxpayers who have footed the bill for the trip he has taken each year since becoming prime minister in 2006. Instead of hanging out with rangers, getting up close to majestic icebergs and riding snowmobiles, Harper should show Canadians what’s happening in the North and convince them he cares.
While he’s made a point of touring the North every year since 2006, the area gets much less attention when it comes time to campaign — during the 36-day campaign in 2011, when the Conservative party was paying for Harper’s travels, he flew to Yellowknife late one April day for a rally before returning to Ontario the following day. That’s the only face-time the territories got with the prime minister during that campaign.
Perhaps it’s not worth the party’s time and money, considering how sparse the population. But if that’s the attitude, Harper can’t blame Canadians for wondering about his dedication to the North.
Mary Rogan’s cover story in this month’s Toronto Life promises to deliver “the untold story of the cop who pulled the trigger” in the shooting of Sammy Yatim.
Indeed, a detailed biography of police officer and accused murderer James Forcillo is presented, with his childhood, his stylish wife, his years of service and his “shy, quiet” personality all described. A photo of Forcillo pushing his baby daughter in a swing is included. But before that, Rogan provides a quick account of Sammy Yatim’s last moments unlike any other that has appeared in the press to date.
A “good shoot”?
According to Rogan, Sammy Yatim tried to slash a woman’s throat shortly before he was shot to death by Const. James Forcillo. He also lunged at a streetcar driver with his blade, she writes, and could have reached Forcillo “in one leap” had the officer not shot him. What’s more, if Forcillo had allowed Yatim to exit the streetcar, innocent bystanders would have been in the line of police gunfire, and so Forcillo’s actions, Rogan’s piece suggests, were consistent with his training.
“That’s absurd,” says lawyer Peter Rosenthal, who has represented the families of people killed by police, and who has followed the Yatim case closely. “The video speaks for itself and speaks very loudly. Yatim wasn’t exiting the streetcar. We can see that he was not in a position to harm anyone. His killing can’t be described as anything but a methodical execution.”
Rosenthal also takes issue with Rogan’s explanation of the “21-foot rule,” an aspect of police training that defines a danger zone between an officer and an armed suspect within which lethal force might be justifiable.“ Forcillo stood roughly 12 feet from the streetcar door, writes Rogan, with Yatim not far behind it, placing the teen well within the danger zone.
“But (the 21 foot rule) only applies if the officer’s gun is in its holster,” says Rosenthal. “She doesn’t mention that.” Forcillo’s gun was of course drawn, and aimed directly at Yatim throughout the standoff.
Peter Rosenthal isn’t the only one challenging the Toronto Life story.
An Uncanny Resemblance
CANADALAND has spoken to reporters assigned to the Yatim story who say that Mary Rogan’s account of events is indistinguishable from defense statements made by Const. James Forcillo’s lawyer. Due to a publication ban on evidence and testimony from the trial, these reporters have chosen to withhold their names.
At Forcillo’s preliminary hearing, his lawyer Peter Brauti made an opening statement that bears “an uncanny resemblance” to the account found in Rogan’s article, says a reporter who was present in the courtroom. Another reporter wonders if Rogan, who was not present at the preliminary hearing, may have skirted the publication ban if Brauti presented his version of events to Rogan outside of the courtroom. Rogan did indeed interview Brauti for the piece, but she writes that he couldn’t discuss specifics of Forcillo’s case. Nevertheless, Rogan confirms to CANADALAND that Brauti was present whenever she interviewed Irina Forcillo, the wife of the accused officer.
Exclusive Access
Irina Forcillo, unlike her accused husband, is not prohibited from speaking to the press about the case. But for months, she declined every interview request. She broke her silence for Mary Rogan, assumedly with the blessing of her husband and of Peter Brauti. CANADALAND asked Mary Rogan why Irina Forcillo would speak to her and no-one else.
“I’m not sure,” Rogan answered. “It’s a question I’ve been asked many times before regarding other pieces. Who knows why people ever decide to talk?”
Rogan says that no terms were placed on the interview by Forcillo or Brauti. She stands by her story, saying she is “confident that what I’ve written in my piece is accurate and was thoroughly fact-checked.” Toronto Life editor Sarah Fulford (FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a former Toronto Life columnist and a friend of Fulford’s) also supports the story. “I can say with confidence that Mary’s description of what happened on that streetcar is correct,” she writes. “Her sources are good”.
But who are these sources? Where did Rogan get her information from, if not from Forcillo and/or Brauti? Was her detailed account based on video evidence the public has not yet seen? One reporter who has viewed unreleased footage says that it does not confirm Rogan’s account. “It’s unclear what’s going on (in the tape)” says CANADALAND’s source.
An authoritative account?
CANADALAND asked Mary Rogan how she could be so sure that Yatim did what she says he did. None of the eyewitness accounts quoted in the press to date seem consistent with her telling. One witness on the streetcar, Aaron Li-Hill, told the Toronto Star that Yatim was moving too slowly to seem like a real threat. Did Rogan speak to other eyewitnesses who felt otherwise? Or did she rely on police officers and their lawyers for her information?
“I am not prepared to reveal sources,” writes Rogan, who declined to answer the majority of CANADALAND’s questions.
The other side
One source Rogan certainly did not rely on is Julian Falconer, the lawyer representing the Yatim family in their civil suit. If he, or the Yatims, have a different version of events, it is not included in the Toronto Life piece. In fact, Rogan never interviewed Falconer.
CANADALAND reached Julian Falconer by phone. He wouldn’t comment directly on the Toronto Life story or the case, but he did say this:
“In cases like this, there are real incentives to provide narratives and counter-narratives. I’d rather deal with solid evidence in court”.
***
*
***
Here is Mary Rogan’s response to CANADALAND’s questions:
Did you approach Irina Forcillo directly, or was your access to her arranged through a lawyer?
Peter Brauti was present for my interviews with Irina to ensure the publication ban was not violated.
Irina has turned down every other media request, I believe. Why did she talk to you?
I’m not sure Jesse. It’s a question I’ve been asked many times before regarding other pieces. Who knows why people ever decide to talk?
Were any terms discussed/agreed to, with Irina or Peter Brauti?
No
On to the piece itself…
Most of the questions that follow from here can be answered yourself, with research, or were gathered from various sources, fact checked and I’m not prepared to reveal those sources.
You write: “Yatim had a stiletto switchblade and had tried to slash the woman’s throat.” This is a major new piece of information in this story, which I believe has not been previously reported.
Can you provide any context at all on how you know this?
(no response)
Were you present for the opening statements of the preliminary trial?
I did not attend the preliminary hearing
Did you see the TTC surveillance tape?
(no response)
Did you speak to any of the firsthand witnesses?
(no response)
Are you confident that this is fact, that Yatim’s intent was to slash her throat, or is that an interpretation of his intent?
(no response)
Why was he unable to make contact?
(no response)
This Toronto Star story quoted a man on the streetcar who didn’t feel Yatim was a threat. Did you talk to this witness, or other streetcar passengers who felt differently?
(no response)
You write: “The driver bolted just as Yatim lunged at him with the knife.” Who was your source on this? Did you speak to the driver?
(no response)
Is there any question in your mind as to whether or not Yatim was actually trying to stab the woman and the driver, or just menace and intimidate them?
(no response)
You write: “Behind Forcillo, passengers were talking about what had just happened on the streetcar”. No crowd is visible directly behind Forcillo and several other officers in the videos. Were they directly behind? How far behind?
(no response)
You write: “He could have reached Forcillo in one leap.” Is this your interpretation of the physical circumstance, or someone else’s?
(no response)
You write: “If he jumped out into the crowd with his knife, Forcillo wouldn’t have been able to use his gun without endangering bystanders.” Is this your reasoning/observation, or someone else’s?
(no response)
You write: “Yatim turned away and stepped back into the interior of the streetcar, then appeared to make a decision.” Appeared that way to whom? What was that decision?
(no response)
Why is Julian Falconer not quoted in the piece?
Because I didn’t interview him
Is it accurate to describe your piece as James Forcillo’s side of the story?
I’ll let reader’s decide how they want to see this story. For my part, I wanted to push past the predictably polarized interpretation of what happened and create a broader discussion. I hope I’ve done that.
Reporters tell CANADALAND that Toronto Life’s version of he story is indistinguishable from defense statements made by Const. James Forcillo’s lawyer.
Article Images
Show notes
Actor/writer Matt Watts (The Newsroom, Michael Tuesdays and Thursdays) on “incest” and “hush money” at the CBC, among other problems plaguing our TV industry.
Episode Rundown
01:15 Michael Tuesdays and Thursdays ran on CBC for one season of twelve episodes. You can still watch it online (link)
01:40 Richard Stursberg says a lot of contradictory things. Great review of his book The Tower of Babel (link)
01:52 Big Bang Theory pulls in 3.1 million in Canada and almost 20 million views in the US (link)
02:31 The CBC mandate (link)
03:20 “White people in Ottawa, you can’t get more un-urban” Jesse
03:52 “I was in Newfoundland last summer for a couple of months..they don’t even think of therapy as a thing. They’re just not a neurotic people. They don’t watch Woody Allen films, they don’t get them. It’s not in the nature of the province, it’s such a calm, easy-going people. That someone is so stressed out that they need a doctor to deal with that is completely foreign to them.” Watts
04:24 “No Jews in Newfoundland?” Jesse
“Not any” Watts
Synagogues in Newfoundland (link)
05:04 Matt Watts was the guy intoducing “Sex Bob-Om” in Scott Pilgrim Vs the World. This clip at 1:40 (link)
05:20 Don’t get the Ken Finkleman’s Newsroom confused with the Andrew Sorkin’s Newsroom. Two different shows. The Canadian one ran for 32 episodes (link)
Slings and Arrows was a series based on the inner workings of the Stratford Shakespeare Festival. It ran for 18 episodes (link)
07:05 “It’s interesting, he (Stursberg) was so reviled and yet it seemed that people didn’t feel the same way about her (Kirstine Stewart). But her sensibilities seemed to be very similar to his.” -Jesse
“She’s reviled, I don’t think anyone was sorry to see the back of her. Honestly, what I think was the difference between Stursberg and Kirsten was that Stursberg had a vision. It was a largely disagreed with vision, but it was a vision… What Kirsten did that frustrated a lot of people was no one really knew where she stood” – Watts
8:30 The widely shared post from Matt Watts’ Facebook page, May 2013:
THE BELOW WAS POSTED ON MATT WATTS’ FACEBOOK PAGE TODAY. SO “MY INBOX” REFERS TO MATT WATTS’ INBOX.
“This was in my inbox this morning. I’m keeping the sender’s name anonymous. But anyone who has wondered about the goings on in the CBC should look at this. It’s criminal. Literally. What Harper is doing to the CBC is nothing to the shit that Kirstine and Zaib got away with.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hello Matt,
We’ve never met before but I work in XXXXXXX at the CBC and now that KS has thankfully exited the building, I thought you should know that you were totally played by Zaib.
Zaib was not being straight-up when he said his blind pilot was news to him. For over two years, he had a blind pilot deal at CBC but what happened is that he didn’t realize that he, as the producer, had to re-apply to the CMF. As of March 5th when all of this happened, CBC business affairs was frantically in the process of internally re-negotiating his deal. The deal was in place and Zaib knew it.
Perhaps it might surprise you, or not, to know about all the others projects that CBC had with Zaib, all approved while his wife was the boss:
In Little Mosque on the Prairie, Zaib had multiple credits (and multiple salaries!), perhaps the most egregious one was as a paid “creative consultant” which gave Zaib final say in the hiring of writers and actors. And why do you think LMOTP kept getting renewed?
A double-scale development deal for a movie of the week – to star Zaib and to be written by Zaib.
Do you really think Deepa Metha wanted to cast Zaib in Midnight’s Children? Maybe it had something to do with it being a pre-condition of CBC providing a high six-figure license fee.
Zaib Shaik’s own one man company produced the CBC 75th anniversary special, even though he’d never done such a thing before.
Q forced, despite protest, to hire Zaib to guest host.
Ever notice how Zaib was trotted out as a presenter at every awards show CBC ever aired?
And did you hear about the drama series pilot, 19-2 not picked up to series because the producers refused to cast Zaib after they were forced by CBC to audition him for BOTH of the lead roles?
Lately, Zaib has taken to writing to production companies presenting self-created roles for himself. (OK, this is the one that really makes all of us here laugh hysterically!)
And guess what Zaib’s wife’s parting gift to him was? The lead role in the new CBC drama series Best Laid Plans.
The good times continue!”
10:40 “Blind development deal, I was offered one when Michael(Tuesdays and Thursday) was cancelled. It’s ‘here’s some money, come up with something’. – Watts
13:10 The Tweet is here (link)
14:10 Since Stewart left the CBC, Shaikh’s opportunities their seem to have dried up. No worries, he’s Toronto’s new Film Commissioner! (link)
14:34 Don McKeller (link)
16:24 “People (At the CBC) were not happy and it had nothing to do with the budget cuts. She (Kirsten Stewart) had more to do with destroying morale than the cuts did.” Watts
16:39 “It’s (CBC’s) bloated middle management and departments that you don’t know what they’re doing. It’s like any government organization, you look at it and say ‘it could be a lot more efficient’.” Watts
“It’s like being creative in the post office.” Jesse
17:22 “Someone once told me if you want to keep a secret you should give it to the CBC communications department to publicize.” Jesse
“Oh my god, that whole department should just go.” Watts
22:14 Rob Salem piece mourning the loss of the show with Watts (link)
23:05 The John Doyle piece here (link)
23:34 “Orphan Black is a fantastic show, we had Slings and Arrows…I can’t point to my shows without feeling like an asshole.” Watts
“You can do that, don’t be so Canadian.” Jesse
24:38 “If you look at the biggest American shows. The writers room for those shows, there’s usually a Canadian. From Mad Men to all the comedies. There are Canadians in very high places. It’s not for lack of talent here” Jesse
26:02 “There’s no incentive to invest in Canadian programing because they’re probably going to lose money on it. And they don’t own it outright. This is the problem, these networks are just licensing the Canadian rights to these shows. So they don’t own it, so if it sells around the world they don’t see a dime of it.” Watts
25:55 “90% of what a producer does in Canada is trying to get the money to get this thing made.” Watts
“It seems like producers make money by not having a hit show but if you have shows that are in production you take your production fee.” Jesse
27:35 “Television you need a broadcaster before you can commit to any other money..This is what’s frustrating, the public doesn’t seem to be aware this. The privates get public funding for their shows…So when people argue against the CBC as though they’re the only publicly funded television, it’s not entirely true. All television in Canada is publicly funded.” Watts
Excerpt
Actor/writer Matt Watts (The Newsroom, Michael Tuesdays and Thursdays) on “incest” and “hush money” at the CBC, among other problems plaguing our TV industry.
