One of the most disconcerting things about the Stursberg-led CBC is its absolute disdain for dissent.
Now I realize dissent is a tricky thing for any organization trying to get its employees pulling in the same direction.
But I’ve always thought that a journalistic organization – if it’s working properly – has to allow for something I call a tolerable level of dissent.
The ability to question; to wonder aloud; to seek answers about what’s going on; is central to what journalists are meant to do.
I think a healthy journalistic organization recognizes the value in nurturing those traits, and allowing it some voice internally. Again, I recognize this is a tricky area. How much voice? When does dissent become destructive to the organization?
Those are valid questions, and not easy things to measure. But I think the silencing of dissent can be even more destructive to an organization where a large part of the job is meant to be in asking questions to authority; or in challenging the status quo; or in seeking answers as to whether a proscribed course of action is the best way to go.
But in talking to friends and former colleagues within the CBC, that ability to question is increasingly in peril. It’s been in peril for a long time now, but I think it’s fair to say its never been less valued than it is at the moment at the CBC.
One of the old war stories I like to tell about my time at the CBC is about attending a national radio meeting in Toronto shortly after CBC Radio blew its early coverage of the death of Pierre Trudeau. It took CBC Radio too long to get the news on-air, despite the fact that Newsworld was already broadcasting the news. Then when it did finally get to air, on the World at Six, the reporter doing the lead story sounded rushed and ill-prepared – as if his death was a surprise, despite the fact that there had been rumours Trudeau was on his deathbed for almost a month before he actually passed away. It was not CBC Radio’s finest hour.
And then weeks later, I watched as the then vice-president of English radio, Alec Frame presided over an impromptu post-mortem about what had happened. Staff from across the country had gathered in Toronto, and they wanted to talk about it. I dont’ remember the subject being officially on the agenda, but Frame let it go ahead anyway. And it was an often angry venting session. How did this happen? How can we ensure it doesn’t happen again? Frame sat at the front of the room, and listened without responding for more than ten minutes. Then finally he said, enough. Let’s move on.
Now I’m not sure Alec Frame represents the right poster child for a tolerance of dissent. I didn’t know the man well enough to say that with anything approaching confidence.
But that episode has always stuck with me. It suggested to me that I worked for an organization that wanted to learn from its mistakes, that allowed its employees to vent; to give voice to their concerns, to question what was going on.
I can’t imagine Richard Stursberg putting himself in anywhere near the same position. When he stands up in front of staff, he looks like he’s ready for a fight. When a question arises that contains the slightest suggestion of criticism, Stursberg often goes for the jugular. He mocks. He argues. He makes it clear he’s not happy with the question being raised.
His attitude towards dissent increasingly permeates the organization. CBC managers – never the most courageous of characters – know it’s in their best interest to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. Increasingly, so too do staff on the shop floor. It’s not worth the effort of opening your mouth to question what’s going on. To do so only gets you identified as a problem.
It’s not a healthy situation for any self-respecting journalistic organization.
But then I don’t think Stursberg ever had much respect for the CBC in the first place.
