As I’ve written in this space before, it’s hard to keep writing about a subject that you’ve almost completely lost interest in watching, or listening to. Which helps explains why there are fewer posts on the blog these days. I’m running out of things to say about the new CBC News.
The National used to be must-watch TV in my life. It no longer is. Almost every time I turn on the new CBC News Network, I find something new to be appalled by. The breaking news reporter position is in danger of becoming a joke. 22 Minutes should take it on. The reporter rarely has anything interesting to say beyond the fact that we’re on the story, and trying to chase down more information. We’ll deliver that nugget to you breathlessly as soon as we get it. My favourite breaking news moment came after the Supreme Court decision on Omar Khadr. You know the one where the court ruled his Charter rights were violated, but wouldn’t go as far as ordering that he be brought back to Canada. The guy on the breaking news desk that day told the viewers at home that the Supreme Court has ruled his rights were violated…you know life, liberty, the…
He stopped himself there, vaguely aware that he might have the wrong set of rights.
I don’t mean to mock the guy. He’s in a difficult position. The people in these jobs have a thankless task. They’re making this shit up as they go along because their bosses are telling them that surveys say Canadians want their news, and they want it now.
Richard, those surveys are wrong. People want more from the CBC than uninformed and ill-informed babble that simply marks a story, and takes up air time.
Anyway, enough about that.
One of the theories I’ve heard from a few folks inside the corporation about the changes to CBC News is that they are a means to an end. Suck the people in by giving them what the surveys say they want…fast, simple, easy to digest, filled with emotion, detail-sparse, if not free. News about what matters to you because you’re all that matters.
The theory goes is that once you’ve got them watching, or listening, then you spring the detail and context and complexity on them. Tell them stuff they might not want to hear or watch. You’ve got them hooked.
It’s an interesting theory. It’s not happening in practice.
Case in point, the story about the arrest of Colonel Russell Williams. On Wednesday morning, Christie Blatchford in the Globe kicked the journalistic world’s ass with her front-page story about Williams and what he allegedly told police under questioning this past weekend.
That story should have thrown down the gauntlet for the CBC.
This is the story Canadians are talking about. It’s the one they want to know more about. It’s the kind of story that CBC News staff people were told the changes to CBC News were about – at least the internal changes. The creation of a more centralized assignment desk for instance. CBC News wants to own stories like this one, and the changes we are making will help us do just that.
And yet, yesterday in the face of the Globe’s challenge, CBC News withered. What we got last night on the National was a story based around the chief of defence staff’s appearance at CFB Trenton yesterday, and then a strange and hectoring interview with Walt Natynczyk. about how closely the military had monitored Russell Williams before his arrest????
The interview was a mistake. The news report offered little of substance, and nothing new beyond the prepared words from the general.
But early in the day, in the face of the Globe’s scoop, there were all sorts of possibilities of what to do with this story, where to take it. To name just one…who is Russell Williams? We apparently knew little about him prior to his joining the military in 1987. What more can we find out? What more can we tell Canadians?
Sadly, CBC News wasn’t up to the task. Pick up today’s Globe if you want that story.
Instead, what we got from the CBC is what we’re increasingly getting as part of the daily fare – the obvious. What’s right in front of us. A story built around an event.
The idea of organizing ourselves in a way so that we can deliver something new, something different, something that’s not right in front of us and requires a little digging and exploring is increasingly being lost.
But we’re still first to air with news of what officials and authorities are telling us about a lost dog in Newfoundland. Our breaking news reporter is on that as we speak.
Not only have the leadership at the CBC failed us with the paucity of their vision, they can’t even deliver on what they promised the changes would deliver.
The new attitude stinks. It’s easy to see why Canadians increasingly aren’t paying attention to the new CBC News.
Makes you wonder why nobody in a position to do something about it is.
February 12, 2010 at 2:53 pm |
Having worked at CBC during a 1998 round of cuts, and having to make serious cuts to our own newsroom recently, I know the impact budget shortfalls can have on a news department. Nonetheless, you are absolutely correct in your assessment of the deteriorating ‘quality’ of news within CBC – once one of the finest news organs in the world. Yes, CBC has budget issues; but much of their problems today have little to do with a lack of money (guaranteed revenue, no matter how meagre is still guaranteed). The problem with CBC today is, as you point out, one of a paucity of vision, no discipline, a desperate quest for ratings born of a desperate need to rationalize its existence, in a desperate hope that by doing so, some government will give them even more tax subsidy. Ain’t gonna happen. Not with this product.
February 15, 2010 at 12:06 am |
Agreed.
When a big story breaks, I expect CBC to take the opportunity to win us back, since as former viewers, we’re channel-surfing like everyone else for indepth and detailed coverage. The rest of the time, we’ve pretty much moved on for lack of other options.
Yet when I’ve landed on CBC lately, I’ve had the bizarre impression they were taking the opportunity to showcase how vacant they are, or to parody themselves. Really leaves you scratching your head. Such a waste.
March 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm |
A quick comment with respect to “surveys (that) say Canadians want their news, and they want it now.”
Isn’t this a classic case of marketing/positioning? Although I’m not “from” the news media I assume the fundamentals apply there too: you can supply news (or widgets) but you must choose between
- fast
- good quality
- cheap
PICK TWO. You can’t have all three.
Now if (as the CBC management seems to have concluded) the largest consumer market segment likes their news fast and shallow, you need to decide if you can provide it fast and shallow at a lower cost than the competitors. If not – if another can provide it faster and shallower cheaper – you have to choose between competing for this space (by getting faster and shallower yourself) or abandoning that space and occupying a niche like “slower but better”. I think The Economist has done this with great success: “let the internet and CNN cover the low-substance-now angle, we’ll take our time and interpret.” I can wait a week for their coverage because I value perspective and global reach over immediacy. I value the WHY? of events as much as the WHAT’S HAPPENING THIS INSTANT?
Is there a sufficient market of news consumers prepared to say, “I’ll wait until tomorrow to hear it once and completely on the CBC” rather than “I’ll hear some tonight, some tomorrow and some the next night to get the relevant meat bit by bit”?