My Final Border Episode!

MY LAST EPISODE of The Border airs Monday night at 9pm on CBC. The teaser is now up. I'll have more about this later. Yeah, that is Patrick McKenna in the show -- he did a great job for us.

Tinsel Hockey

I DON'T KNOW what that headline means, exactly. I just like it.

If you're in Toronto, and you're a WGC member, don't forget that the WGC Holiday Party is tonight. Come on out and mix with writers in all their pasty, not-enough-vitamin-D glory.

If you've lost your invite, email me (link's on the sideboard) and I'll hook you up.

Also, I know the WGC West party was the other night. Vancouverites, dish up. Don't whine we don't know what's going on out there when you don't dish the dirty deets.

The comments, they is open below.

Underdogz

YESTERDAY WAS SPENT in a Writers Guild of Canada Council Meeting (coughing into a green handkerchief, yes, ladies he is available...) and there was some interesting stuff -- not all of it bad, believe it or not. Hopefully I'll get into that later.

But here's what caught my eye on the old Google Alert this morning:

Re:10 best U.S. shows you're

probably not watching, Dec. 2

It would be nice if Rob Salem were also to write about Canadian shows you probably aren't watching. One show I never miss is The Border on CBC Monday night. It is every bit as good as CSI and Law & Order but never gets into the Top 10 listed each week in the Sunday Star.

It has well-written stories, top notch acting, lots of action and even sex etc. Anybody I mention the show to usually replies that they [don't] watch CBC. What a shame. They don't know what they're missing.

Albert Speisman, Toronto

Albert was writing in regards to this article on the "10 Best U.S. Shows You're Probably Not Watching."

Now, Rob Salem at the Star is a good guy. Nobody likes TV more than him and he writes what he thinks his audience legitimately wants to read about, same as all journalist/critics. But Albert's letter does poke a bit at something that is an ongoing problem (one of many) when it comes to domestic Canadian product. I write about what writers have to do, and what Canadian creatives have to do all the time. But whenever I point out the fourth estate's shortcomings, I hear grumblings from certain quarters. No matter. People hate to be told they should be doing better... that's just human nature.

I can't speak to other cities in Canada. Thanks mainly to TV, Eh? I do see a lot of their articles, but there's that thing where you don't connect them all together in a pattern like you do with your homegrown stories.

For what it's worth, my impression is that over the last little while, The Toronto Star has slacked off a bit on covering homegrown stuff -- and slacked off in the most important department, which is covering the homegrown stuff right along side the U.S. stuff. I'll get to that in a minute. Alex Strachan in the Canwest Papers gives Canadian shows a good shake, and by far the fairest and best coverage comes from The Globe and Mail. (John Doyle, for instance, has made no secret of the fact that he really doesn't like The Border -- but he has written about it, and plugged it, quite a bit -- and he also is a consistent champion for more domestic tv.)

For most of the rest, they tend to rely on the Canadian Press, when they write a story on something homegrown.

Now, of course, you have to view all this within the context of the very, very serious contraction that's going on in the newspaper business. It seems that intelligent writing about TV, from a local perspective, is going the way of Newspaper Classified Ads. I think that's a huge mistake. Having a local guy like Sepinwall from the Star Ledger or Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune write about something most people do for over 20 hours a week is an important part of connecting with your audience; but that's me. I don't run the presses.

The Globe and the Canadian Press both recently ran stories on the state of Canadian domestic television, with a cautiously optimistic spin. Both articles are informative, as far as they go. I'm not going to knock either one.

But the problem is that that's the only kind of article that Canadian TV gets. Usually in the paper it's treated as a thing apart. In fall preview articles, they spend lots of column space on U.S. shows, and if you're lucky, the Canadian stuff gets covered in a sidebar. In discussions of how the business is changing, Canadian writers may write all about Jay Leno, and the fortunes of NBC, but even for a Canadian audience they don't mention things like the upcoming CRTC license renewal hearings, and how that might affect what homegrown shows there are to watch.

Articles about Canadian TV, when they appear, are also exclusively the province of the Arts sections of papers. In the Business section, they're never, ever discussed -- even when the article is about the pressures facing the industry, Canadian or American. To read an article on Canadian TV networks, in the Globe Report on Business, you'd think that one hundred percent of the point of broadcasting in Canada was to re-broadcast American shows. It's ninety-five percent, true. And Lord knows, they'd probably like for it to be 100 percent -- but it's not. Not yet.

By hiving off and making sure that Canadian TV is usually only talked about in this separate bubble, it subtly reinforces the point of view that it's something different, something, in the stentorian tones of my long-gone Catholic youth: something slightly unholy.

This kind of disconnect and separation is what allows a lot of the misapprehensions and fictions to keep bubbling through; it's what allows some people to turn up their noses at Trailer Park Boys and talk about it like it's an object of shame, and not a show that brings hordes of fans out every time the actors make a personal appearance. It's what allows a double standard where Canadian shows are judged (sometimes) by a harsher yardstick -- and 'judged' is probably the wrong word, what I really mean is "dismissed."

Oh, don't get me wrong. There are a whole host of things that creatives still need to fix about Canadian shows -- at the development level, the production level, and certainly at the promotional level. But moving the needle of the public's opinion is made ever more difficult when there's the subtle intimation that there is TV, and then there is Canadian TV.

What prompted me to write this was a happy accident. I watched my colleague Sarah Dodd's episode of The Border on Monday night. When Sarah was writing this ep and prepping it and putting it together, I was deep into getting the next episode ready -- so I didn't have a lot of familiarity with the material. I think I read the script a couple times, and gave a few notes and suggested a few lines. But it changed in production, as it always does. And I never did watch an early cut. So when I tuned in Monday, I got the closest experience I've ever gotten to seeing an episode of The Border purely as a viewer does.

I was pretty entertained. John Fawcett's an awesome action director. And Sarah's script was emotional, with good personal subplots and stakes. There was a way cool neck-snap at the end that had me going, "whoa!" Fun. The episodes of The Border that weren't written by either of the Senior Writing Producers, Janet MacLean and David Barlow, were always supervised by one of them. This happened to be a Janet episode, and I could see some of the touches that she brings to it - things that she thinks are important to convey. My instincts are not always the same as Janet's, but to watch the finished episode, you can definitely see some choices that I know she pushed for that made the episode better. But... there's Sarah's voice too, and John's and there's Jonas rocking out a few very funny Slade lines, and some fine work from James McGowan, and everyone doing their level best and in the end, it adds up to a very exciting hour of TV, with a nice bittersweet coda.

I did a guest teaching stint at Humber College's Film and TV writing program this week, and one of the things I told them was that it's a miracle that anything good ever winds up on TV, since every single episode of every single show requires about sixty people to do what they do and not screw up at all.

From the couch, it was an entertaining ride. I enjoyed it way more than this week's House, for instance, which I found manipulative and schmaltzy. Isn't that funny? Even in my head, even with all I do to try and argue the opposite, I've got a bit of that double standard at work in my own brain, too. I was surprised that I enjoyed The Border more than House. I don't know why. But I was.

I remember years ago going to a video store and seeing all the Canadian films in the Foreign section. And I thought that said a lot. And I think the editorial "separateness" of Canadian TV accomplishes the same thing. I don't know how to fix it. But it certainly is a factor.

One among many.

EDIT. Wicked. And from the "look how au courant we are" spy this little story in today's Globe. Turns out there's a huge RCMP investigation into gangs infiltrating Canadian airports. Sarah's Border episode, which was written two months ago -- spins out from a gang that has infiltrated the Airport. Score another one for The Border crystal ball!

It's A Rough Gig. Wear a Cup

THE PODCAST FOR my appearance on Q yesterday is up now. (I'm last up in the podcast, after an interesting interview with Canadian Simpsons scribe Joel Cohen, among others.)

Bonus points if you can make out me desperately trying not to cough like an idiot.

Wheeze, Cough, ZoS

I'M BEHIND. DREADFULLY. Every time I get traction on this outline, it dissipates. It's a hard nut to crack. And now, after a few fruitless hours, I have to come to terms with the fact that the likelihood of making any real progress while stopping to hack and sneeze every twenty-eight seconds is 1Y34HERGHR;FWXXXXX...whoops...'scuse me.

Anyway, I've switched to catching up on work-related scriptreading for the day...that's going pretty well, oh, except for the broken glasses that fly off my nose every time I...every time I...ahhh ahhh ahhh...ok. I'm ok.

False alarm.

AnywaIPUBHT3R2IHFD;QLFJDAC goDAMNIT!

... point is there's not a whole lot of joy in Sticksville today.


So the friendly bicycle courier at my door is a surprise. He has a package for me from The Movie Network. The Movie Network, for those keeping score, is the only Canadian broadcaster that does a GREAT job of publicity when it comes to its homegrown stuff. (CBC does an OK job, which is to say, they've gotten better at targeting one or two shows a quarter to promote and getting kits and press releases out for them.)

But today's delivery comes with something unheard of in Canadian TeeVee promotion: a bit of swag.


The kit for ZOS: Zone of Separation, an eight part TMN mini coming in January to Canadian viewers (also presumably to Movie Central viewers out west) comes packaged in a replica of a soldier's backpack.

Sure. It's kind of dorky. If you talked to Brioux or Doyle or Salem or one of the jaded "get this all the time" hacks they would likely not be impressed... but the point is, it's something.

It's a bit of flash begging to cut through the clutter. It's going the extra mile.




Nobody else does it, so it's worth noting for the P.R. challenged Canadian networks:

This is kind of how you do it.

I'll review ZoS closer to the airdate, once I've stopped coughing. Seriously, I coughed and sneezed at the same time about a half hour ago, and I think for a minute there I went to the island on LOST.

Jaywalking To 10pm!

SO IT TURNS out when the lights come down in County General's E.R. this May, the timeslot will be getting a facelift. Or at least... A new chin.

Along with the rest of the 10pm hour, five nights a week.

NBC's Jeff Zucker didn't keep people waiting too long yesterday after musing about not being able to develop so many prime time hours in the future. According to the New York Times' Bill Carter, when Jay hands over the Tonight Show to Conan in 2009, Jay will move to 10 o'clock, five nights a week.

The new show, which will begin next fall, is expected to be set in Mr. Leno’s longtime studio in Burbank, Calif. Mr. Leno is expected to retain many of the most popular elements of his “Tonight Show,” including his monologue and bits like “Headlines” and “Jay Walking.” One “Tonight Show” staffmember said the new program would not be a variety show.

Mr. O’Brien, currently the host of NBC’s “Late Night,” will move “The Tonight Show” to a new studio on the NBC Universal lot in Universal City, Calif., in May. Mr. Leno, who is known to want to work as much as possible, would then miss only three months on the air, and would use that time to prepare his new show.

An executive involved in the discussions with Mr. Leno said that Mr. Leno finally came around to the idea that the television business had changed and a show like his could be a success in prime time.

Running the same show in prime time five nights a week would be a novelty for a broadcast network. Such so-called stripped shows have been a staple of daytime broadcasting.

FOX has never programmed 10'o'clock, and that's left NBC feeling jealous. Nobody programs Saturday anymore with original stuff. But what does this do to the business? Who knows?

You could argue that it's a game changer; that aging baby boomers will welcome being able to watch a show like Jay's in prime time before the news and their new earlier bedtimes. Sure, it cannibalizes Tonight Show for guests and screws Conan on the promise they made him, but hey, at least it keeps Jay from going to ABC!

To be honest with you, ceding the 10 o'clock hour seems like a terrible idea to me. I know plenty of, say, young parents who find that slot the only time they can watch tv after the kids are finally to bed and stuff's cleaned up. So you're ceding that young audience right there. I will never, ever, ever watch Jay, so that means you've lost me at 10'o'clock, forever -- or at least as long as this bizarre experiment lasts.

To be honest, it sounds a lot like one of Zucker's more famous treading water gimmicks from the 90's -- "supersizing" hit shows to 40 minutes each instead of developing fresh new product to replace them.

But then again, as the Times points out:

There have been no new hits at 10 p.m. on any network in almost four years; ratings for shows in that time slot continue to fall.

It's definitely a bold change. You have to wonder what the Canadian networks will do with one less source for 10pm shows to cadge. And what does that mean for content, now? Does the edgy stuff that used to run at 10 move to 9 with SVU and CSI: Miami? Does Drama take a hit?

Fifteen million a week for 5 10pm dramas vs. 2 Million a week for Leno. That's quite a cost difference.

Unless it hastens the flight of drama viewers to, say, Cable. There's an opportunity there, too. Especially considering somebody like me, who never really has embraced the stodgy CBS drama -- well, that means now if there's nothing on ABC, am I watching what? Baseball? The News on CBC? Cable? DVD?

The CBC News at 10 suddenly looks like a smart alternative where it never did before. What do you know?

Nikki Finke has more about the Jay-move here.

And They Can Have My Talk Box When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Neck

SINCE NOW IT SEEMS like it might become an increasingly important component of my income, I wish to invite you all to listen to me tomorrow on CBC Radio's Q program, where, in the second hour, I shall be talking about Tv Catch phrases, how they influence the language, and the Triumph of the Meh.

Oh, Dear Blurgh...

THANKS TO MEDIA MELTDOWN Monday, I find myself wondering whether I should change the name of the blog.

I mean, have you seen the price of sticks lately?

Time was I'd tell this joke with glee:

"Q: What's the difference between a Canadian screenwriter and a pizza?
A: A Pizza can feed a family of four."

Not so funny anymore, izzit?

Gawrsh, I hope my family enjoys the oranges I'm getting them for Christmas.

Merciful Mercer

WELL IN CASE anyone hasn't seen it, the inimitable Rick Mercer manages to be not a bit funny and make more sense out of the last week in Canadian politics. And his conclusion (which I share) is that it's vitally important than more than one head roll for us to get out of this.

Forgive them Canada; they know not what they do.

Not long after Stephen Harper took office as Canada's 22nd prime minister, a polar bear was born at the Berlin Zoo. Known as Knut, the cub was summarily rejected by his mother and so was nursed by human beings. Now, two years later, animal psychologists admit that he has become so addicted to human laughter and applause that, the instant those things disappear, he becomes desolate and cries for attention. This has led to irrational behaviour never before seen in a polar bear. Experts fear that, without constant applause, Knut could lose the will to live.

Enter Stephen Harper.

During the past week, while the nation wondered if the government would fall, junior Conservative staffers were ordered to be outside 24 Sussex Dr. by 6:15 in the morning. Their job was to stand there in the dark with the temperature well below zero and wait for the PM to appear. Their instructions were to applaud, wave and sing O Canada loudly as the motorcade pulled out of the gates and drove Stephen Harper to work.

Mr. Harper, by all accounts, actually believed that the young people were there of their own accord and represented a groundswell of love and support for his actions. Staffers in the Prime Minister's Office know that he is easier to handle when being applauded and not questioned. This way, nobody has to suffer at the hands of the inconsolable bear.

Enter Stéphane Dion.

Go read the rest. Well worth it.

So Long and Thanks For all The Cursing

TRAILER PARK BOYS, we hardly knew you.

I really hope Ricky straightens out and gets his Grade 12.

Elsewhere in the same section in the Weekend Globe, John Doyle talks to Mike Clattenburg about the TPB phenomenon. It's always been troubling to me that such are the vagaries of our system that something that's an actual breakthrough hit can lag being recognized as such.

For all the talk elsewhere about the "rising importance" of CanCon shows -- it was Clattenburg & Co. that consistently had punters waiting out in the cold for a glimpse of the boys. Why?

Well that's the question you should be trying to answer if you're writing that pilot right now.

As for me, I'm gonna just crack a cold one, shoot off a few rounds, stop with the thinkin' and just wait to see what Clattenburg does next.

Trailer Park Boys: Say Goodnight to the Bad Guys premieres at 10pm tonight on Showcase.

Nixon on the Rideau

I THINK THE litmus test of any action, the only way to sift out the history from the politics, is to ask yourself, "how would you feel if the guys you agreed with pulled the same thing?"

In my heart of hearts, even if it were a so called progressive who marched into Rideau Hall today, I wouldn't feel good about six more weeks of uncertainty, attack, rancour and politics as screaming in place of governing.

But Macleans' Anton Wherry says it better than I ever could.

What a strange sensation it is, just as the weary feeling of hopelessness about one of the countries you call home dissipates, to have it return, lodged squarely in the other. It's like despair, metastasized.

Government by white male rage. It's going to be a cold December.

Mafia Westside

SO GOOD AND so right on is John Doyle's Globe and Mail TV column today that I have nothing to say today but "go there and read it:"

They are writers. They write the Canadian shows you watch. They are Susin Nielsen (Heartland, Robson Arms, Alice, I Think), Jennifer Daley (Robson Arms and High Drama High, a show in development), Elizabeth Stewart (Falcon Beach and the TV movie Luna), Ken Craw (Robson Arms and a documentary producer), Daegan Fryklind (Cold Squad, jPod), Dennis Heaton (Blood Ties, jPod) and David Moses (Robson Arms).

I met them over drinks at a bar in Gastown, and there was much gossip, joking, complaining and that odd blend of self-deprecation and boasting that such writers exhibit. They won't take offence at that, I know. Actors tend to do the same thing, with more emphasis on boasting and full-throttle exhibitions of insecurity.

Seriously now, these are the most important people in the television racket. Executives may strut and swagger, producers may manoeuvre deftly through the rapids of funding and financing regulations, but they are nothing without a story to put on the air. When anyone sits down to watch TV, they have a basic request - "tell me a story." And the story starts with the writers.

Right now, most of these writers have horror stories to tell. The horror stories are about their own work. In unison, they worry about the lack of creative freedom in Canadian TV. They see production companies and network executives interfering endlessly and pointlessly in the direction of certain shows. They say that a series might begin as a drama with occasional moments of comedy, and then, thanks to battles and conniptions in distant offices, by the fifth episode the series has morphed into a comedy.

They worry that hardly anybody in the industry, apart from themselves, understands what the term "showrunner" means (a senior writer with some executive responsibilities). They point out that the best television in recent years - The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Mad Men, The Shield and, in Canada, Intelligence, have been driven by writers who control almost every aspect of a production, but in Canada a writer is almost never allowed to follow through on a storytelling vision.

And, specifically, they worry about the lack of series being made in Vancouver.

The full column is here.

Writerboy, Humbled...

I SPENT THE morning walking through one digression after another, trying to impart some kind of imperfect wisdom to Writing students at Humber College. It's always freaky to go back to that campus, on the site of the old Toronto Lakeshore psychiatric hospital. I spend half my time remembering how it served as the set for Police Academy, and the other half remembering nights of misbegotten youth wandering the dark, spooky, run down grounds for purposes of... well... uh.

Never mind.


I was determined to try and cast the industry in a positive light, despite all the dire doom and gloominess that's roiled through it in the last year. I don't know if I succeeded or not -- but no one left crying.

Always a good sign.

I desperately tried to catch up tonight by not going home, staying out and doing a bit of work away from the millions of distractions. (Why yes, towels and socks do need to be washed at 10pm, why do you ask?) Consequently, I saw only snippets of Harper and the other clowns on the TeeVee, talking bout my c-c-c-c-coalition.

So it's with great chagrin that I must declare that the laugh-out loud bestest description of the full shenanigans comes NOT from the well-renumerated, blah-blah-de-blah look at me I talk to students and blah blah blah bigshot writer -- but from a colleague of mine way back from when I was a mere slip of a girl, working at TVOntario.

Quoth Brian Elston:

Harper looked like a rapist on trial and Dion looked like he was using Skype from his basement.

A hit! A Palpable Hit! Humbled, I am! Humbled!

The Case for a Progressive Coalition

AND LET'S NOT forget that a Progressive coalition government would probably be more in tune, and better suited in dealing with the incoming government of Barack Obama.



The Conservatives are screaming in their full-throated wingnut best...but even whilst being caught flatfooted by the consequences of his own arrogance, look how Harper has responded: he's attacked, bullied, screamed that those who are proposing this are traitors; his government has taped phone calls and released them, they've fed malicious talking points to online cronies and talk radio. They've started back up with the attack ads.

But they still haven't focused on the economy.

Stephen Harper is incapable of looking at things any other way than through the political prism. It is time for him to go.

Stephen Harper, Ex-PM

YOU KNOW, as much as the coalition of Liberal-NDP would probably be closer to my political leanings, and I have no doubt it would be better for my industry, and probably the country, than a government run by an ideologue who puts political advantage ahead of country, and rules with an authoritarian fist...I'm uneasy.

But let's face it. Harper has enforced discipline, and has driven the government so that all decisionmaking is in his hands. He wears this crisis. It is entirely of his making.

If the Conservatives have any hope of retaining power, I think the first step is obvious:

Demand Harper's resignation. He absolutely has to go. He is a cancer, not a leader.

I don't know if it would save the government -- but it would definitely be better for the country.

Clouds Darken for SAG and Hollywood

I'VE DELIBERATELY STAYED away from blogging about the ongoing SAG-AMPTP dispute still roiling Hollywood, mainly because I couldn't believe that either side would let it roll so far to a second strike. But the signs are really not looking good, beyond the basic industry panic.

And what seems clear to me is that the AMPTP is playing a serious game of chicken in an environment where their credibility is already non-existent.

As usual, the best coverage for this is with Nikki Finke. Where it stands now is that SAG has asked its members to authorize a strike, which is the first step to going out. The AMPTP refuses to return and negotiate anything better than the DGA and WGA deal.

The Canadian Actors' Union, ACTRA, which went on strike itself over new media in 2007, and actually reached an agreement (that was later walked back by the same Media Multiconglomerates who are dragging their heels now) says it will support SAG to the best of its ability.

Meanwhile, just in case you want to come up and say, "oh, come on, is the AMPTP really all that bad?" comes the news that they're not even sticking to the %$^ing deal they made with the writers last year. Seriously, do these guys have the same P.R. agent as Jim Jones and Idi Amin? (Weird that I went with two 70's references there, but get used to that -- there's plenty more reruns a-comin' if no one puts the brakes to this ridiculousness.)

Why is SAG hell bent on throwing the whole thing into the tank again in the midst of our Chicken Little economy? Well, to hear them tell it, their situation is different because they're the only ones being presented with rollbacks. That's a little bit of creative interpretation to my way of thinking, but that still doesn't change the fact of who's wearing the white hats and who's wearing black in this little scenario.

The question I have is that in an economy where everything's going into the toilet -- where months and months of stories have shown Execs parading around in jets, asking for bailout money while screwing their employees -- the context seems a bit different than it was when the WGA went on strike. I think people have had enough with the whole system. In a world where the government has to buy into the Automakers and Banks and Insurance Companies, is everybody going to just sit by and let the corrupt entertainment industry squeeze the creative community for every last ounce of juice?

I mean, with no money to spend, weren't people kind of counting on staying home and drowning their sorrows in TV and Films? Aren't times like these when entertainment does better?

Variety and Hollywood Reporter can do what they did during the leadup to the WGA strike, and paint SAG as greedy and out of touch, but the mood of the nation is very different now. What our business leaders say has a different smell than it did a year ago.

Up til last week, if you'd asked me to bet whether SAG would go out, I'd have said "no way." Now I think the odds are about even.

Depressermaking!

"I Started as a Broadcaster, I Have it in My Bones."

CANADIAN CABLE MAGNATE Ted Rogers died yesterday at the age of 75.

You can get hits of the standard obituary here and here.

What I'll remember about Rogers, though, the few times I saw him publicly, was that he didn't have any hint of the noblesse oblige that often characterizes those in "the establishment" in Canada. It's a secret that's open and not really talked about, but Canada hasn't really strayed too far from its Family Compact roots. But Rogers could be seen talking to front line guys and truck drivers. And to me, his legacy is summed up perfectly in his last appearance before the CRTC. He was a businessman, an uncommonly successful one to be sure...but in these days where business means thinking of bottom line and not anything else (until the bottom drops out and you come begging) Rogers still thought about the big picture, and what it meant for Canada.

Enough that he'd occasionally speak out against his own execs, as recounted in this excerpt from a National Post Story from April 9, 2008, written by Barbara Schecter:

In a startling performance as three weeks of hearings kicked off to overhaul the rules for the first time in 15 years, Ted Rogers, the chief executive of Rogers Communications, disagreed on more than one occasion with his own executives.

In one example, while chief regulatory officer Ken Engel-hart, vice-chairman Phil Lind and a handful of other managers at Rogers urged the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to abolish "genre protection" to allow greater competition between Canadian specialty channels, Mr. Rogers told CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein the current system should be left in place rather than introducing harmful, unfettered competition.

Mr. Rogers' executive team argued that greater competition is necessary because it will lead to better services and keep viewers from leaving in favour of the Internet or illegal foreign satellite TV distributors.

"I started as a broadcaster and I have it in my bones," Mr. Rogers explained, noting his early days in the radio and television industries in which Rogers Communications continues to have holdings. "My friends are representing the BDUs [cable companies], and so am I," he said. "As a broadcaster, I would say, 'what's the problem?' "

"And as a BDU, you would say there is a problem?" said Mr. von Finckenstein to laughter from the packed hearing room in Gatineau, Que.

Mr. Rogers also appeared to drift from the script on a proposal by Rogers Communications to allow more U.S. specialty channels into Canada, provided they wouldn't put a Canadian channel out of business. He told Mr. von Finckenstein he hoped the proposed "viability test" would rarely be used, even if the CRTC adopts the plan. "I personally hope it wouldn't be very often. We can't stand it. We're a fragile industry in this country," Mr. Rogers said.

Mr. von Finckenstein later referred to Mr. Rogers' "discordant voice" when he again appeared to depart from the company position, this time on the subject of "targeted" advertising.

Relaxing regulations to allow cable firms and broadcasters to sell advertising in on-demand programming and, eventually, premium advertising in traditional broadcasts targeted to specific residences based on viewing habits, is being pitched as a way to give broadcasters more revenue in lieu of controversial "fees for carriage" they are seeking.

Mr. Rogers said privacy issues are likely to prevent from inserting advertising based on viewing habits. But other Rogers executives said what the company is planning is no different from the types of targeted advertising already displayed on the Internet.

I fear that Rogers' type of broadcaster is all but gone now. He will be missed.

The Awesomest Kids in the Hall News of Them All

YAY! And score one for the CBC!

Comedian Dave Foley says the five-member troupe is writing an eight-episode miniseries for the public broadcaster.

The show would have the quirky comics playing a multitude of roles and feature an ongoing narrative.

"We're going to start writing that very soon," Foley said recently from the Gemini Awards, where he presented an award at a glitzy bash honouring the best in Canadian drama, variety and comedy TV.

"It'll be an eight-episode arc with a narrative running through it and we will play all the characters but it won't be sketch, it'll be a single narrative miniseries. Probably the closest thing to it will probably be something like (the defunct cult British series) 'League of Gentlemen,' which I think was brilliant. So I hope it will be close to that."

The project is tentatively titled, "Death Comes to Town," and would serve as a long-awaited return by the Toronto-based group to the CBC.

WGC Screenwriting Awards Reprieve

IF YOU'RE LIKE me, Crasty Procrastinator that you are, you might have intended to enter the Canadian Screenwriting Awards and awoke this morning to a howling wind to realize that, "keeerist! The deadline's 5pm today!"

Well, you've got a week. The deadline has been extended to Monday December 8 at 5:30 p.m.

Now, go find some stamps and put that sucker in an envelope and put that script in. Cause you never know. I won last year and I came thisclose to not entering.

CBC's Need

FOR THE PERSON with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Similarly, to CBC, an unwieldy organization stretched too thin and staggering under its top-heavy management structure, the obvious solution to the problem to President Hubert Lacroix was to hire another executive:

She's Katya Laviolette and will become CBC's Vice-President of People and Culture on January 5, 2009.

Katya will be based in Montreal and will report directly to me. She'll be charged with renewing and improving the internal culture and delivering our people-related services throughout the Corporation, ensuring that we value the contribution of our people, provide better opportunities for training and development, and rebuild relationships.

She's got a lot of important work to tackle, but based on her qualifications and her broad executive experience in human resources, organisational development and industrial relations, I'm sure she's ready for it! Katya comes to CBC/Radio-Canada from Alcan Global Pharmaceutical Packaging where she was Vice-President, Human Resources, and was responsible for the company's strategy to build, measure and sustain organisational effectiveness.

A couple of weeks ago, CBC announced a number of measures, including a hiring freeze. They've also instituted a number of painful and strategic changes over the last couple of years. From changing the programming on Radio 2, to canceling Air Farce, to renewing some programs while canceling others, it seems that there's absolutely nothing CBC can do that doesn't result in a firestorm of criticism.

A lot of this comes out of the 2005 lockout, a scab which hasn't healed over, and which the imperious style of top execs hasn't really helped.

But personal style is one thing. There are many of us out here who try our best to give the benefit of the doubt and allow a strategy to run its course. CBC is the crown corporation with the greatest target on its back. It's constantly under assault by right-wing ideologues and the private sector broadcasters. Any change, no matter how big or small, if it involves the CBC, shakes loose some sort of pique.

There's also no denying that the CBC culture is at an all time low. When I visit to do my hits on Q, there's a palpable feeling of resentment, fear and despair all around. At the Geminis on Friday night, the CBC'ers I talked to seemed listless, depressed, and very weary from the constant flow of attacks, rumors, and toxic culture.

And yet everywhere within the organizaton there are people working hard, busting their ass, in fact, to reach audiences; to make news and information and drama and comedy that is relevant to Canadians.

From the top executive suite, it may look like a great idea to hire someone to try and fix the broken bonds of employee morale. But the symbolism works the other way. The problem is systemic, and everyone, everywhere knows what it is.

There are just too many managers.

It's been that way since the workforce suffered its first big cut, some 2 or 3 thousand employees, in the early 1990's. The ratio of managers went up there. I remember reading somewhere that the CBC used to have one manager for every twelve employees. Now it's like one for every four.

You get out of Toronto and the problem is even worse. I've heard years of horror stories from people who work in CBC Halifax, Calgary, Vancouver, and Edmonton, about back-and-forth, pass-the-buck decisionmaking and second guessing. You hear of production meetings where it seems like three people are there to give approval for something that should take the mind of one.

But asking CBC to fix its management problem is like asking the alcoholic to lock up the bar when he leaves.

If CBC was serious about improving efficiency and morale, they would charter an unbiased, outside auditor to come in and do a corporation wide audit of the management structure. Who reports to whom? What are each manager's responsibilities? What are the decisionmaking structures in place, and how can they be improved? For once, turn the klieg light on the top of the pyramid -- not the bottom.

This was the implicit promise, the thing that should have been taken care of after the 2005 lockout. It's what makes it easy for CBC haters like the Sun chain to file superfluous access to information requests and demonize every piece of spending by CBC managers, whether it's legit or not. It's what's lost face in the eyes of the employees, and it's what makes those who want to defend CBC when they do make hard, bold decisions, look foolish and misguided for doing so.

I don't really think any of this will happen, of course. But we need it to. With the foundation of the Canadian Broadcasting industry looking shakier all the time, CBC has never been more important.

But the solution is not another hammer. The nails have been pounded enough.

# # #
EDIT: I just got forwarded an email from a reader who pointed out that I'd linked to the CBC-bashing site Teamakers without attributing it. (I mean, except for linking to it.) That is indeed true, though I tried to quote mostly from the email sent out by the CBC Prez. Nobody else has covered the new VP position, though I heard about it from several sources.

The Teamakers, for those who don't read it, is a FRANK-lite CBC Gossip site run by a manager inside the Corp. Born out of the 2005 lockout, it has had its moments of insight into the corporation. Unfortunately, over the last little while it's devolved into the epitome of the knee-jerk "every decision CBC makes is wrong" bitching that I talk about above. There's little insight, plenty of personal attacks, lots of score settling, and zero courage. The courage of lions writing poems on the underground wall.

In the email, the reader also helpfully attached a comment on the site that referenced this post.

I find it comical that DMcG spent the better part of three days being the Teamakers most active contributor, explaining that this blog's direction, it's writers, commenters and readers are losers and malcontents.

The punchline? When he shows us how it should be done on his own blog, be basically copies and pastes a Teamakers post whole hog

The rimshot? The first comment compares working at the CBC with geting a migraine.

Ah, so that's how you do it?

That's typical Teamakers right there. Bile filled, not a single idea, just filled with sniping. It actually, half the time, makes the case for closing the CBC and turfing out the buggers as well as it ever does the opposite.

I work freelance. Zero job security. Every job secured on the basis of sample, reputation, and hopefully talent. Oh and one more thing. Integrity. Integrity's where you actually put your name to an idea, and risk that maybe someone will be vindictive towards you, because you believe the cause you're serving is greater. And I do. I believe the CBC is absolutely worth fighting for. I keep getting work from CBC because I'm good. And because ultimately, I'm going to back it up with letter writing, protesting, my taxes, my words, my name -- whatever I've got. The CBC is a gift to all Canadians. So when I criticize, I come from a place of consumer, stakeholder in the place's future, and fan all at once. And to prove I'm serious, I take a little risk. I put my name behind it. That's the same risk that effects any change in democratic societies. Without that risk, you are dismissible. Enough people take that risk, and you're undeniable. But to understand that I guess you have to read a bit of labor history, and philosophy, and... oh yes... you have to grow a pair.

Fighting for an idea doesn't mean being some anonymous flea, and it certainly doesn't mean ad hominem attacks and sophmoric bunkum. It means having the heart to put yourself out there, just a bit, to try and make things better -- or to inspire other people who might find themselves in that position too. Don't bother looking for any of that on The Teamakers. It's just not there.

Anonymous sniping and gainsaying inspires nothing but more of the same. You want your rimshot? There it is.