Posted in Montreal, Opinion, Radio

Nancy Wood saga isn’t going away quietly (UPDATED with CBC bullshit)

It’s been a rough few days, that’s for sure. I am really heartened to see the support I have, especially from listeners. I can’t tell you how much I love hosting Daybreak. I just wish the CBC loved me half as much. I guess I’ll never really know why they don’t want me.

- Nancy Wood, Feb. 22

Nancy Wood hasn’t said much since she learned almost a month ago that she was being pulled from the host chair at Daybreak. Part of that is because Wood has never been one to draw too much attention to herself (at least, that’s the impression I get from listening to her), and part of it is that there are still discussions happening behind the scenes – and CBC employees have been told not to talk to the media.

The short note above is all she wrote to me when I asked her about this whole thing almost three weeks ago. On Twitter, where she has a personal account, only this tweet, saying she’d be glad to return to her job, but providing no new details about what’s going on. On her Facebook account (which isn’t open to non-friends), similarly cryptic messages.

Even though I’ve never conversed with Wood in person, those brief crumbs of thought tug at my heartstrings. Here we have a veteran journalist and a professional radio host who is being forced from her dream job and doesn’t even know why. It’s been reported that Wood was hospitalized for stress, and while I haven’t confirmed that (and it’s really none of my business), the emotional impact this has had on her seems pretty apparent.

Is she gone or isn’t she?

This whole situation is in a strange kind of limbo because the CBC hasn’t yet made any public announcement. So not only has there been no comment from management about what’s going on (other than to say she hasn’t been fired from the CBC), but there’s been no comment on Daybreak itself about the matter. The journalists who work in the Montreal radio newsroom, the same ones who desperately try to track people down for comment about matters of public interest, are under orders from management not to comment themselves, even though many of them are outraged about what’s going on. Instead, they’re being asked to forward all inquiries to communications man Hugh Brodie (who, of course, hasn’t gotten back to me).

Even though no announcement has been made yet, the process of scrubbing Wood has already begun. The Daybreak homepage doesn’t even mention her anymore, replacing her photo with one of the “Daybreak team” (which interestingly includes Steve Rukavina, even though he’s not a regular Daybreak columnist – Rukavina has been one of the fill-in hosts and is one of the rumoured candidates to replace her). Fill-in hosts now don’t even bother mentioning that they’re “filling in for Nancy Wood” – instead leaving the whole thing ambiguous and treating listeners like idiots.

The CBC seems to think this decision is official enough to take Wood off the website but not official enough to actually confirm it to listeners. Go figure. Attempts by journalists and others to talk to those in charge have been met with boilerplate answers from the audience relations department saying they don’t comment on staff issues.

Voice for the voiceless

While the CBC remains silent, others have spoken up. Four Gazette columnists (Mike Boone, Basem Boshra, Doug Camilli and Henry Aubin – UPDATE: times three) and one La Presse columnist (Marie-Claude Lortie) have written about the matter, all saying the decision makes no sense (though the fact Wood once worked at The Gazette might have had something to do with it – I hope they’re as loyal when I get fired from a radio host job). Letters are still coming in to the Gazette, leading to a lot of ink with her name on it.

Listeners themselves have also gotten in on the action, setting up a Facebook group in protest (almost 500 527 members now), and flooding the program’s official Facebook page with questions and demands (all the while, the columnists and researchers who use it pretend like they can’t see all the comments, instead talking about the weather and asking for story tips). There are even rumours that there might be a protest outside McLean’s Pub on Sunday when the Daybreak team and other CBC personalities will be hosting a pre-St. Patrick’s Parade breakfast.

Epic fail

To say this was a blunder by CBC management is to make a huge understatement. This is a mess. The only thing the corporation can hope for now is that most listeners forget about Wood and move on when they announce who will replace her. This is ironic because morning hosts are humanized so listeners can relate to them, and that builds an emotional connection. That emotional connection is great for building audience loyalty, but it really sucks when their favourite radio host gets the shaft. The audience could leave en masse (unlikely, since they don’t have much of an alternative), or decide to turn on the next host, blaming him or her for getting Wood reassigned.

Mike Finnerty got oodles of marketing when he was host of Daybreak. What about Nancy Wood?

On the other hand, maybe forgetting Wood is exactly what most people will do. The CBC didn’t spend that much marketing her, and she had only been in the big chair for five months before they decided to pull the plug, giving her no time to build a following. There’s clearly a small, motivated group of listeners committed to keeping her there, but it’s not clear whether that group will reach a critical mass.

Even if we accept that getting rid of Wood was the right decision (and that will depend a lot on who they bring in to replace her), the way it was handled was awful. To announce to the staff that you’re going to get rid of the show host, then tell the staff to keep that information quiet, then tell the host that she actually has to stay on like a lame duck for a few more months to finish out her contract, then to ignore the inevitable protest from listeners, all while not announcing who will replace the jettisoned personality – I can’t think of a worse way this could have been done.

In private radio, the decisions are quick and final. Hosts are called in, told they’re being let go and asked to surrender their security passes. They’re not allowed anywhere near a microphone, so they don’t become a loose cannon. The decision is publicized quickly, and program directors make some statement about how they decided to go in another direction.

I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the way it’s done in private radio, not even allowing people a chance to say goodbye, but to have someone on air with a noose around her neck for months is just cruel.

As a result, Wood has hosted Daybreak only once since she heard the news – Friday, Feb. 19, mere hours before The Gazette broke the story that she was being dumped. Since then, fill-in hosts have given no indication why she hasn’t been on the air.

Breaking with precedent

If local management at CBC look like they’re having trouble writing the book about this kind of staff issues, it may be because they haven’t gone through something like this before. The previous seven Daybreak hosts over the past 30 years all left because they decided it was time to move on. Bob McKeown left for the Fifth Estate in 1981, Dennis Trudeau left for As it Happens in 1985, and Jim Duff left in 1987 to start the ill-fated Montreal Daily News. The next three hosts, Jon Kalina (1988-1993), Royal Orr (1994-1996) and Dave Bronstetter (1996-2006), all left because they were tired of getting to work at 4am every weekday. And Mike Finnerty, who lasted from 2007 to 2009, left to join his partner in London.

Thanks to a new system that has hosts on contracts, Wood is the first Daybreak host of the modern era to be forcibly removed from her chair.

Ratings aren’t everything

Supposedly one of the main reasons for removing Wood from this position is that Daybreak wasn’t doing well in ratings numbers (at least not as well as Radio Noon and Home Run).

I’m not against the CBC using ratings as a measurement of a show’s performance. I think the CBC could learn a lot from what gets the attention of the people. But there must be considerations of quality above quantity. How was Wood as an interviewer? How well did she do technically? How does she manage her team? How does she connect with listeners? If the CBC’s sole concern was ratings, they could just put pop songs on the air, or porn. Clearly they have higher ambitions.

One criticism levelled against Wood is that she’s “boring”. It’s not a nice thing to say, but I see where the comment is coming from (especially in light of the ratings). Wood isn’t a personality like Tommy Schnurmacher, Pete Marier or Murray Sherriffs. She’s just a regular person like everyone else. And she goes to work and does her job like a professional.

I’m a regular listener to the Daybreak podcast (recorded just after the morning show ends and featuring replays of interviews from the show), so I’ve heard quite a bit of Wood’s voice. It’s not a silly voice, it’s soothing, warm, but serious. She knows her stuff, and she can be compassionate or aggressive with an interviewee depending on the situation.

But to some people (including, apparently, CBC bosses), that’s not enough. They think she lacks personality and leadership.

What’s wrong with Daybreak

Daybreak is boring in some ways, some Wood’s fault, many not. The show is incredibly repetitive. It keeps repeating the same news headlines, weather, sports news and traffic every 30 minutes, leaving only a tiny window in every half-hour block for actual content. And that content is inevitably filled with an interview with some bureaucrat struggling to express himself in English through the telephone while sipping his morning coffee. That interview will usually be about some serious but boring issue that was brought up in that day’s newspaper (or, in many cases, the previous day’s). And after six minutes of barely explaining anything, they’re awkwardly cut off by the host because it’s time to go to traffic again.

The powers that be at Daybreak prefer this to alternatives. Why not record interviews the day before and edit them instead of allowing people to just run out the clock live? Why not have your staff go out and produce package reports about issues and play them for morning listeners? Why not host an in-studio discussion about an important topic instead of relying on your reporters to regurgitate what they learned like an office gossip queen? (These things do happen on occasion, but not nearly as often as the interviews.) Why not have an opinion columnist who can make serious, insightful points about current affairs instead of the knee-jerk uninformed ranting we see in private broadcasting?

The reason they prefer the live interview is because it’s easy. Call someone up the previous day, ask if they’re willing to spend a few minutes on the phone the next morning, figure out what they’re going to say, and write questions into a script. It’s not that they don’t want to do anything more interesting than that, it’s that they don’t have the time, and they don’t have the budget to hire people with the time.

Of course, this has been how Daybreak has worked for years, and previous hosts had the same problem with many of the same staff, but managed to build an audience to management’s liking. Clearly there is something about Wood that isn’t taking off here. (But there’s something about Bernard St-Laurent that is?) It’s her show, and the subdued personality that makes her a great journalist is a fault when it comes to hosting a radio show – especially in the morning, “when boring radio is least acceptable,” as one CBC insider told me.

Yes, blame the new boss

Supposedly the main reason Wood was pulled so prematurely was that the CBC was about to bring in a new regional boss – Pia Marquard – and didn’t want her to be stained with this decision. That obviously backfired, and for good reason: If she disagreed with the decision, couldn’t she just reverse it?

The public outcry from the Nancy Wood saga has probably been larger than the CBC anticipated (certainly larger than Wood herself anticipated). And this is before they’ve even announced anything to their listeners – that might kick this campaign into the next gear. We’ll see if it’s enough to sway the new boss to keep her.

But even if they do bring her back (and she said she’d love to come back), the damage is done. The marks of that noose will be around her neck even if she’s never hanged, and she won’t be able to breathe comfortably so long as she’s in that chair.

If you want to express your opinion to the person in charge, you can write Pia Marquard at pia.marquard@cbc.ca.

Bullshit hits the fan

UPDATE (March 11): About the same time I posted this, word finally started coming out of the CBC that Wood had indeed been removed from her Daybreak post. This post on the show’s official Facebook page has a text from Marquard that many listeners reported getting word for word:

First, we’d like to thank you for your dedication to Daybreak – we’re glad to know that it’s part of your weekday morning. We also understand that because you’re a regular Daybreak listener, you are concerned about our recent decision to change the show’s host.

Nancy Wood joined the Daybreak team as the interim host in August 2009. It was not a permanent assignment and when she returns from her current absence she will begin a new assignment at the CBC.

We understand that some of Daybreak’s listeners will not only miss Nancy as the show’s host, but have also asked for more details regarding our decision. Our policy, like most organizations, is not to disclose personal and confidential information regarding our employees. We think this is an important principle of privacy and respect for all of our employees.

We sincerely thank Nancy for her continued commitment to the CBC and most recently, while she was in the Daybreak host’s chair. We look forward to continuing to work with her when she returns.

Thank you for listening to Daybreak

Pia Marquard
Managing Director, Québec

This is pure, unmitigated bullshit. Whatever the technical status of Wood’s contract with the CBC, she was hired as the permanent host of Daybreak. There was an announcement, an interview with Mike Boone, a whole production. Her face became the official face of Daybreak. At no time was the word “interim” mentioned in relation to her post, nor was there any indication that the CBC was looking to replace her during her five months on the job.

Either I’m misunderstanding something pretty fundamental (like the definition of “interim”) or Marquard is outright lying here.

As for statements about “personal and confidential information regarding our employees,” please. We’re not asking for her salary or even the reason she’s on temporary leave right now. We want to know why the CBC has decided to make a programming change by removing her as the host of Daybreak.

UPDATE (March 13): Henry Aubin has another column on Wood, focused on the response of anglo Montrealers, who copied him on 92 emails to the CBC. The column also mentions an online petition that has just started.

UPDATE (March 16): Aubin devotes a third column to Wood, taking aim at the CBC in general and its irrational focus on pure ratings. He says that reversing their decision would show that they care what listeners think.

75 thoughts on “Nancy Wood saga isn’t going away quietly (UPDATED with CBC bullshit)

  1. Emily K

    My mother wrote to Pia Marquard yesterday in support of Nancy Wood, and this is part of the email that she received today: “Nancy Wood joined the Daybreak team as the interim host in August 2009. It was not a permanent assignment and when she returns from her current absence she will begin a new assignment at the CBC.” Claiming that Nancy Wood was an interim host sounds to me like an outright lie, and I doubt Daybreak’s listeners will believe it.

    Reply
  2. wkh

    Can I be really honest and mean at the same time?

    Why should CBC give any formal announcement? They’re free to hire/fire/cancel shows/ contracts, move stuff around, whatever, in any way they want provided they’re within union agreements and legal frameworks. Honestly, I think it’s fucking tacky to turn her personal employment situation into public gossip drama and I think I kind of maybe support their “STFU and don’t talk about business in public” attitude. It’s not really anyone’s business besides Nancy and CBC’s. And I’m pretty sure if she’s displeased about her treatment she has legal avenues at her disposal.

    Part of me also wonders if anyone would give a shit if she wasn’t hot white blonde and female. A sort of viral mutation of missing white woman syndrome much?

    Reply
    1. Fagstein Post author

      This isn’t about Nancy Wood’s “personal employment situation” – she’s still going to remain employed by the CBC (unless she decides she’s fed up with them and quits). It’s about the CBC changing the face of one of its shows. Whether we like it or not, radio shows (and particularly CBC Radio One shows) are defined by their hosts. Change the host, and the show changes. It’s also a story about a good journalist getting screwed over because someone higher up doesn’t like the way some graph looks.

      As for her being hot, blonde and female, similar attention was given to Peter Anthony Holder (CJAD) and Ted Bird (CHOM), and they are none of those things. So no, I don’t think that’s relevant, even though Wood was Daybreak’s first permanent female host.

      Reply
      1. wkh

        Oh Christ if it’s about “changing the face of one of it’s shows…” dude she was there FIVE MONTHS not years, you’ll get over it.

        Reply
        1. Josh

          It’s their flagship show, and most of the listeners listen *every single morning*.

          I can understand if they feel they’re owed an explanation.

          Reply
      2. DidiM

        CBC IS screwing Nancy Wood and Anglo Montrealers BIG TIME!! Their disgusting objective is to force her into a position where she has no choice – but to quit. That’s how its done. I think they UNDERESTIMATED her audience – Big Time… this time. This is NOT going to go away, Mr. Lacroix, Ms. Marquand. It’s only just begun> Add your voice to: http://www.bullbullet.com

        Reply
        1. PrettyT

          Hi DidiM,

          I’ve been reading the comments and I noticed something unusual. I think your keyboard may be broken. Some of the words in your posts are unnecessarily capitalized.

          Also, I noticed you are pushing your own blog on here. I love the title. Though, admittedly, I think I may be giving it a different interpretation than what you probably intended.

          Reply
  3. Kristina

    I’m a native Montrealer who moved abroad and who listens to the CBC in the morning to keep abreast of what’s going on back home. I’m two hours ahead time-wise so I usually get about a half hour of the BBC and then the first half hour of Daybreak. That first half hour has gotten so painfully boring to listen to, however, that I’ve switched to listening to the Toronto stream. They’re both similar content-wise (the TO show seems to have more market/business news which I suppose is to be expected) but the Toronto crew just sounds so much more dynamic at 5:30 a.m.

    Reply
  4. Jim P

    Well written Steve.

    Another form letter. I received the same reply from Hugh Brodie. From the Facebook site supporting Nancy seems others have received the same reply also.
    The CBC management are showing that they have no shame when it comes to mistreating employees and the public they serve.

    Reply
  5. Billy Bob

    Why are you so fixated on this? Media personalities come, media personalities go, when one leaves it opens the door to another.

    Reply
    1. Fagstein Post author

      Radio hosts getting jettisoned always bothers me, and this one particularly so because of the awful, disrespectful way it was handled. We won’t be able to fully judge this decision until we see who the CBC chooses to replace her, but if we find the CBC places more importance on entertainment than journalism in its morning show, then I think that’s a matter of public interest.

      Reply
      1. Beeg

        Meh. I have a hard time agreeing that the folks on Daybreak practice either journalism or entertainment. Dull, dull, dull. I think they’re on to how dull they are because they seem to be endlessly waiting for the tweet or text message that will fill the dreary void. This morning’s little episode about the Air Canada flight that conflicted with the gold medal men’s hockey game summed it up. Nobody had the facts, the B-squad kind of teased each other and they moved on to a text message. And then it’s ten seconds with Pascal.

        Sadly, the best thing going for CBC in the morning is the lack of commercials.

        Reply
        1. DidiM

          Beeg: It’s most probably because Anglo Media is scared sh….less – to say what they really, think and really know. They know if they dare – try that – they’ll be looking for a new job pronto.. and because English Media has been CLEANSED pretty much OUT of the Province… they’ve got nowhere to go! Except of course – outside the Province or country. Nice choice eh?

          Reply
          1. Beeg

            I have a hard time believing that Daybreak is dull because the folks who run it are scared to say “what they really think.” I think it’s dull because they say precisely what they really think.

            Reply
  6. Montrealer

    I’m an all day CBC listener, (okay I was until last spring when they made everything after Jian and until Carol Off and AIH utterly boring.) but you pretty much summed up my thoughts on the morning show: “The show is incredibly repetitive. It keeps repeating the same news headlines, weather, sports news and traffic every 30 minutes, leaving only a tiny window in every half-hour block for actual content. And that content is inevitably filled with an interview with some bureaucrat struggling to express himself in English through the telephone while sipping his morning coffee.”
    Which is why I can’t ever be bothered to listen to CBC before 8:30am and The Current.

    CBC needs to take some lessons from NPR, which is where I head if I happen to be awake in the morning, at noon, and again for Fresh Air. I’d love to get as riled up as you about the Nancy Woods affair, but the truth is, so much yhas gone down hill at CBC, I’m just grateful there is anything left for those with an IQ over 35.

    Reply
  7. Shloime Perel

    I don’t like to compare anything in Canada and the U.S., but I’d like to say that National Public Radio (NPR) stations in the U.S. enable listeners to get involved with their radio stations. Even though is the “public broadcaster,” as they say, supported by our money, there is no more public input possible than with private radio stations. Anyone can also write these stations with suggestions.

    In its non-response to the many listeners who are supporting Nancy Wood the CBC brass is acting as though the CBC is a privately owned medium. Actually, I would define the CBC as private in effect, regardless of its public funding.

    Shloime Perel

    Reply
    1. DidiM

      Shloime: By LAW it’s supposed to be the same with CBC. But that LAW has been IGNORED for decades! The Politico – & THEIR PALS – control everything. The interesting thing is, it’s taken the Nancy Wood firing to have us Joe Public – take a deeper look into what the hell is REALLY going on with OUR Publicly Owned Broadcaster. And I tell you – at first I thought I’d found a ‘can of worms’… turns out, it’s a LANDFILL of worms. It’s a tightly knit , ‘You Can’t Get In’ ‘Boys Club’ & Gal friends… network: that’s astonishing. Not to mention the incredible ‘Salaries’ they’re paying themselves.

      Reply
  8. disillusioned cbcer

    I feel sorry for Nancy, but at the same time, she has taken the show to a place that I don’t enjoy nearly as much. Her negative and whiny attitude are not what I want to hear first thing in the morning. She likes to box people into corners while interviewing them and this annoys me tremendously. I wish they could cover the news, culture and current events without shitting all over everyone. Overall, the quality of local content is being dumbed-down, and I don’t appreciate it. Don’t even get me started on Radio Noon…

    Reply
    1. Jim J.

      She likes to box people into corners while interviewing them and this annoys me tremendously

      Finnerty did exactly the same thing. It’s a pissy, bitter, unpleasant and antagonistic inteviewing style and, whenever interviewing a government minister about some media-manufactured ‘controversy,’ it’s better than 2-1 odds that the question, “will you resign your portfolio” (or some variant thereof) will be asked.

      She’s a professional journalist, point conceded. (Although “professional journalist” may very well be an oxymoron, which is a discussion for another time.)

      But she’s most definitely NOT a suitable morning primetime radio host. If her contract is up, then why would any manager in his/her right mind renew the contract? And why are they under some kind of obligation to disclose the reasons therefore?

      Would it make Fagstein feel better if someone from management went on the radio and said, “Well, in the opinion of management, and because of declining (or stagnant) ratings, Wood really sucks as a radio host.” This is why, generally speaking, personnel decisions aren’t aired publicly.

      And, incidentally, how can anyone here believe that you have a right to a renewed contract? The nature of a contract is that it has a fixed end date, and can be renewed only if both parties assent, is it not? Is there a section of the Labour Code that indicates otherwise?

      Reply
      1. DidiM

        Jim J.: Your personal opinion of Nancy Wood is duly noted. Given the THOUSANDS of complaints, emails, phones – blogs etc… dedicated to KEEPING HER AS HOST OF DAYBREAK; please NOTE – your opinion is very much in the minority. As a matter of fact… your opinion is more aptly described as very, very rare. CBC IS a PUBLIC Broadcaster – and their mandate and legal obligation is: to reflect the WISHES of the Community IT Serves. And CBC IS OBLIGATED to explain their decision, my friend. Especially when Management has CLEARLY LIED to the public. EX: They now, ‘claim’ Nancy Wood was an ‘Interim Host’ – A LIE… Take a look at their Public Announcement – Declaring Nancy Wood as the NEW HOST of Daybreak etc…

        The COMMUNITY is making its wishes and position very.very clear.

        Reply
        1. PrettyT

          Sorry friend but unless you have asked all the people who read, listen, and choose not to respond (like me up until now) you are in no position to make the claim that yours is the majority opinion. Please don’t speak for me.

          I think the “tremendous support” she is receiving (don’t get me wrong, I like her) is more a result of an increase in web/social media usage amongst CBC listeners than any real “unprecedented” grassroots movement. How many real paper petitions have you started or signed? How many paper letters have you sent to the CBC? Paper letters (although bad for the environment) are still by far the most effective means of showing your discontent since it creates a physical presence somewhere in their offices. (It doesn’t seem so urgent when you have to pay for postage though, does it?)

          Reply
          1. DidiM

            PrettyT:
            Of course the increase in protests is because of social media. BEFORE social media – the Anglophone community was MUZZLED by our OWN Press and labeled, direded and cut off as: “Angryphones, Anglo Extremists etc… by our Separatist, ass kissing Talk Show Hosts.

            As for your IGNORANT “… How many….” question. The answer is: 26 YEARS of Activism… Physical work, presence, writings – faxes and much more. And you ?? So piss off.

            Reply
          2. DidiM

            PS: What do you mean YOU are the majority? So far…. the people who have posted from your side of the fence… are of last count… around the net…: 6 people. And they have only crawled out of the woodwork… since CBC discovered…. the public is taking a very deep and good look at it.

            Reply
          3. PrettyT

            Just a couple things. I never said I was in the majority. I said you shouldn’t claim that you are in the majority if you cannot prove it. (Which you have not, despite your 1 facebook member = 1000 listeners equation [nice bullbullet there btw!]) The fact is most people don’t get involved either way.

            There can be more than two “sides” on any given issue.

            If you like Trolls, this made me think of you (coherency wise): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bMLrA_0O5I
            (although your rants don’t have the cool music as a background)

            Also, all kidding aside and to be clear, I wasn’t attacking your history or experience as an activist. I was merely asking how many real letters you sent regarding this particular issue. I just think online petitions and e-mails are so easy to send out they don’t have as much weight. They can be deleted much more quickly as well.

            I think all we really have here is failure to communicate. It would help if you worked on your reading comprehension skills.

            P.S.: Your keyboard is still broken.

            Reply
        2. Jim J.

          Well, you certainly told me. Were you expecting me to become a Wood convert by your obviously irritated (and irritating) tone?

          Hosts are provided with one year renewable contracts. Standard practice, as I understand it. And, unless something completely escapes me here, no one has a right to a contract renewal.

          Management, in its infinite wisdom (or, if you prefer, the lack thereof), has decided not to renew the contract. I believe that is a correct decision; you may not.

          The inescapable point here, is that it is management’s prerogative to run the station. The audience doesn’t (well, perhaps in an fairly indirect way, by listening or not listening), but the employees/unions certainly do not.

          I happen to believe, just as strongly as you do not, that Wood is a poor host. Or maybe she’s constrained by a poor format. Take your pick. I’m not casting aspersions against her personally, or professionally as a journalist; I just happen to believe she is a bad fit to run a morning radio show.

          Finally, as to your point re: the CBC’s mandate, how can they possibly fulfill that mandate if people don’t listen? If the CBC has metrics that are showing a declining or stagnant audience, then how can you possibly make the case that there is this “grassroots” movement to keep Wood as host? Sure, hypothetically speaking, if your audience was 100,000, and now it’s down to 50,000, but those 50,000 are really, really interested in keeping the current host, I don’t see how you can possibly interpret that as CBC fulfilling its mandate.

          And, incidentally, a Facebook group consisting of roughly 500+ members hardly qualifies as some kind of mass protest movement.

          Reply
          1. DidiM

            In case you’re not familiar with stats of this sort. Every member on the FB page – represents 1,000 listeners. As for your ‘hypothetical’ example: What are you and Pretty… a couple of CBC trolls – put to work to sing its praises?
            Fact: the FB page is UNPRECEDENTED. NOTHING like this has EVER happened in Montreal’s HISTORY.
            Next: When I mentioned CBC’s MANDATE: I was referring to its MANDATE of Obligation to the Canadian PUBLIC. Go find out the difference and then explore the legalities and illegalities – to avoid putting your foot any deeper into your mouth.

            Reply
              1. Jim J.

                …and this earlier claim

                Every member on the FB page – represents 1,000 listeners.

                is simply fatuous.

                For example, take a look at this Fagstein post from June ’09 (http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/06/17/montreal-radio-ratings/), and its accompanying graph which, as I read it, indicates that CBC Radio One receives roughly 250,000 “listeners” per week (which is defined as someone who tunes in even for one minute per week).

                Now, it would be beyond pure fancy to believe that more than, say, 3/4 of them listen to Daybreak (I think even that estimate is unreasonably high), so that means that there’s about 187,500 people who listen to Daybreak, at an absolute maximum.

                And this person believes that every single one of them agrees with her point of view? Sure. Even if, let’s go with that fanciful (and fairly implausible) 3/4 number again, 140,000 people agree with her.

                So, despite the claim that Facebook member represents 1,000 listeners who agree with her point of view, it is, even at a level that strains the bounds of credulity, 280.

                It’s nice when you overestimate your support by a factor of 4. But don’t let the math get in your way.

                It’s amusing to read some of the comments here – people complaining that they are labelled with the “angryphone” description – and then they adopt a tone and the, shall we say, creative use of statistics that confirms exactly that.

                And then they go about throwing around rather nasty ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares to take a contrary viewpoint. I thought that only Americans did that.

              2. PrettyT

                Great find! I looked at the graph you linked to and thought it was amusing how 2 year olds are counted as listeners.
                I think maybe, just maybe, those numbers are designed to sell advertising. I know I’m out on a limb here…

              3. DidiM

                To Jim J.

                I’m NOT using statistics creatively in the least. As a matter of fact: The number comes from a person working in the field: radio & newsprint: Take a look on the ‘Save Nancy Wood’ Facebook page, where btw – you’ll notice a good number of the posters are journalists & media professionals. Here’s the quote from a pretty well known one: “Write! Conventional wisdom in radio stations is 1 letter = 1,000 listeners. So write!” Add to that – it’s a number I’ve heard from people in the field many times over the years. So, it’s not my math… it’s a long standing media fact. I’d suggest you go do some homework – on statistics. Although many stats can be and have been skewed – dependent on the subject matter and how the question is posed etc… – the 1 letter = 1,000 listeners is extremely reliable – in this instance.

                Re: Your ‘Angryphone’ slur. I’d say the ‘creative use of description’ offender here is you Jim J.
                And the people that use the term – AS Though there’s something WRONG with Anglos that are angry because: their language = culture & lifestyle & ability to work and all the other stuff that came with it, like schools closing = media whittled down to almost nothing = families split up, 600,000 Quebeckers fleeing the Province = bombs in mailboxes to terrorize the community into submission etc… The Angryphone label in Montreal & Quebec, has been twisted into: someone that is to be ridiculed and condemned, and is most often used by separatists and their ass kisser buddiess against Anglophones that dare speak up. That it’s a case of “Blame the victim” and “Shoot the messenger” for some crazy reason, doesn’t come into play. Therefore you suggesting I am an Angryphone – given your tone – speaks volumes of where you’re coming from.

                You must then, believe that the ‘ethnic cleansing ‘ of Anglos out of Quebec is something the English speaking population should agree with?
                As for your slurring the Americans – I know one thing, they would never ever, consider let alone accept an entire population having their Rights Removed and the English language being erased from any state in the union. As a matter of fact: The last places that took place in the Modern World was in Bosnia – and Germany. And in Bosnia the number of the population that was displaced was approximately 100,000 give or take. Certainly NOT 600,000!
                And yet – for some bizarre reason – here in la belle province – if an English Quebecker gets ANGRY about it…. they’re ‘dismissed’ as ‘one of those ‘angryphones’. WOW.

              4. Fagstein Post author

                Conventional wisdom in radio stations is 1 letter = 1,000 listeners.

                First of all, conventional wisdom isn’t “fact”. Just because many people believe it to be true doesn’t make it so. And just because it’s a theory that involves numbers doesn’t mean it qualifies as a statistic.

                Secondly, the conventional wisdom relates to letters, physical pieces of paper addressed and stamped. It doesn’t apply to spending half a second joining a Facebook group.

              5. DidiM

                Fagstein: That stat comes from someone in the industry. His name is Michael Dole and I’m sure you must have at least heard of him and with 15 years in the business he knows his stuff.

                As for you Facebook reference – re: joining the page – that has NOTHING to do with the letters being sent. Trying to diminish the stats – by saying they must be physical pieces of paper – in this day of the internet and emails – also doesn’t fly. Companies take emails very, very seriously and if you don’t know that – then I suggest you ask some of your friends that work in them & also the owners of companies etc… They are taken just as seriously as a paper letter – my man. Emails and calls to CBC – MP’s – even the Minister of Heritage and Languages about this; most certainly does demonstrate that CBC listeners are not only outraged – but as stated to me personally by Tanya from the Audience Relations department – “The number of emails and calls have been overwhelming.”

                Look, I’m not going to continue what’s turning into a pissing match on this. You either accept it or don’t. The facts are the facts.
                And, being a journalist Fagstein, I’m surprised you haven’t researched or at least looked into what is going on with the Nancy Wood story — before you dismiss it, no?
                You could also give Hubert Lacroix – a call & ask him how many emails and calls he’s received about this.

              6. Fagstein Post author

                Companies take emails very, very seriously and if you don’t know that – then I suggest you ask some of your friends that work in them & also the owners of companies etc.

                I have asked some of my “friends”, and they’ll tell you that it’s a lot easier to join a Facebook group than to write and post a letter. This is why letters are given more weight than Internet petitions or Facebook groups. It’s not because pieces of paper are special, it’s because it’s a reflection of effort that suggests people really care. Emails, phone calls, faxes and other things are obviously considered as well, but some forms have more of an impact than others. Saying 500 members of a Facebook group is like 500 stamped letters is just not true.

                And, being a journalist Fagstein, I’m surprised you haven’t researched or at least looked into what is going on with the Nancy Wood story — before you dismiss it, no?

                Yes, clearly I’m trying to suppress the story of Nancy Wood’s contract not being renewed.

              7. Jim J.

                You either accept it or don’t. The facts are the facts.

                Well, yes. It just happens that your numbers don’t add up. They have no rational basis in reality.

                If you truly believe that, per your claim, each FB group member represents 1,000 listeners who agree with your position, that equates to 593,000 people who listen to Daybreak,

                It’s just not possible that CBC Daybreak even has 593,000 listeners – that’s 1 out of 5 people in the Montreal metropolitan area, which works out to about 1 in every 6 people (i.e., men, women and children). And if you believe that 1 in 6 people who live in and around Montreal agree with you – or even 1 in 6 give a flip as to what is happening to Nancy Wood….well, hey, you go right on believing that.

                The June ’09 survey puts the total number of CBC Radio One listeners in Montreal at roughly 250,000, and that doesn’t break out listeners by program, just by radio station. Where you’re getting 593,000 from is just a complete mystery.

                I don’t know where you are deriving your numbers from, but it’d give you a lot more credibility if you didn’t just make them up out of thin air. I don’t know who Michael Dole is; for all we know, he could be your brother-in-law or a guy who sells trinkets out of a suitcase on Ste-Catherine St.

              8. DidiM

                JimJ: Sorry guys, I made a super mistake… meant to type Matthew Cope.. not Michael Dole..

                Again, like I said. I am not into a pissing contest about this with you. And it’s getting away from the ‘essence’ of what is going on. You can choose to agree or disagree with the 1 letter = 1,000 in the MEDIA BUSINESS – and how STATS are equated in the BUSINESS .

                And as you say JimT… YOU TOO could be a guy who sells trinkets on St. Catherine street; so enough of turning this into nonsense already.

              9. Jim J.

                1 letter = 1,000 in the MEDIA BUSINESS

                OK, last time.

                1 letter may very well equal 1,000 listeners. Fine. I won’t necessarily concede the point, but I won’t contest it, either. But, as Fagstein so correctly pointed out, 1 person clicking “join group” in Facebook does not equal a letter. Period. Full stop. For you to believe otherwise is…well, I’m not sure what it is, but it’s certainly not grounded in reality.

                Composing a letter, printing it, folding it, putting it in an envelope, slapping a stamp on it, and walking it down to the mailbox demonstrates a real expenditure of effort and interest on the part of the letter writer, and definitely catches the attention of people who are paid to pay attention to things like that. Clicking “join” indicates that you have nothing more than some idle time in front of your laptop and what may only be a passing whiff of a grievance. (Incidentally, an e-mail falls somewhere in-between those two extremes, unless it is a “form” e-mail that has been composed by only one person and sent by many different people. Those are quite a bit more like joining a Facebook group.)

                And I still maintain that it just isn’t possible, except in some kind of numbers Disneyland, for you to believe that your 601 Facebook group members (as of the time I compose this posting) somehow equates to 601,000 people who share your point of view, with even 10% of the passion that you clearly demonstrate on this issue.

                Unless you can somehow demonstrate otherwise with some very hard-to-refute facts (i.e., some actual radio survey statistics), I will continue to insist that it is beyond the realm of reasonableness to believe more than 1 out of every 6 people – that’s men, women, children, anglophone, francophone, allophone – in the Montreal region are a Daybreak listener, let alone a Daybreak listener who shares your very demonstrable interest in the fate of Nancy Wood. This, especially in light of the radio survey that I linked to in a previous post, which clearly shows that CBC Radio One (not Daybreak, the whole CBC Radio One) only gets about 250,000 listeners per week. You may not believe that post, but I’m putting up. If you have something that shows there are 600k+ individual Daybreak listeners per week, let’s see it.

                While I’m a big fan of Radio One, I think you give them far too much credit, if you sincerely believe your own numbers.

                I’m off to Ottawa to spend a pleasant weekend at a curling tournament. I won’t be checking in on this particular thread anymore so consider this your gold-embossed invitation to have the last word – because I get the impression that you seem like the type who really wants to have the last word.

              10. DidiM

                Fagstein: Correction noted. I had no idea re: Peter Anthony Holder etc… Then again – Nancy’s numbers have far exceeded all three combined (last time I looked around 550 and growing); and I’m talking about the ‘ripple effect’ reaction it’s creating. It’s looking like the ‘Whipped into submission’ Anglo – has finally had enough of being, ‘ethnically cleansed’, and guys like Hugh etc…(you know, guys with a backbone & their ‘balls intact’) are demonstrating that – Anglos do NOT and should not, accept the “You are nothing”, caste system that’s been foisted upon them.

          2. DidiM

            PS: The audience most certainly is part of the mandate – especially over the content, type of shows they want etc.. And it’s a major part of CBC’s mandate to REFLECT its audience’s wants – especially – I repeat – in particular to concentrate on a regions MINORITY population… like you know – QUEBECK’S ANGLOPHONE COMMUNITY. Go read the Corporate Plan for starters.. When you’re done with that – get back to me… I’ve got plenty more links for you.
            http://www.bullbullet.com

            Reply
      2. disillusioned cbcer

        Good point about Finnerty, he did do the same thing, but he was immensely more likeable. And smart.

        Reply
        1. Martin Lemaire

          “She likes to box people into corners while interviewing them and this annoys me tremendously”

          Waitasec, what were you expecting, Entertainment Tonight? This is *Daybreak* we’re talking about here. The show we pay for as taxpayers. Public radio. Would you rather they lob softball questions at our local decision-makers? Come on! It’s the *job* of Finnerty and Wood to make such folks accountable for their actions.

          Reply
  9. Hugo Shebbeare

    Come on, the real reason Pia Marquard dropped Nancy, all during a quick and dirty change in management, was most probably because a combination of multiple reasons (which they think we do not see with their boilerplate official responses).
    1) Jealous of this woman’s beauty.
    2) Jealous of her intelligence (because the daybreak people currently are not up to her level, sorry guys)
    3) Unwanted gestures from management that are TOTALLY insensitive (faceless, unaccountable bureaucratic chumps, LYING TO US THAT SHE WAS INTERIM)
    4)
    This is a classic vexatious behaviour and attack on people who push the bar.
    I would file a complaint with the Working Standards Commission Nancy, with a combination of the above reasons filed with dates and timings of the events related to the law:
    http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/in-case-of/psychological-harassment-at-work/index.html
    http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/in-case-of/dismissal-not-made-for-good-and-sufficient-cause/index.html
    http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/in-case-of/unjustified-change-of-status/index.html

    You are protected by the Labour Standards Act Nancy, even if you have a contract – when you are subject to subordination, fixed hours, and have to use CBC’s equipment and not your own to do your job.

    I was attacked for being too good a worker at the Caisse de Défauts (before their colossal train-wreck in fall of 2008) for many of the above reasons, so don’t give up the fight Nancy (and our great readers here in support should prove that). Funny that when I reached out of the provincial coquille we live in, Microsoft gave me an MVP award and the best technical Database think-tank in Silicon Fen (Cambridge, UK) has published my articles in both FR and EN. Second article, on Change management,.coming up soon on simple-talk.com

    CBC management are being clearly unprofessional with respect to Nancy Wood.
    Pia, reinstate her in the morning, or I (and I hope WE, as I assume many here agree) shall formally request your resignation, this is disgusting, stop playing games with OUR MONEY.
    We want Montreal’s BEST in the morning, not the sloppy seconds.

    Reply
      1. Hugo Shebbeare

        DC – are you for real (?) or do you always write without actually revealing your name. Click on my link or Google me, if you want to see who I am.

        Pia Marquard and Rob Renaud are violating the Labour Standards Act, from the information I have read in support of this great woman we know as Nancy Wood. If you were given a permanent job, then you have the right to stability and not unwanted stress of harassment about petty ratings, etc. CBC Managment has to right to make decisions, but they first must respect the Law, and it seems, from all I have read so far, they most certainly are not. En plus, c’est du mensonge, ce ‘interim’ jeux de bouc-emmisaire.

        Reply
        1. Fagstein Post author

          Let’s not go crazy here. Wood isn’t being fired, and her position as host of Daybreak was a contract that isn’t being renewed. It’s a dick move, but I don’t think it was violating any law.

          Reply
          1. DidiM

            Fagstein, Sorry I have to agree with Hugh. They are breaking labor laws. It cannot be denied that they’ve put Woods into an impossible position. She was fired from her current position, without warning or reason; She is Obviously very popular with the listeners. I mean, can you recall ANY Media personality – getting this type of support from Montrealers? I sure as hell can’t.

            And what kind of a nightmare – working environment do you think is ahead for her at CBC? Is she going to be – demoted – hidden away – have her life made as uncomfortable as possible (as if it could get more uncomfortable, sigh). You know how it goes. The environment they have placed her in right now – is a very clear violation.

            Reply
    1. Maria Gatti

      What’s with the “hot blonde” and “jealous of Nancy’s beauty” comments? (Except for the overly airbrushed CBC photos). Ms Wood is in her 40s, she has the wrinkles many of us middle-aged people have. She has a kind, pleasant face, but angular, not “conventionally beautiful”. She looks fine – as if it matters one way or the other on radio – but is certainly not a Barbie-Doll type.

      I certainly preferred her to the pompous René-Homier Roy on Radio-Canada, but now I find myself listening to the Radio-Canada morning show despite him, simply because the CBC one is currently such a mess.

      I’m heartened you, Gazette staffers and Marie-Claire Lortie are raising this. I doubt CBC are breaking any labour laws: “la précarisation” is more an more the lot of many if not most of us in communications, publishing and related cultural industries. It will take a groundswell of public support for Ms Wood to be reinstated. The format problem’s aren’t her fault.

      Reply
      1. Hugo Shebbeare

        I am sorry Maria, Fagstien and to any others who do not understand what psychological harassment is in the workplace.
        Nancy has suffered a great deal of unwanted anguish over this – Management have to wait for the end, or near end of the contract – and not in the middle of it, before pulling the rug out from underneath her feet – it’s disgustingly vexatious and insensitive. I was told just past half way through my year long contact ‘ton mandat à changé’ whilst only a week later was replaced with a subservient cog doing the same tasks.
        I think you should read the links I have provided to the details above and below.

        And if you still don’t understand how the govt enforces this law read my post : http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/hugo/archive/2010/02/15/first-public-hearing-against-quebec-s-pension-fund-manager-the-beginning-of-proof-multiple-laws-were-violated-before-sabia-took-over.aspx
        While at the Caisse, every possible workplace bullying trick in the book was pulled, and in the end I even had racial comments to deal with…only a shrink brought me back from the brink of suicide. I think we all need to support Nancy because she is a human being with feelings, CBC Management give us the impression they think she’s just a doormat. More than not cool, illegal according to the Working Standards Commission.

        Reply
  10. Youppi!

    I do not understand why people are getting on Fagstein’s case for doing what he always does.

    I haven’t listened to Daybreak with Finnerty or Wood as host very much, I think they both suck, but I’m totally intrigued and interested on why the move was made and the politics and ratings issues behind it. Keep up the good fight Fagstein!

    I hope whatever they do with Daybreak, it involves blowing up that tired formula and starting from scratch. It’s so frustrating that TEAM 990 is the best English morning radio option right now.

    Reply
  11. Caroline

    Here’s the response I received to my email:

    —————–

    First, we’d like to thank you for your dedication to Daybreak – we’re glad to know that it’s part of your weekday morning. We also understand that because you’re a regular Daybreak listener, you are concerned about our recent decision to change the show’s host.

    Nancy Wood joined the Daybreak team as the interim host in August 2009. It was not a permanent assignment and when she returns from her current absence she will begin a new assignment at the CBC.

    We understand that some of Daybreak’s listeners will not only miss Nancy as the show’s host, but have also asked for more details regarding our decision. Our policy, like most organizations, is not to disclose personal and confidential information regarding our employees. We think this is an important principle of privacy and respect for all of our employees.

    We sincerely thank Nancy for her continued commitment to the CBC and most recently, while she was in the Daybreak host’s chair. We look forward to continuing to work with her when she returns.

    Thank you for listening to Daybreak.

    Best,

    Pia Marquard
    Managing Director, Quebec

    Reply
    1. DidiM

      Caroline: That’s the same reply everyone got. I did get one other reply from Pia, yesterday.I posted it and my reply on http://www.bullbullet.com Note: Site is still rough, haven’t had TIME to set it up the way I’d like. The ‘can of worms’ is keeping me very busy.
      Didi

      Reply
  12. Hugo Shebbeare

    More legal reasoning from http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/in-case-of/psychological-harassment-at-work/index.html

    Vexatious behaviour
    This behaviour is humiliating, offensive or abusive for the person on the receiving end. It injures the person’s self-esteem and causes him anguish. It exceeds what a reasonable person considers appropriate within the context of his work.
    – so for her three days off in anguish etc, was that WANTED

    Affect the person’s dignity or integrity
    – Stating that she was an Interim host and not the actual host is a clear violation of Nancy’s Dignity.

    She has clear reasons for a complaint if she wishes, and CBC Managment can swallow a big piece of HUMBLE PIE for treating this great host like DIRT.

    Reply
    1. Hugo Shebbeare

      Oh, and forgot to mention, since this is QC socialism (okay, I like the modele quebecois for this one…) org, in reference to the Working Standards Commisson (Commissiondes normes du travail), the lawyers, validators and mediators are paid for by the govt – so Nancy would have FREE legal counsel :)

      Reply
      1. Hugo Shebbeare

        Well man, it’s a little bigger than hurt feelings, this is her career, and all the lies surrounding this are pretty humiliating, and on a big scale don’t you think?
        QC’s anti-workplace bullying laws are pretty progressive because it is rampant here, especially in the government (fed or prov offices).

        Reply
  13. Bobby

    Oh, how I’d like to have a management position at cbc radio, the power, the responsibility, the oh-so-low stakes. I keep looking for an un-managing director position to open so I can apply.

    So, then hiring nancy wood is a stain on who’s reputation? Rob Renaud’s? Hiring someone with credibility, intelligence, warmth, bilingual, a great voice, and a lover of quebec isn’t enough? She was the best of the three local cbc radio hosts, BY FAR! The Lunchtime bimbo and drive home with mistake-o-matic man are a far bigger stain on the local cbc than Nancy Wood as morning host. And will Bernie EVER tell L.Ian (Lyin’) that the reason that we care about afgan detainees being tortured isn’t because they are in Lyin’s words “taliban killer’s of canadian boys and canadians don’t care anything about these murderers” but actually is because they might not be “guilty as charged” just because they were arrested. But Bernie gets gamed by the loyal conservative minion Lyin’ who earns his opinion-shaper pay every time he goes on the cbc. The producers of his show have some explaining to do about the uncritical response from the host regarding Lyin’s shamelessly parroting talking points directly from PM Stephen Mcnasty’s PR strategy.

    but I digress.

    Reply
    1. DidiM

      Bobby: Take a peek at CBC’s President, Hubert Lacroix’s 5 year PLAN for CBC. Note: Most of the 56% of the budget: is DEDICATED to promoting, hiring, training etc…growing, CBC French TV & Radio, in Quebec and Western Canada.
      English CBC Quebec: “Try to MAINTAIN’ what’s there. Period. NOTHING. See the Corporate Plan Section:
      Also: See where he discusses ‘POLITICAL RISKS’ .. Note: CBC’s Mandate is to NOT ALLOW for ANY Political influence and interference.. And yet, throughout his PLAN… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist .. to see – it’s being violated all over the place.

      Pg. 27 ..Ex: “Risks and Opportunities
      As Canada’s national public broadcaster, CBC|Radio-Canada occupies a special place in the Canadian broadcasting system and faces a unique set of risks to its plans and operations. Like all broadcasters, the Corporation must recognise and adapt to technological changes, shift s in demographics, evolving consumer demands, as well as structural changes in the industry. However, as a public broadcaster with a statutory mandate to serve all Canadians, CBC Radio-Canada also faces a unique set of political and financial risks. The following sections identify and discuss the key risks and opportunities facing the Corporation in the
      near future.”
      http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/submissions/

      Reply
  14. Bill

    The recent outpouring of “support” for Nancy Wood is pathetic. I am sure that Nancy is a nice person and no one likes to not have her contract renewed. However, Nancy Wood is no better or worse than all the other English language broadcasters in Montreal. Face it people: Anglo Montreal is by its own choice essentially an insular small town within a dynamic big city. Like any small town, it can’t expect to attract the best in broadcasting. That CBC’s Radio Noon still has a “Farm Panel” says something about the small town mentality of the Anglo CBC listeners. Is Nancy Wood any worse than Sue Smith, Mike Finnerty, or, God forbid, Dave Bronstetter? Or for that matter CTV’s Debra “I can do the news while in a coma” Arbec. or Tara “My favourite colour is beige” Schwartz! No, they are all small town; beloved by the knee jerk, the-French-are-out-to-get-us, types who seem to be numerous, if not predominant, among Anglophone Montrealers, and who often demonstrate their small-mindedness in their frequent letters to the editor (to say nothing od editorials) in the Gazette. Ah, the Gazette, another example demonstrating the small town nature of Anglo Montreal! It is without contenders for the worst English language newspaper this newspaper junkie has ever read. One piece of data in support of of my assessment is that it is virtually impossible to find the Gazette outside of Montreal and environs. Have you ever seen it at a newsstand or airport in Toronto, Halifax, Winnipeg, etc. The fact is that big corporations, be they public (CBC) or private (Canwest, CTV) give those of us who live in small towns what we are willing to put up with – mediocrity. Should CBC retain Nancy Wood? Why not – we will never do any better in this small town.

    Reply
    1. Fagstein Post author

      I can’t find the Toronto Star in many small newsstands around the city, I don’t think that means the Star is a bad paper.

      Sure, anglo Quebec is a small market, but I don’t think that’s nearly as bad as you seem to think it is.

      Reply
      1. Hugo Shebbeare

        Aren’t there about 1.5-2M labelled ‘Anglo’ in this metroplois?
        Anything over a million cannot be considered to this small town you refer to.

        Reply
    2. PrettyT

      Daybreak and Homerun are only broadcast in Montreal while most of the province listens to Quebec AM and Breakaway.
      Radio Noon is the only show coming out of Montreal that goes out all over the province.

      As a side note, I like the farm panel.

      Reply
  15. Anne

    They should get rid of David Blair.

    He is the most incompetent business journalist, if you can call him that, in Montreal.

    Reply
  16. DidiM

    Fagstein: What I meant when I said “….looked into what’s going on …” is in reply to your saying, “… paper letters count more than … people joining a Facebook page etc…”. (Also i was referring to the calls and letters (emails) that have resulted from the Facebook Page).

    I did NOT say – you are trying to suppress the Nancy Wood story and if that’s what you got from my reply above. What I meant, by the ” …. research further…” is the ‘ripple effect’… the Nancy Wood story has created. – I will try to make myself clearer in the future. Again, I repeat – the snail mail type of letter – is pretty much a thing of the past – in and out of business – because the net is much faster – and in fact saves companies a great deal of time and money.

    Reply
  17. Jim P.

    Check out the editorial cartoon in the Gazette 17 march. The Grinch as a CBC exec responding to an enquiry about Nancy Wood. He responds “Nancy who…”

    An image is worth 100 words. The CBc hope this goes under the carpet but I think them have misjudged the publics reaction.

    Reply
  18. DidiM

    JimJ: I repeat… I never said… one person joining a Facebook group – equals one letter. So your point seems moot. I was talking about the thousands of letters that have RESULTED FROM the Facebook page being created. Again, I posted an observation – from that page – from a professional in the media field; that has resulted in it turning into some kind of ‘pissing contest’ about stats. You disagree – fine. Not a problem. You asked me questions, I answered – and now you’re into – who gets the last word.
    Have a good time curling – and if you don’t want a reply… don’t write me. Not to worry.

    Reply
  19. marco

    why not bring back Jon Kalina. that guy know everything .. how to brew native american indian tea or how to put on make up so that you could look like a Kabuke dancer. As for Nancy Woods I didn’t even realize that she was gone, but then again, I am still trying to find out what happened to Shelly Pomerantz.

    Reply
  20. Shloime Perel

    Greetings. So far as I know, even though the CBC obviously defines itself as the “Public Broadcaster,” it offers no means of public involvement. There are no advisory or decision-making structures in which listeners or viewers can be involved. We never found out why Nancy Wood was let go on “Daybreak” and the many protests about this had no impact whatsoever on the CBC brass so far as Nancy Wood goes.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>