CBC fires Jian Ghomeshi
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
HE is the one that went public. The CBC just announced they had severed ties with him, not giving a reason. HE went public on facebook, THEN the Sun went public with their interviews since HE had already gone public with his side. If he had kept his mouth shut and just dealt with the CBC no one would be the wiser.
Dean Skoreyko @bcbluecon "Navigator - the crisis PR firm hired by Ghomeshi - directed questions to another public relations firm, Rock-It Promotions"
Dean Skoreyko @bcbluecon So did Navigator dump Ghomeshi because they know this would drag them down as well?
CBC turns to employees in Ghomeshi probe | The London Free Press
everything presents itself as so simple and interfering,the whole thing promises to be capitivating,possibly a movie in the works
And where are the elephants? There should be some elephants or at least a dog in a lion ruff.
Actually to put things in proper prospective, NOBODY in the country is owed a job, one of the freedoms in this country is to be able to hire anyone you like for as long you like. U.S. Presidents job pays about $4 -$5 million for 8 years. So $55 million is just plain stupid. Sometimes in life people's feeling get hurt...............you get over it and suck it up. I think if he could get $2 million he should run with it and don't ask questions. Maybe the guy is a little overwhelmed with his feeling of self importance, especially if he is found to be beating on women. That question should be answered before he gets a dime!
Again????????
Eggs Zachery!
Not to be overlooked is the fact that the taxpayers will be on the hook for any money this guy gets. I don't care about celebrity. I do believe in being innocent until proven guilty and I also think that heads should roll at the CBC if he wins his suit and the taxpayers have to shell out 50 million.
Nice piece from NY mag: Jian Ghomeshi and the Right to BDSM Sexuality -- The Cut
"It’s impossible for outsiders to know whether Ghomeshi’s rough sex was, in fact, consensual, and how that affects his employability. But it bears mentioning that he is not the first person to use his right to privacy and kink to shirk responsibility for allegedly harmful sexual relationships."
"It’s impossible for outsiders to know whether Ghomeshi’s rough sex was, in fact, consensual, and how that affects his employability. But it bears mentioning that he is not the first person to use his right to privacy and kink to shirk responsibility for allegedly harmful sexual relationships."
What we don't know is how his boss found out about the allegations or if the boss even explained to him there were allegations or whether he just got it through the grapevine and dumped him. Sounds like the process may have been pretty unprofessional. It's not like he was working in a small town where every one knows everyone and was f**king everyone.
My understanding is the CBC top brass met on Sunday for quite a number of hours before coming to the decision. Clearly the public does not yet have all the details but I highly doubt CBC would drop their top money draw unless they felt that keeping him was worse when looking at all the cards on the table.
Possibly but the CBC brass are not really noted for smart decision making
The CBC annouced on its news broadcast and this is not verbatim but pretty close: Information has come to light that has made the CBC decide to sever its ties with Jian Ghomeshi. There was little else until Ghomeshi went public and that left all sorts of speculation. I initially thought he might have been caught up in a child pornography sting.
This has nothing to do with being guaranteed a job or celebrity. It has everything to do with destroying someones reputation without having documented proof.
Has his reputation been destroyed? I think it might be more accurate to say his reputation is in question. I certainly don't see how the C.B.C. can be blamed, I heard their statement and it was VERY vague. I think Ghomeshi has provided 99% of the information.
Public Relations Experts recommend getting in front of a story rather than leaving it to speculation. Ghomeshi (guilty or innocent) did the only thing he could do. He got in front of it by coming out publicly about the allegations. My only surprise in this is that his lawyers have not gone after the source of his misery which is The Toronto Star.
As I said before, he might be guilty of being a predatory pig, but without anyone to file charges or complaints both in labor or even an HRC this is looking like a complete smear job and the CBC is looking like it should have waited.
Christie Blatchford's Take:
Does anyone remember the day three long years ago that the actress Mary Walsh, in full alleged character as Marg Delahunty from the CBC TV show This Hour Has 22 Minutes, appeared at the home of Rob Ford?
It was early in the morning, and Mr. Ford was with his little daughter, who was alarmed by the sight of this strangely dressed, shrieking woman, and when Ms. Walsh and her cameraman ambushed him, Mr. Ford called the police.
The story became part of smug city lore: Imagine, went this refrain, being such a bumpkin you didn’t know who Mary Walsh was and the nature of her Marg Delahunty schtick?
It was one of those moments where I loved the soon-to-be-out-of-office mayor.
But for hard news and hockey, I gave up watching the CBC decades ago, and CBC radio I consider a soporific.
That brings me to the profoundly sad story of CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi, the host of Q, who was fired by the network on Sunday after announcing just a few days before he was taking some personal time.
In a statement, the network said “Information came to [CBC’s] attention recently that in CBC’s judgment precludes us from continuing our relationship” with Mr. Ghomeshi.
Read Jian Ghomeshi's open letter posted on Facebook
Today I was fired from the company where I’ve been working for almost 14 years – stripped from my show, barred from the building and separated from my colleagues. I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision. But I am not going to do that. Because that would be untrue. Because I’ve been fired. And because I’ve done nothing wrong.
I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.
As friends and family of mine, you are owed the truth.
Read more …
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...ok-post-responding-to-being-fired-by-the-cbc/
The statement seemed deliberately designed to suggest the most dire possibilities. What, as a friend said, did the “information” show Mr. Ghomeshi was a kitten-torturer? Did the CBC learn he had been charged with child pornography offences?
So later Sunday, in what seems to have been a desperate pre-emptive strike, Mr. Ghomeshi felt the need to bare his private sexual life — via a long post on Facebook — before someone or some organization beat him to it.
(Such a creature of the CBC is he that he actually wrote that he and one ex-lover “joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady’s Giller-Prize winning book last year.” Oy vey.)
In any case, Mr. Ghomeshi succeeded by mere hours.
And cruelly, by doing it, he instead provided the Toronto Star with the hair of justification it needed to print a front-page piece about Mr. Ghomeshi and his allegedly abusive sexual practices.
The paper apparently had been working on the story for six months, had interviewed three women who allege he hurt them during sex and a fourth who claims he sexually harassed her at work, but, as Star editor Michael Cooke wrote Monday, the reason the Star didn’t publish before “was because there was no proof the women’s allegations of non-consensual abusive sex were true or false.
“They were so explosive that to print them would have been irresponsible, and would have fallen far short of the Star’s standards of accuracy and fairness.”
All that changed to send the paper rushing to print — there still is no proof — was Mr. Ghomeshi’s “extraordinary statement on Facebook” and “his high public profile in Canada,” Mr. Cooke wrote.
“We now believe it is in the public interest to detail those allegations…”
It was reminiscent of the noble cloak with which the paper also wrapped itself in some of its exposures of Mr. Ford’s many failings.
If nothing else, it ought to serve as a warning: Whenever a big story is accompanied by a “why-we’re-running-this” editor’s note, the reader ought to prepare for an onslaught of self-serving blarney.