Pavement politics

On the one year anniversary (grammar! grammar!) first anniversary of the day that CBC management tossed 5,500 production workers out on the streets, Canadian Media Guild president Lise Lareau reflects on the good, the bad and the scary that's happened since.

(T)he truth is that the long-term health of the CBC depends, more than ever, on Canadians’ commitment to public broadcasting. That means an end to government neglect of the CBC. It means real steps to fix the broadcaster’s structural problems. Because the CBC cannot afford any more bad decisions in this climate of uncertainty.

In the end, it probably makes the most sense to mark this anniversary with hope: the experiences and experiments that frontline CBC employees and their bereft audiences made together last year should stand as a model for reinvigorating public broadcasting. That’s something no private-sector behemoth can replace.

Speaking of which, CBC bloggers, some of who started up during the lockout, have banded together to sign a manifesto. (H/t to Joe Clark.) Oiumet explains the reason for it here.

Here are the rules:

If you blog about the CBC, it's assumed that you are doing so out of love and perhaps frustration.

It's only natural. The CBC is a wonderful institution with a long, proud history, going through an interesting and difficult time. By blogging about the CBC your colleagues, senior management, and the public will all be enriched by your expert opinion. Your insight, experience, and will will only help the world at large better understand a corporation that at times appears stodgy, arrogant, and faceless.

For better or for worse, you are representing the CBC when you blog about it. Keep this in mind with every word.

   1. Use common sense and don't do anything stupid. Blog to make the CBC better, not to kill it. There are plenty of others who want to do that for us.

   2. Ad hominem attacks should be avoided but disagreeing is expected.

   3. Be brave. Be honest and tell it straight. Talk about new ideas and revive some old ones. Don't be afraid to challenge the “experts,” and certainly not the anonymous ones.

   4. Use audio, video and images fearlessly, but responsibly. Use judgment if asked to take it down.

   5. Acknowledge and link to your sources. If it is a rumour, say so. If your co-worker says something you'd like blog, ask them first. If it was another website, link to it. Do your research. Be fair. Get it right. And change it if it is wrong.

   6. Blog wherever and whenever you want, but don’t let it detract from your job.

   7. Eschew advertising. Plugging the CBC, yourself, and your work is cool. Banner ads are tacky.

   8. During the next strike or lockout, you may feel urged to ignore any or all of these guidelines. Do so at your own risk, knowing that your words can harm yourself, others, and the CBC itself.

True enough on the last one. Trouble is, sometimes it's CBC's own management who does the most harm, especially lately.

UPDATE: Tod Maffin weighs in on the lockout anniversary here.

... I’m ashamed of it. I’m ashamed that it got that far and that we put ourselves at risk of losing audience share — yes, I believe ratings do matter if we are to demonstrate we’re a vital part of the Canadian dialogue.
    
And frankly, I’m not sure what was achieved.
    
I know “management” believes it won (a senior manager whom I trust told me once over drinks that the deal signed was basically what management wanted all along and that their victory came from just wearing everyone down). The Guild believes it won; today, on its web site it posted a letter from the Guild president that says “the experiences and experiments that frontline CBC employees and their bereft audiences made together last year should stand as a model for reinvigorating public broadcasting.” Don’t get me wrong — as a contract employee, I benefited directly from the Guild’s efforts, and I was proud to back them. I’m still impressed as hell at their tenacity and efforts.
    
But frankly, I neither know nor care who technically “won.” We all lost.

And here are Ouimet's:

The obvious question is: has anything changed one year later?

I think some of senior management are genuinely reaching out and trying to make things better. Not all of them are evil. Some were pretty shaken up over the whole thing, and they've taken it upon themselves to repair the damage.

But these are small victories. As a corporation, as a whole, I don't think we've learned a goddamn thing.

And when it comes to the workerbees, any effort has been a matter of too little, too late. Many of them are still angry. Some of them won't be satisfied until Stursberg and Rabinovitch are gone. I can't blame them.

The day the lockout started, one year ago, I didn't understand what was going on, or what it meant, even though I was blogging about it. Over the months to come I would learn the hard way that a lockout is very different from a strike. A lockout is a brutal, cruel, demoralizing tactic to use on your employees. Your family. One that can tear a place apart.

Others understood this better than I did. That first day, a very senior manager stopped into my office, looking beat down and worn out. He told me wearily: "This place will never be the same."

At the time I thought he was a melodramatic old fool.

But as time goes on, and the more I see, and the more people I talk to, and the more I blog, I realize he might have been right.

Any CEO who uses this tactic as a way to deal with employees has got to go. And yet, CBC president Robert Rabinovitch is still in the job.

Comments

[True North]

CBC Radio One and Two were off air for extended periods this morning (about 75 minutes for Radio One).

Can't help wonder if it wasn't an anniversary "job action"

So it's been a year since the strike, and that's reason enough to start up more disgruntled employees whining via blogs.

People who find ways to criticize their employer by making cracks in a blog are misgiuded.
When these people do so anonymously, they're cowards.

Looking at the names of the people putting forth a manifesto - who are these people?
What positions do they hold in Broadcasting in Canada?
I recognize one name - Justin Beach - who the hell is he?

Since you - AZ - seem intent on promoting the agenda of the individual named Ouimet, I'm going to assume that you are privy to the real identity of this person.
And I'm guessing that you're encouraging this person, so as to cultivate your own CBC version of "deep throat".

So both of you hunger for more power
- you can use the excuse that you're a journalist, but they have no excuse.

All those "rules" you list are a smokescreen to try and foster gossip, inside tid-bits and confidential information.

Why align yourself with such creeps, AZ?

More about that thong ...

[Allan Sorensen]

(my post was sent without identity - inadvertently)
Re: "deep throat" etc

[Allan Sorensen]

let's pretend that the 75 min. of silence was indeed "job action" (though I seriously doubt anyone could pull that off)

Who needs people at the CBC that would do something to keep it off the air?

[Antonia Z.]

To Anonymous at 9:23:

And your name would be ... ?

You know what, CBC belongs to all of us and therefore it should be able to take constructive criticism, especially from dedicated employees who know it better and love it more than careerist bureaucrats passing through.

As for hungering for power, that is utterly ridiculous. First because Ouimet, as an unknown blogger, has known. And second, because as a journalist, the best I can hope for is influence -- as in influence to focus people's attention on things that may need changing.

Thanks for stopping by anyway.

[Allan Sorensen]

OK
Let's talk "utterly ridiculous"
So you think you know the motives and character of the people behind Ouimet.
Tell me, AZ, who is Justin Beach - a dedicated CBC employee, or a leech trying to make himself important by using web pages to present himself as a "somebody' (who wishes he had a job with the CBC)
What drugs are you on when you say that "CBC belongs to all of us" - now that's ridiculous.
Apply the same to Canada Post and any other Crown Corporation, and tell me what power any of us have in dictating how these are run, and who should be working there or not.
Which part of the CBC belongs to me?
Is my share the same size as yours?
And since you and I "own" the CBC, AZ, what's going to be our policy when it comes to "our" employees gossiping anonymously on the Web behind our backs.
I haven't forgotten your friend the CBC DRONE, which is the same group effort that appears to have surfaced again with pretty much the same participants.
I'll ask you this - does the Star have a policy about confidentiality about the workplace?
Of course it does.
But since you make this hyper-mental leap that the CBC belongs to all of us, It appears that you now think all rules of ethical behaviour are out the window.

Oh yeah, did anyone tell you lately that Stephen Harper works for YOU!
In which case, could you please make him stop being such a cold fish?

[No one of consequence]

I'm curious as to why 'True North' seems to think that the blog 'Rules' provided are a smokescreen. They seem to pretty much be in keeping with people who desire a certain degree of journalistic integrity (argue all you will about how they are not journalists...it is the intention to obey similar rules that is meaningful here). It seems to me as a 'citizen' with zero affiliation to the Mothercorp (aside from being an ardent supporter of public broadcasting) that these Blogs serve as a window into a world we would otherwise *never* see or hear about beyond vague rumours. I've followed some of these blogs sporadically for a few months and I see little evidence of people taking cracks beyond the occasion when feeling run a bit high, and even then the 'cracks' are explained and given context.

As to anonimity. It is no surprise at all in a world where doocing is commonplace to employees who speak their minds in public. Newsflash: The public *OWNS* the CBC. It seems to me that as a co-owner I'd like to hear about the good and bad things going on inside so I can make more accurate assessments of how I feel about my broadcaster. When *my* company tries to give me the old stiff-arm it irks me.

[Allan Sorensen]

AARRGGHH ..
the idiocy runs rampant.
"No one of consequence" argues that since it "owns" the CBC, then ergo-facto it should be able to call the shots so far as policy.
The height of absurdity on so many levels.
Would it be fair, or "fun", if someone inside your workplace began blogging about you and your coworkers and management?
Do you think you would enjoy that experience?
Or would it eventually dawn on you that this is a form of terrorism when it's done anonymously?
What is the justification for blogging anonymously?
There is no justification - PERIOD!
Is it so that you can live vicariously by seeing what life is like on the "inside"?
What right do you have to live "inside" ANY workplace?
Oh yeah, you're one of 25 million owners!
The "manifesto" is phony, because their motives are phony.
If I want my workplace to improve, then I go to my bosses and say "here are some suggestions".
But a coward like Ouimet and its cohorts hope that their sniping will strike fear into their superiors, and that they will have scary control, along with their (wishful) throng of loyal mindless followers.
They don't deserve support. And AZ should be ashamed of promoting their agenda.
And you, NOOC, want to hear about the "bad things going on inside" so that all-imoprtant you "can make more accurate assessments of how I feel about my broadcaster". Yeah, we're all holding our breath for your assessment of - oh, did I tell you, MY broadcaster.

[Peter J.]

Allan:

If you'd looked at the blogs of the "signatories" at all, you'd have seen that most of them (not all; I guess you'd consider me a "leech") are employees of the CBC or closely linked to the Corp. Who are they, and what positions do they hold in Canadian broadcasting? They're writers, journalists, producers and managers from across the country and across the spectrum of CBC services. The only anonymous blogger in the bunch is "A. Ouimet"---at whom most of your responses seem directed---and she's chosen to remain in the shadows for valid, well-documented reasons.

Over the last year there's been very little that could be considered "whining" from any of these people, or any of the other CBC bloggers. Yes, there has been occasional criticism of the national public broadcaster, but the volume and frequency is far outweighed by discussions ranging from radio production technique to travel destinations to the weather (and what could be more Canadian than that!) to the federal election (I stand corrected... there's *nothing* more Canadian). There's even a brave soul who stood up in defense of The One.

Having witnessed its birth and contributed to its development, I'm confident in saying that the manifesto isn't about power; it's about exactly what the preamble states, helping the public "better understand a corporation that at times appears stodgy, arrogant, and faceless" by encouraging more "insiders" to get out there and talk about whatever it is they want to talk about.

The people whose names appear on the manifesto site, and the vast majority of post-lockout CBC bloggers, are anything but "disgruntled employees". I've been reading their blogs for a year, and to a person they're not only supporters of the CBC but *fans* who want to see it thrive. They're real people blogging about the sorts of things that real people blog about.

They just happen to work for and with the CBC.

[Joe Clark]

We do not have “power” to “dictate” how Crown corporations are run. However, broadcasting in Canada takes place under the ægis of the Broadcasting Act, which states, at §3(1)¶(b), “the Canadian broadcasting system... makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty.”

¶(l) states that “the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains.”

Canada Post doesn’t run on publicly-owned airwaves.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy your analogy?

[Allan Sorensen]

well, Peter J., would you be so kind as to point me in the direction of where I might discover "valid, well-documented reasons" for Ouimet's anonymity.
I think that would help me a lot.
I'll wait patiently for your justification.
This I've got to hear.
The remainder of your defense still avoids a straight answer about my other objections.
So you can stop trying to paint these self-appointed fear-mongers with a hue of innocence.
If they want to talk about their last fishing trip, be my guest, but if they start in with not having enough paperclips at the National, they've crossed a line.

[No one of consequence]

Allan,

You make a great case for why 'public' services need to be more transparent. In your apparent worldview what goes on behind the doors of any organization is no one elses business. Ironically, while this is abjectly untrue, even for private companies, it is doubly so for a 'public' corporation. Also...might I suggest you actually read postings before ranting at the posters. No where in my comments do I suggest that I should be allowed to control company policy but as that's the bee that's up your bonnet apparently maybe we should go there.

Despite your apparent insistence on the idea that we have no say in how the CBC does things I have to disagree. If I don't like what the way things are done at the dear old Mothercorp I contact my local MP and tell him so in no uncertain words...if he does nothing I *vote*, kick his ass out of office and tell my new government what I feel they should do about it. It really is that simple.

Here's an new one for you. I *ran* my own business for a decade and don't really have a problem with the idea that my employees might have mentioned things about it to people they knew on the *outside*. If I wasn't running a decent business I'd hope that I might hear about it from as many sane people as possible. The fact of the matter is I wasn't terrified of the notion that people might actually know how we did things because it wasn't ever an issue.

Apparently while I was asleep all the businesses in the world have opted for some kind of fascism wherein any dissenting opinion within them are to be silenced post haste. Thanks for the heads up.

You clearly have an axe to grind with the folks doing this *inside* blogging thing. Bully for you. How about you provide evidence that what the bloggers are doing is *fear mongering*. Apparently you are privy to all the names of people who matter at the dear old mothercorp based on your dismissive attitude to those involved. Not to mention that you simply haven't bothered looking at their blogs so they are 'no-ones'. Let's see...Maffin, freelancer, producer, writer and the guy given the 'official' CBC blog, meaning (one would assume) sanctioned by the CBC brass (maybe you didn't notice this). Mahoney, a producer, sound engineer, writer with the corp for approaching 20 years. Ouimet, anonymous, but obviously in with the corp for some time and probably involved in middle management judging from the tone of his/her commentary. Gorbould, writer and broadcaster with the corp for over a decade.

All I can see from out here is a group of people who oddly enough are passionate about their dear old corp and feel like they need to say something out loud.

At the very least lets just agree that my approval of what they are doing cancels out your outrage and we can move along on the scorecard at a zero sum thus far.

[Ouimet]

Allen -

Most of the fears you have are what the manifesto is trying to address. You ask what the policy is. There is none. That's one of the reasons we made one ourselves, and set the bar high.

And we put it on a blog, so that anyone in the world could give us suggestions on it and help us improve it, or tell us to screw ourselves. That includes you.

You might think there's more to it than that, but that's about it. To be honest I never thought anyone in CBC management would be afraid of it, or that I could get some kind of "power" through it. What would be the point?

Yes, I remember CBC Drone as well. I never learned who he really was. But I think he knew he was crossing a line, the last line in the manifesto. That's why he erased his whole blog.

As for my anonymity, it's true that it helps me be honest about some things, while hiding others. I also wonder if I might be fired for some of the things I wrote, especially during the lockout.

But I've been doing this for a year now, and I know that senior management is reading. They've never once emailed me for anything, and never asked me to stop. But you know, if they did, if they thought I was hurting the CBC with my blog, and asked me to quit it, I would.

[Peter J.]

Allan's complaints are that:

- the bloggers are anonymous. They're not, with a single exception. As for the direction in which to look for documentation, good starts would be an email from David Bazay, the late CBC ombudsman, posted at the Tea Makers website; the various interviews she's done; and the Tea Makers website itself.

- the manifesto is a "smokescreen" hiding some ulterior motive. It's anything but; it's a set of voluntary guidelines for CBC employees and associates to use pending an official policy provided by the corporation's lawyers. It's not without precedent that such a document would come from within, either: for example, Sun Microsystems' official blogging policy was originally just a post by an employee of that company.

- the bloggers are being encouraged to whine and snipe at their employer. Given that the document states exactly the opposite, that's something charitably called a leap in logic.

- the bloggers aren't famous. Other than the fact that the statement is purely subjective, why should they be? Was Mr. Sorensen famous before he started posting here? Is he now?

- the bloggers post "on the Web behind our backs" (?!). Because the web's such a notoriously private place, isn't it?

- bloggers are terrorists. Thanks for playing, lose a turn, do not pass go.

[Joe Clark]

I think Ouimet’s last sentence is imprudent at best. Perhaps it was typed in the heat of the moment, as will sometimes happen.

[cbcunderground]

I don't know why Allen Sorensen is so enraged by these CBC bloggers. They strike me as really decent people who have the best interests of the CBC at heart. But as bloggers go they are a pretty tame lot. A year after that brutal and insane lockout the same managers who threw us into the street are still running the place. Still running it into the ground. But as far as we can see none of these "Manifesto" bloggers is calling for those responsible to be held accountable for their actions. Nobody is calling for the resignations of Rabinovitch or Stursberg.Which is what most people who work for the CBC want. The only one who comes close to calling for that is the management blogger Ouimet, and that should provide a clue to what's really going on. The sad truth is that most CBC employees are either too afraid or to disillusioned to speak out. It's still a really scary place to work. As you yourself know, morale has never been worse. I mean what does it say about a place full of journalists where everyone looks over their shoulder and bites their tongue? And nobody dares tell it like it is. Could anything be more pathetic and depressing than that? But we want you and others to know that some of us aren't giving up.Even after what the CBC has done to us we still love it too much. Many disturbing questions that were raised by you and others during the lockout have yet to be answered, and one day the truth will come out. It's quite understandable that these CBC bloggers (official or not)choose not to lay blame where it belongs. But it's not OK to urge us not to air the CBC's dirty laundry as if it was some kind of private club. It's not a private club, it's a precious national institution that belongs to all Canadians, and they have a right to know what's going on, and how their tax dollars are being spent. We still want a forensic audit, and a full public inquiry. We still demand that those responsible for leading the CBC from one disaster to another be held accountable for what they've done. We still want some heads to roll. Until that happens the wounds will never heal. Knowlton Nash once wrote that he was afraid that the lockout would cause the same damage the Radio Canada dispute caused decades ago. He was right. Just as CBC Drone was right.We remember how he stuck his head out more than any other lockout blogger to try to get the truth out. We wish he had kept on blogging, but he explained why he had to quit and why he deleted his blog as an act of faith in the future. And he's still very much one of us. Sooner or later the politicians will have to pay attention to us again, and with the CBC sinking like a stone, I don't think we will have to wait too long. And when the moment comes we will be ready. The mouintain of material we have accumulated just keeps on getting bigger and bigger. And when the shit finally hits the fan don't be surprised to see a whole new generation of Drones emerge to join in the fight.Who knows maybe we can even persuade the old one to come out of retirement... Finally Antonia we would like to thank you and give you a big hug for being such a big booster of public broadcasting, and for being such an encouragement to all those who want a better CBC. You more than most people know we don't want to kill the CBC,we just want to save it by cutting the cancer out. Please keep it up. We may be hurting now, but the spirit of the lockout is still alive. Drone On!!!

[Allan Sorensen]

You guys make for interesting reading.
As you fall all over yourselves to trying to justify the indefensible.
The note by cbcunderground is fairly illustrative, and perhaps the more revealing of the posts.
We note phrases such as "air the CBC's dirty laundry" - "we ... want some heads to roll" - "we just want to save it by cutting the cancer out".
Be honest - the lot of you - that's pretty much the agenda behind this renewed promotion of drawing CBC employees out to go a blogging.
And I sense the presence of the original CBC Drone within this group - you know, the one who supposedly crossed the line, and did the honorable thing by deleting the site (as stated by Ouimet above), which now morphs into "deleted his blog as an act of faith in the future." (as stated by cbcunderground)(yeah right - also stated as saving your ass before you got caught)
It's apparent that I will not be enlightening this group any time soon. They're determined to continue their deluded crusade. They have a score to settle. Against their employer.

I'm an ardent, fervent, and passionate supporter of free speech. More specifically, the responsible exercise of said freedom.
I have a "manifesto" too. It goes something like this:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Earth shattering, isn't it?
Try applying this principle to what is being suggested by the group above.

I need a moment to deal with each of the above dissenters.

[Allan Sorensen]

How many of the above posters are using pseudonyms?
Ergot, can their comments and motives be trusted?
They view themselves as romantic masked crusaders, but are in truth, a strain of idiotic idealists. And that goes for the lot of you, because not one has foreseen the dangers that lie ahead for those who practice to deceive. And anonymity and pseudonyms are just that - deceit - concealing the truth.
You're all so full of bravado, until it's your own name under the posting.

TO: No one of consequence
You do not know the meaning of irony.
It is indeed my view that "what goes on behind the doors of any organization is no one else's business" - this is ob-ject-ively TRUE.
What happens in my company is none of your business. May I suggest you use your time to - get a life - instead.
Fell free to base your precious political vote entirely on a candidates views of the CBC. Disregard more vital issues like the war, health care and education.
Your little story that you *ran* a business - which you obviously didn't, or why else use ** around the word ran - either you did or didn't - reveals that you held little responsibility within the organization. Because only someone with a working brain would know that many things about a company are held to be confidential, and that revealing all is grounds for dismissal.
But let's try out some of your transparency, and answer me this:
what company?
what was your salary?
what profit was built into each transaction of your services?
who is the highest paid member of the staff, and what are their qualifications?
may I see the resumes of each person on staff?
what are you paying for each of the utilities that your company uses?
Answer me! I have a right to know, goddammit!

TO: Ouimet
Blogs are an expression of free speech.
All companies and organizations have a policy regarding confidential information. Hence, the CBC is within their rights to curtail and limit free speech on the part of all employees from top to bottom.
Didn't anyone tell you this when you walked in the door? Did you have to be told?
Not that it mattered. You were just going to circumvent the rule and start posting anonymously anyway, you ungrateful rebel.
Fair play is not your style.
You try to place yourself "above" others, as a "leader" of opinion, when truth be told, you're a coward. using a revered name like Ouimet to mask your self-serving plans.
You want power over others, and will resort to deceit to gain it.
You enjoy that no one knows your true identity at the CBC, a cheap thrill to enliven your dull chores and impotent influence.
You quietly hope that management et all will cower in fear of what you and your Drone cohorts are cooking up tonight for the next blog posting.
You want to control them, with fear.
You want to be so scary important that they will be forced to take time out of their lives to log in daily to see what new droppings issue forth from your venomous keyboard.
You enjoy the power to make them worry, and lose sleep.
When I run into you at the CBC, you know who I am - Allan Sorensen - but I don't know your "secret" identity, and the real possibility that you might snipe at me on your public blog if I step on your toes. You enjoy having an unfair advantage, and will use it to further your own security and career if threatened or not.
You are the epitome of an irresponsible employee.

TO: Peter J.
Using a pseudonym inherently means - "I'm saying stuff I wouldn't normally say if you knew my real identity. In my real life I wouldn't dare to say these things, because I might be asked to back them up, as if they were genuine expressions of my thoughts."
How is one person's anonymity "valid", and not anothers? Utter nonsense.
Blogging is indeed done "behind our backs", unless, that is, each blogger mails out notices to all that their droppings impinge upon, and we are forced to read their unsolicited opinions.
Even if their blogs were front page on the Star, am I forced to become a subscriber to learn what's up at work? Am I required to scan the Net every day to see if some jerk-off is writing about me?
Of course it's done behind our backs.

TO: cbcunderground
These particular Bloggers do NOT "have the best interests of the CBC at heart". Also, there is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. Bloggers have only one interest at heart - their own.
It is a self-serving enterprise to draw attention to their own brilliance and good deeds, and sometimes used to denigrate those who stand in the way of their own personal success, with only one goal in mind - to rule the world - by ruling the minds of the rubes silly enough to put credence in the rantings of an anonymous blogger.
If the workplace is scaring you, then stand up and say so, you little cry-baby, instead of going home to that "mountain of material we have accumulated" which will never see the light of day.
You want heads to roll, as long as it's not your own, right Drone?

The CBC will survive and thrive, even if every one of you Manifesto signers left the building.
And that's the truth you hope no one finds out.

[Allan Sorensen]

And hey, AZ, as for your paragon of virtue, Ouimet, in her own words:

"Ombudsman David Bazay ... said that all CBCers are subject to CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices

I violated it with nearly every post

if I were an obedient employee

If they were smart, they would hire me on as a double-dipping consultant to help them"

She knows what the CBC needs - her services. They're so special that she deserves to have TWO jobs there.
What the CBC needs is a disobedient employee who repeatedly violates Standards and Practices.

[Allan Sorensen]

Further enlightenment:
Look closely at the last posting by cbcunderground. There's something very Drone-y about it.
Could it be that, wonder of wonders, it is the Drone himself who has posted this rant?
What a wonderful fan he has in himself:
"CBC Drone was right.We remember how he stuck his head out more than any other lockout blogger to try to get the truth out. We wish he had kept on blogging, but he explained why he had to quit and why he deleted his blog as an act of faith in the future. And he's still very much one of us."
and
"don't be surprised to see a whole new generation of Drones emerge to join in the fight.Who knows maybe we can even persuade the old one to come out of retirement"

Well, you shouldn't have to look too far or try too hard, eh?

[No one of consequence]

Allan

Who I am on an internet forum is one of those things that reasonably stands as 'none of your business', the internet being what it is. I note that you have not revealed your position and qualifications (and apparently the CV required to justify comments made in such a forum), where you were born and your entire life story so we can make a fit decision about your predilections and your personal philosophical framework. Hell, you've simply plunked down a *name* on the internet and this apparently makes you a champion of truth and responsibility.

It is entirely your choice not to accept the veracity of individual's claims but pretty well spells out your desire to simply denigrate anyone here who disagrees with you.

Use of the asterisks in text might be acknowledged by several million other forum posters as an *emphasis*, just for future reference.

Although it likely is a waste of my time in your regard, for the benefit of other readers I'll give the general details.

I was the co-owner (founder/partner... whatever term fits best) of a small ISP in Ontario. Time frame: 1996 to approx 2005. At peak we had five employees and frankly didn't make much more than they did. Minute details regarding salaries and whanot are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. My partners and I sold the business in 05 after deciding we'd had enough of the uphill world of a small business in an environment of telecom giants.

Your associations of the ridiculous levels of disclosure you are suggesting with the kinds of revealing commentary made by the bloggers in question reveal how far away from reality your viewpoint in this affair is. The people in question appear to have somewhat *wholistic* (there are those crazy emphasizing symbols again) concerns about their (and yes 'our') corporation. They hope that this kind of disclosure will help people see a fuller picture of the troubles within the CBC brought in to focus by last year's lockout. That's about the shape of it. There is no grand conspiracy here to wrestle power from the lofty few, there is no concerted effort to reveal the deep dark secrets of the corp that would somehow bring shame and despair or damage the CBC in any way beyond perhaps allowing some members of the public (like myself) to form a less than stellar opinion of the management therein. But as with all things what goes around comes around.

Semi-finally (thank goodness you cry!), the people who choose the semi-anonimity of a 'handle' also do so because of the threat of 'doocing' not some idiotic (I use this term at present for lack of something less accurate) notion that it prevents them from having to back up their statements. If this small collective of individuals had such disregard for the 'manifesto' which so enrages you they'd simply line up and bad mouth the mothercorp all the live long day. The simple fact that many of them choose to be so open and honest and still remain affliated with the few anonymous successfully explodes any notions of dark intent you ascribe to them.

I'll give you one thing though. You have repeatedly harped on the idea that these folks are trying to use fear as an instrument of change. While on the face of it the idea is ridiculous in this context it does bring to mind one notion. Any organization with a clean record and a clear conscience has no fear of the truth and particularly a public corporation must be willing to provide full disclosure. The only people who would be *afraid* in these kinds of circumstances would be tyrants and liars.

[Allan Sorensen]

Ouimet has decided to do a slight re-design of her Teamakers blog, and to proudly display my name, as if I weren't famous enough.
She has also printed a recent gas emission from some old fart at the CBC.

It's a challenge to come up with content for a blog.
You have to keep feeding it, or the audience will lose interest and eventually the exercise becomes irrelevant.
That's often what prompts an individual to start a blog - they feel their lives are without sufficient importance or purpose, their jobs and home-life an empty, meaningless experience.
In the case of Ouimet, we encounter the added dimension of creating a fake persona to accomplish a more nefarious end - justified by the pretentious goal of saving the CBC from itself. A dangerous do-gooder who, in truth, yearns for more more power and acclaim.
And the world has a bountiful supply of fools who will buy into just about anyone's ego trip, from Charles Mason to Donald Trump.

Bloggers are essentially losers in the game of life. They want more attention, more affection, more clout.
We see more and more of them as computers and software become accessible, and bored viewers turn to the Internet for a quick fix of something that is relevant to their lives.
Communicating over this vast network of telephone wires has become almost routine for many people.
But a few have discovered that society cannot keep up with the incredible changes and opportunities that newer technology has afforded us.
Cellphones, for example, are everywhere, and have impacted both driving skills and the workplace, yet society continues to struggle with finding appropriate ways to implement a new set of rules for their responsible use.
So too, the Internet.
It didn't take long for some to discover that their identity could be hidden behind fake email addresses and multiple I.P. locations, and that the revered printed word could still really hurt and damage others.
But of course it has already gone way beyond what the average naive reader realizes or understands is taking place.

Even as the reach of the Internet flourishes at lightening speed, laying waste to old forms of media, few have come forward to alert its users of the extent to which they will be exploited by those of lesser ethics and morals.

There is nothing ethical, moral or good about an anonymous blogger. They can be intriguing, true, yet are despicable nonetheless.
Wearing a mask is signature of both super-heroes and criminals.
The only super-heroes wearing masks in real life are those such as a nurse treating SARS, all others are only found in comic-books.
In real life, it's only hoodlums and thieves who don disguises.

Ouimet is part of a small minority of abusers of free speech on the Internet.
It always astonishes and disappoints me that people will fall prey to such dangerous, selfish and self-appointed so-called journalists.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

GEEZ! I am REALLY HAPPY I have missed this thread.

This Allan seems to be from the ditch of the trolls to me? That is all. Over and out!

[Allan Sorensen]

Anonymous bloggers about the CBC are an outgrowth of the lockout, and one that you encourage and promote and lend credence to on your own blog.
My remarks are intended not just for you, but the others who share their thoughts as well.
And apparently they want to respond as evidenced above.
Sorry if the task you've set out for yourself is causing a breakdown.

[Allan Sorensen]

Post it or not ...
It was you who offered up Ouimet and her gang as being credible and worthy of everyone's attention, but now it's apparently about something else - so shoo away Allan - even while Ouimet is taking a quote from this thread and posting my name on her (or is it his?) site, in the hope of - accomplishing what?
I'm proud to be there. And I accomplished it in only a few days, and without breaking the law. I find it immeasurably amusing. I utterly adore a good joke. The humour of life amidst all the tragedy.
Yet some jokes are kind of sad too.
Such as abuse and perversion of internet communications.
For some people it's fun, but somebody could get hurt.
I've been hurt.
Not by Ouimet, that's laughable, but another time at another sector on the internet.
By someone using a pseudonym. And being brilliant, took it one step further. And created several pseudonyms, who could dialogue with one another, and draw in the unsuspecting.
The tactic even has a name - guerrilla marketing.
It can be done either by building a web site, such as those by Justin Beach, or inserting yourself into a topical public forum under one or several fake identities.
Anonymous blogs are part and parcel of this new "underground", as they like to think of themselves.
Your site is a prime target for this kind of mischief.
And because of the ever increasing flow of chatter that you have to monitor, things sometimes slip by before you can see them for what they are.
Didn't you think that I made a credible case for saying that you had posted the words of the CBC DRONE writing ABOUT the CBC DRONE?
That's guerilla marketing. It's dishonest.
Not everyone engaging in a Canadian dialogue is a mild-mannered, sweater-wearing, pipe-smoking Maritimer. Some are wearing hoods.
You've fanned the fervor of both Ouimet's Teamaker site, and The CBC Drone, encouraging them to reveal inside information, plain and simple.
And encouraged others to follow suit.
And this is all about the lockout, and job action, and trying to topple the top administrators.
You're on their team.
On the side of the downtrodden - just as I am.
But guerrilla marketing is reprehensible.