A few weeks ago our collective attention was drawn to CBC's new look and style for The National and Newsworld - now CBC News Network. We all know what happened. Through this wee column alone, there was an outpouring of dismay.
The new look and stand-up style on The National drew derision, and the apparent emphasis on colour, swirling graphics and itsy-bitsy stories caused many of you, and me, to conclude the CBC had galloped away on another creative misadventure.
Right. Well, last week, my attention was drawn to InsideTheCBC.com which I gather is an "official" CBC blog. There it is reported that at some event to explain the state of things to CBC staff in Vancouver, Richard Stursberg, chap in charge of all TV and radio, dismissed criticism of the new Newsworld and new National format. He called the criticism "pathetic" and claimed it "revolves around whether people are standing or sitting."
He also said, standing up presumably, and I checked the accuracy of these quotes with CBC: "One thing we should remember is that the papers are owned by our competitors ... so I think you can draw your own conclusions about where they are going."
Well excuse us. No, seriously, excuse us for having an opinion and engaging at all with CBC's adventures in new formats. We should just shut up. And, yes, acknowledge, as I do now, that every Monday, representatives of The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star and Maclean's meet to determine how we're going to undermine the CBC during the week. The meeting takes place at the Royal York Hotel, 10 a.m., usually. Ask anybody. By the way, the National Post was once part of the meetings but can't afford the cab fare or even the TTC fare these days.
Stursberg can claim that newspapers are biased until he's blue in the face, for all I care. But here's the thing - the CBC's own website was inundated with complaints and criticism from CBC viewers. Are they dismissed as "pathetic?"
Further, the criticism of the shambles that was the first few days of the new National was only superficially focused on "whether people are standing or sitting." Besides, the stand-around-routine looked awkward, under-rehearsed and it was as plain as a poke in your eye that some reporters were uncomfortable with it.
What really disturbs people about the new format of The National is the emphasis on the shallow and the inconsequential. Information is presented as a news story but it amounts to mere seconds of footage with one- or two-sentence summaries.
Last Thursday night, mere seconds were devoted to the Prime Minister's trip to Asia, mere seconds to Prince Charles in Canada and mere seconds to a story about Facebook providing an alibi for somebody. It was a fast, nonsensical list.
Later, there was an item that's emblematic of the new National. Lifestyle, news-you-can-use stuff. Kelly Crowe did a report on products that claim to help prevent being afflicted by H1N1. Fair enough. On the screen was a "need to know" list. It included this: "If claims seem too good to be true, they probably are." You don't say. Was there a team of researchers and producers on that one? Now, if some CBC exec wants to throw around the word "pathetic," they could throw it at that sort of alleged reporting.
There was also a report on the new guidelines for Canadian citizenship tests. A very superficial gist was offered and then, inevitable with the new-format National, a "streeter" - people on the street in Ottawa were asked their opinion. Some had absolutely nothing to say but muttered platitudes. There was an absolute absence of any thought about the meaning of the new guidelines. What sort of Canada does it present to new citizens? What can be extrapolated in a cultural sense?
And there's the rub - weeks after the new-format National was launched, the emphasis on the superficial is all too clear. I know that. You know that. But what do we know, really? We're "pathetic."
Memo to Richard Stursberg - the CBC belongs to all of us and we're all entitled to input without being met by insults and arrogant dismissal.
******
Airing tonight
Battle of the Blades (CBC, 8 p.m.) ends with the results show tonight. Razzle-dazzle and drama are promised. Whatever. Not my kind of thing. Battle of the Blades is a cute gimmick but creaky. It represents the Canada of small "c" conservative - past-it NHL players, smiling figure skaters, Ron MacLean's puns, Tim Hortons and, possibly Stephen Harper in his sweater.
Gossip Girl (A, 8 p.m., the CW, 9 p.m.) no longer has the sizzling buzz, but it does have devoted followers. Tonight: "Blair tries to impress students at NYU with a private Lady Gaga concert; Serena turns to Nate for support during a difficult situation; Jenny agrees to do a favour for Chuck." The people really paying close attention to Gossip Girl are those at the Parents Television Council. Last week's "threesome" storyline continues tonight with flashback scenes. The Council says it is "anxious" to see it. Quite so. J.D.
Check local listings.