Lisa LaFlamme 'blindsided' by cancellation of contract with CTV

6 views
Skip to first unread message

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 16, 2022, 5:10:14 AMAug 16
to
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/lisa-laflamme-ctv-blindshided-1.6551628

I haven’t watched CTV News that late (it’s past
my bedtime!) in a decade, but I feel this is a
misogynistic move by CTV. Lisa LaFlamme was/is
one of the best.

Should I get insomnia, I won’t be watching CTV
News.

--
HRM Resident

lucretia

unread,
Aug 16, 2022, 4:31:09 PMAug 16
to
I have heard it said for all she tweeted a pathetic post saying she
was taken aback and didn't know why, she does know why. Meh! It's
owned by Bell so don't know why she expected better. I never watch CTV
anyway, quite like Global if all else fails.

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 5:49:08 AMAug 17
to
I, too, stopped watching CTV 12-15 years ago. Two
reasons. Mike Duffy and Steve Murphy. Just watch
Global locally these days. Everything else comes
from the Internet, and that’s scant too.

They posted her roughly 2-minute video on
CBC’s website. It was OK. To be blunt, I believe that
the reason they got rid of her was that she
was showing her age. I found her one of the best
reporters in her prime. I never watched her read
the news. It was a sexist move by Bell/CTV because
she was not “eye candy” for the male audience.

That’s the creepy thinking that drives society
in the 21st century. It’s a male-dominated world,
and that makes me sad. But there’s nothing we
can do. I thought we had moved beyond that,
but it’s regressing.

--
HRM Resident

lucretia

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 6:55:26 AMAug 17
to
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 09:49:06 -0000 (UTC), HRM Resident
<hrm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>lucretia <lucreti...@fl.it> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 09:10:12 -0000 (UTC), HRM Resident
>> <hrm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> snip
>
> I, too, stopped watching CTV 12-15 years ago. Two
>reasons. Mike Duffy and Steve Murphy. Just watch
>Global locally these days. Everything else comes
>from the Internet, and that’s scant too.

You can't much lower than that pair!
>
> They posted her roughly 2-minute video on
>CBC’s website. It was OK. To be blunt, I believe that
>the reason they got rid of her was that she
>was showing her age. I found her one of the best
>reporters in her prime. I never watched her read
>the news. It was a sexist move by Bell/CTV because
>she was not “eye candy” for the male audience.
>
> That’s the creepy thinking that drives society
>in the 21st century. It’s a male-dominated world,
>and that makes me sad. But there’s nothing we
>can do. I thought we had moved beyond that,
>but it’s regressing.

Add to that the hockey scandal - how regressive is it to take the kids
fees and put some aside to cover law suits? The very old fashioned
concept that 'boys will be boys' arrrgggghhh

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 9:44:54 AMAug 17
to
On 2022-08-17 7:55 a.m., lucretia wrote:

>
> Add to that the hockey scandal - how regressive is it to take the kids
> fees and put some aside to cover law suits? The very old fashioned
> concept that 'boys will be boys' arrrgggghhh

I believe we humans are a of "two steps ahead and
one step back" society. By ahead, I mean the adoption
of progressive ideas that replace old, traditional
practices that stagnate everything.

In the 60s and 70s, we probably made three steps
forward! Neocons and RWAs seethed, but couldn't get the
genie back into the bottle (i.e. women reaching equality,
sharing of the wealth, social programs. tolerance of
minorities, increased immigration, etc.)

Then along came the Reagan/Thatcher era. This was the
one step back, and the break the Neocons were waiting
for. It didn't happen overnight, but the policies they
set in motion lead to the mess we see today. Trump is
not the problem, per se, but rather someone who seized
the opportunity to do the dirty work the Neocons were
dreaming of.

Take the USA out of it. Boris Johnson and Stephen
Harper are also products or Neocon thinking. We may
be getting another one of our own in the persona
of Poilievre in a year or two.

As I see it, the cycle of "two steps ahead and
one step back" doesn't have a clear time frame. Each
"step" might be a decade or a century. Regressive,
"keep it the old way" policies and thinking always lose,
but not always in the short term.

Right now, the Necons are in the drivers seat, and
are trying their best to reverse the progress of the 60s
to the 80s. It's going to a rough road ahead for most
of the middle class, lower class, women and minorities.

At some point, another 60s style cultural revolution
will happen. A bigger one with more progress that we can
imagine, but I don't think any of us will live to see it.
The Neocons need to screw things up to the point where
the vast majority of the population turn on them. There
will be tough times and suffering by many, but humanity
has proven throughout history that we always move
toward a more equitable and just society. The question
we face now, "is when?"

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 10:03:21 AMAug 17
to
That's a very good analysis and summary of how we got to
where we are today. I see a risk of it getting much worse
before it gets better.

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 10:40:21 AMAug 17
to
On 2022-08-17 11:03 a.m., James Warren wrote:

>
> That's a very good analysis and summary of how we got to
> where we are today. I see a risk of it getting much worse
> before it gets better.
>

Thank you. While the majority are concerned/alarmed
at the direction humanity is heading, there hasn't been
a "Let them eat cake" moment. No one is willing to do the
heavy lifting it will take to get rid of the Neocons. I
believe most feel it's a "phase" and that it will go away
on its own. It won't, or at least it never has throughout
history.

Unfortunately, some future generation(s) will have to
fight for the "two steps forward." The 1960s was all robins
and roses for the progressive movement. Many were beaten,
imprisoned, assassinated, etc., to get equality and to
provide most of us with our fair share of the pie.

I believe the current generations think that the reversal
will come without pain and suffering. Sadly, they have not
looked at the past and are naive to think "this too will pass
if we just wait it out." A rude awakening is in store for
those with this mindset.

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 11:17:32 AMAug 17
to
The historical view of humanity used to be much longer than
one lifespan. It is much faster now. There may be great
changes ahead over the next few generations. The near
future is perched on a knife edge. It may be very good
or very bad with just a slight nudge. I won't be here
to see it. If you have grandkids, their future may be
bleak or wonderful. It is impossible to predict which.

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 11:43:55 AMAug 17
to
On 2022-08-17 12:17 p.m., James Warren wrote:

>snipped to correct typo<

>> fight for the "two steps forward."  The 1960s was NOTall robins

>snipped to correct typo<
>
> The historical view of humanity used to be much longer than
> one lifespan. It is much faster now. There may be great
> changes ahead over the next few generations. The near
> future is perched on a knife edge. It may be very good
> or very bad with just a slight nudge. I won't be here
> to see it. If you have grandkids, their future may be
> bleak or wonderful. It is impossible to predict which.
>

Very true. The Internet has made the masses aware of
what is going on. The printing press times 100,000,000.

It's good to have the "I'll be dead" escape route.
Unless someone starts a nuclear war soon, we'll be OK. That's
the gotcha. Regardless of whether the Neocons or Progressives
dominate the narrative in the future, it's hard to imagine
someone not using nukes or another WMD in the next 50-100
years. MAD saved us because only the superpowers had the
capability. Now nutbars are getting it, and once every
country has the capability to destroy most or all of life on
Earth, it's hard to imagine some cornered rat won't do it.

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 11:58:27 AMAug 17
to
This is the scenario suggested over 50 years ago for why
we have not discovered extraterrestrials yet. They self
destruct before we have a chance to detect them.

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 12:41:09 PMAug 17
to
On 2022-08-17 12:58 p.m., James Warren wrote:

>
> This is the scenario suggested over 50 years ago for why
> we have not discovered extraterrestrials yet. They self
> destruct before we have a chance to detect them.

Yes, a possible answer to the Fermi paradox. I tend
to think it's more likely to be something else. My leading
conjectures are:

(1) The temporal and spacial differences between Earth and
any planets outside our solar system

(2) Other extra terrestrial species likely want nothing to
do with us.

The "everything evolves to self destruct" theory is a
possibility, but seeing as I got some sleep last night,
I am in too optimistic a mood today to out this high
on the list.

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 1:05:27 PMAug 17
to
On 2022-08-17 1:41 PM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 2022-08-17 12:58 p.m., James Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> This is the scenario suggested over 50 years ago for why
>> we have not discovered extraterrestrials yet. They self
>> destruct before we have a chance to detect them.
>
>     Yes, a possible answer to the Fermi paradox.  I tend
> to think it's more likely to be something else.  My leading
> conjectures are:
>
> (1) The temporal and spacial differences between Earth and
> any planets outside our solar system

Yeah, this seems most likely. The time during which advanced broadcasts
into space before doing everything on the internet is far too
short to be detectable. Also, the vast distances are too great
for anything other than robots to traverse.

>
> (2) Other extra terrestrial species likely want nothing to
> do with us.

Biological life may be just a stepping stone to the real
intelligence in the universe. We're beginning to explore
than now with AI.

>
>     The "everything evolves to self destruct" theory is a
> possibility, but seeing as I got some sleep last night,
> I am in too optimistic a mood today to out this high
> on the list.
>

Still on the list though.

lucretia

unread,
Aug 17, 2022, 1:09:30 PMAug 17
to
Yes indeed - a good summary - and I agree with you but thankfully I
doubt I am going to see it at it's worst :)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages