203: Beloved CTV Anchor Lisa LaFlamme's Botched Firing by Bell Media

Ageism, sexism, management arrogance and incredibly poor messaging followed by continued bull by management. That was one of the many direct messages I received on social media about Bell Media's ousting of a middle aged Grain media maven. The maven savvy video reply and this middle aged grain maven's opinion oh Canada. Welcome to the indestructible PR podcast where we use current events and tested media and PR strategies to help prevent or manage a crisis and build an indestructible reputation. In this episode, the many mistakes made by those ding dongs at Bell Media. Hey Molly, this story has all your favorite elements. Management, mishandling the situation. The anchor went straight to the public with her story and then the management doubles down on the mistake. Thank you very much to my former roommate, Canadian from Toronto, Stephanie, who sent me that message along with several other messages, along with several other messages from people who clearly have a read on the work that I do. This story about Lisa Laflemme, this popular, incredibly popular anchor on CTV for US listeners, I want you to think if we have to go in TV land, if you think of GE owning NBC and Jack Donaghy played by Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey, that would be the structure which seems really to correlate with what Bell Media did with this ousteen of this media powerhouse, Lisa Laflem, because they turned it into a comedy with how they reacted to it. But even though that this I shouldn't say, but even though this happened in Canada, but even though this happened maybe on a network that many of my US listeners wouldn't be familiar with, the idea of anchors being let go and there being a blowback behind it is quite familiar with many people and based on how old you are, we've gone through the ousting of Ann Curry on NBC and that if rumor is correct that Matt Lauer was behind that ousting. And then there was the ousting of Matt Lauer himself. I had discussed the Matt Lauer ousting in my podcast. Been a couple years now. I'll include a link in the show notes. Matt Lauer was also ousted due to behavior that he was doing behind the scenes where he was having affairs with people in positions where he was in a superior position to them, with producers and the like. Then of course there's Brian Williams. I'm on an NBC role here. He was accused of lying and lose his job, but he lost the helm at the head of NBC News and they demoted him down to MSNBC where he quietly retired earlier this year. And there are many other stories about this as well, but in this case up in Canada, Bell Media making the decision, the rather abrupt decision to terminate an award winning anchor, Lisa Laflem. So she has been a beloved newscaster journalist. And based on the comments, particularly on my TikTok tock, everyone is in support of this woman. There was maybe just like 1 or 2 comments where someone said, hey, it's a business. A private company has a right to hire and fire whomever they choose. Which is absolutely true. But in my reply, which is what this podcast is about, is not only does a business have a right to make a decision, but they're public. And in this case, the viewers also have a right to make their decision. And that decision could be costly if they choose to no longer watch a CTV newscast. And that is going to impact Bell Media's bottom line, because without viewers, you can't have advertising. Without advertising dollars means you don't have dollars and you don't have revenue. And if you don't have revenue, you can't stay in business. Recently I was watching broadcast television on CBS Sunday Morning and they had released in one of the bumpers they said for the first time ever, streaming overtook broadcast media. When it comes to televised consumption. That is ringing an alarm bell that people are leaving broadcast television, in particular broadcast news. And so those ding dongs at Bell Media made a decision to get rid of an anchor. And what it appears to have happened is that they got rid of her at a time when, after the pandemic, she decided to go gray. She is someone in her mid-50s who decided to go natural. Every woman should be allowed to go natural. They allowed to go natural on the air. What's particularly unnerving about this for people like me? Oh, I don't know. A woman of a certain age who could easily go gray as well, that she was let go for other reasons and likely she did not know the reason. So in this podcast, I don't want to drill down too much in what happened because there are a lot of other articles and stories out there and podcasts that I've listened to that go into the details of why they bungled this from a management point of view. I want to focus on the messaging and the statement that Bell Media put out, why it was a bad statement, why it created such a blowback. And people on TikTok asked me, well, what would you do if you could write the statement? And I get asked that question a lot. On TikTok in particular, there's one follower where mutuals on TikTok. His name is Michael Jam and he's a screenwriter. He's a comedy writer. And whenever I do an analysis of a bad crisis, he always writes in because he's a writer that says, well, what would you do? What would you say? And if I did that in every TikTok, I would giving away my trade secrets. But we're going to get a lot closer to those trade secrets on this episode of the podcast. So let's discuss first what Lisa did that was so amazing in this almost like retaliatory move for being ousted. Because it is true. It has one of my favorite elements, and that is that Lisa Laflem did not go quietly into the night. Apparently, if there's a truth behind this, which by the way, this is why social media is great, people will send you direct messages. They claim that they work at these places and they give you the inside scoop. I can only take them for their word, but I can't take it as truth and gospel. But I'll sprinkle in what I think is happening here. But she is respected by her news colleagues, so the fact that she has been let go was surprising. And in my TikTok, so many of them mentioned that at CTV there has been a legacy of allowing men and male anchors to stay on the air to the very, very end where they can retire to much fanfare. This business decision, as stated by Bell Media, was designed likely to change the viewer habits. Somewhere someone said there was a focus group where maybe one person said, oh, I don't like seeing the gray hair. That decision made by a younger male and perhaps another female. We don't know. Like I said, I can only go off what I've read here. But when we get into this idea of sexism and ageism, there is this assumption that young people don't want to see older people reading the news or older women in particular reading the news, or there's a problem with seeing women with gray hair reading the news. I think what they're going to find, why this is such an ill advised decision, even if there was a focus group, if there was someone that said that it's not believable that someone of a certain age can deliver. I can't even say it. It's so ridiculous to think it, but it's such a backward way of thinking. Because you know what, young people don't watch the news anyway. They don't. They don't watch broadcast news. They get their news in other places. So if it were me, if I were a news director, which, by the way, was I very much wanted to be. This is someone who you would revere. This is someone you have built up so much trust and viewer trust and loyalty in a person. There would be no reason to get rid of that person simply because they started to age and then to replace them with a younger male colleague with no explanation whatsoever. So that is one of the reasons why this message and why the response didn't work. There isn't any transparency in it. We don't know why they did it. There's a lack of transparency around the termination of her contract, not just in the newsroom, but with the broadcaster herself. She didn't know. And as she stated in her video statement, she was blindsided. So when this happened, she did something that I love. She went straight to social media to tell her side of the story. I'm not going to play the entire video, but I'm going to take a little bit of a snippet and if you want to hear the whole thing, the link is in the show notes. Take a listen to what Lisa Laflamme had to say about her ouster. Hello, everyone. Today, with a range of emotions, I'm sharing with you some information about me and my career with CTV News. For 35 years, I have had the privilege of being welcomed into your homes to deliver the news on a nightly basis. So I felt you should hear this directly from me. On June 29, I was informed that Bell Media made a, quote, business decision to end my contract, bringing to a sudden close my long career with CTV News. That amazing video which goes on to explain how much she loved her time there and how she connected with these viewers. It really was a work of art. It's a masterpiece. I loved every second of it and I'm going to use it in my trainings. That meant that Bell Media needed to respond. So when people ask, how would I respond to the statement, the first question that you have to ask and you have to determine what are we respond rating too. Now, if I worked for Bell Media, I would have rolled out this departure much differently. Well, first, I would not have let her go. But let's say there's the ratings that back it up. Let's say there's focus groups that back it up. Let's say it's time for her to move on again. I don't know. It's time for the woman to move on and why these men can stay there forever. But such is. But let's say it's time to move on. The statement that you need to provide is one that is equal to the trust and loyalty that the anchor has clearly on my tits. Tock replies, alone, this woman was beloved. People loved her. The statement needs to reflect the love and admiration that people have for her. That's what it needs to speak to. So if the statement was announcing that she would be retirement, you would work in concert with the employee who was let go. You would want to ensure that that employee is leaving with the least amount of anger possible. Yes. Being let go is going to stun anyone. Okay. But we can look to Brian Stetler. He was from cnn. He was let go the week prior cnn. The new president of cnn, Chris Licht, who replaced Jeff Zucker, also did a podcast about him. He's cleaning house at cnn. Jeffrey Toobin, another one, who was shown the door finally, by the way. But he was looking at. He was looking at ratings. He was looking at numbers, at all the statements coming out of cnn. They talked about the why, the why it happened. They explained why it happened. The numbers weren't there. In Bell Media's case, they're not explaining why a beloved anchor was let go. So if they did it correctly, that first statement would one, you want to acknowledge what is happening and then you want to show empathy. You want to show that there is a victim. In this case, it's the anchor, it's Lisa LaFlamme. So she is going to be a sympathetic victim that we want to show and express as much empath as we can in sympathy to what happens. You want to describe the values. You know, we are a broadcaster that believes in whatever truth, transparency, trust, you know, whatever it is. And that's why we want to be open with you to explain why we had to make the decision that we did. But our continued commitment to provide the news in our. Whatever their mission statement is, that's what the sentence, that's what the statement should have been. They should have acknowledged what happened. They should have acknowledged that Lisa Laflem was a beloved broadcaster. Her. And acknowledge whatever the reason is behind her departure. But I can't write the statement because nobody knows what it is. We can assume what the dismissal was all about, but we really don't know. But let's move on now to the statement that they needed to make, which was less of a statement and more of an apology. It needed to be an apology for what they did because someone was wronged Lisa Laflem. But also other people were harmed. Okay? Other people were victimized. And by that I mean other people were hurt. People do not like losing trusted members of a broadcast, a nightly broadcast. And also, you want to know who else was hurt? If you look in my comments, a lot of women of a certain age, a lot of women with gray hair of a certain age, they were hurt. It rattles people. Okay, so they said in this statement they needed to explain why this happened. So this statement was pretty much a backpedal, if you were to read it. So let just give you an excerpt here. The first sentence, We've been dealing with a difficult and high profile change in recent days. The next statement. In a news organization making a change at the anchor desk is always a difficult decision. We knew that many viewers and members of the CTV family would be disappointed that Lisa Laflem would be leaving her position as chief news anchor and senior editor. She has made an important contribution to Canadian television news over the past 35 years. CTV regrets that the way in which the news of her departure has been communicated may have left viewers with the wrong impression about how CTV regards Lisa and her remarkable career. We've always taken matters regarding any discrimination very seriously and are committed to a safe, inclusive and respectful work environment for all our employees, devoid of any toxic behavior consistent with our policies. We are taking steps to initiate an independent third party internal workplace review of our newsroom which will take place over the following weeks. Now, if you look at the framework that I just mentioned where you acknowledge what happened and you show empathy, your values, approach and your commitment, you saw right there, you heard it, they are committed, committed to their, you know, they talked about their policies and they take the matters regarding discrimination very seriously and are committed to a safe and inclusive and respectful work environment. Now, as written, is that a well written statement? Well, sure, it's well written. It's written by someone who knows how to write. The problem is no one believes it. No one believes it. So if you create a well written statement that hits all the points, but it is not rooted in truth or transparency or even answers the question of why it happens, then it's a botched statement. And that is exactly what happened. And that's the reason why it was botched. So how do you put together the statement? Now, in my opinion, when people ask me, what would you write, I would not be writing this well structured statement for what happened because I don't think the statement needed to take into account what happened. What they needed to do was apologize to Lisa Laflem and also to all of the viewers when they are talking about a statement where they take allegations of Discrimination very seriously. It means they're not taking the allegations very seriously because they're doubling down, that they didn't do anything wrong and they very much did. And taking steps to initiate a third party internal workplace review. That is a big bucket of who cares? Nobody cares. Nobody cares that you have a toxic workplace and you're going to fix it. You should have done that. That is the mistake that so many businesses make is that double down mentality. They're not going to admit that they were wrong. So my answer is, what would the statement sound like? Well, that statement would sound something like an apology be. It's a communication tool and a strategy to remediate a mistake. They made a mistake. They have to manage this bad news, the blowback and a huge reputational risk. They need to do it quickly. They did not do it. It shouldn't be done reflexively, like, oh, we apologize, we made a mistake. And you can't do that for legal reasons as well. Because I would assume that there's probably some legal dealings that are happening here. The fact that Lisa Laflamme got on social media to tell her side of the story, it makes you wonder, is an NDA, Was there a non disclosure agreement in place where she couldn't talk about it? Clearly not. Or maybe she just defied it. I mean, we don't know. So when lawyers are involved, they have this almost toxic reaction, this allergic reaction to apologies. They don't like them. And I know this first ad because the client said it to me not a week ago. We don't want to apologize, but ineffective. An apology really is like take the word apology out of it. I know that that word like creates a lot of stress for people when they hear it. Let's SW swap. Full apology for full responsibility. Okay. And you have to be unequivocal in accepting full responsibility for something. So now write the statement. You've let go a beloved broadcaster. There's no going back. Like, they can't bring her back. I mean, it's done. She's not coming back anyway. But what can you do to regain the trust of your viewers? Because that's what happened. The public, they've lost the trust of the public. But in any crisis, you've also created a reputational risk that is creating a cost to a lost reputation. Okay? This is a money cost. Because if Bell Media has a company that's losing viewers, if CTV can't get viewers anymore and they've lost viewers on their newscast, they can't sell advertising. If there are no ad Dollars, they can't make money. And if they don't make money, heads are going to roll. So these apologies, they can be a huge roadblock when someone doesn't want to do it, if management doesn't want to apologize for it. But if a mistake was made, it helps you remediate right away and regain the trust. It also, if you apologize, it reduces liability, it reduces the chance for litigation. Because Lisa Laflamme right now, if she were to litigate, how would the public respond to that? Probably very positively right now. She's probably talking to lawyers right now. The apology truly though is it has to be a strategic business decision. Yes, but. But an effective apology is strategic. Okay. And it's okay to admit that you're not apologizing just because it's the right thing to do. You're apologizing because strategically it makes sense that you need to do that. So that's how I can talk to people, because people feel they're too vulnerable if they apologize. Okay, fine, you feel that way. I get that. But look at it as a strategic business move. Okay? Think about what function would a public apology serve in the case of Bell Media? Well, it would help the relationship, the fractured one, with, with lam. It would also tell the viewers that we heard what they had to say, we heard you, we'll listen to you. You would learn that what the organization did was wrong. What Bell Media did, how they fired her and let her go was wrong. Especially when they haven't done that to male anchors in the past. Now would an apology matter? Well, yeah, it would. It may rang 10 to a lot of people and they may not appreciate it, but there are going to be some people at least will create the road back to redemption if you admit that you were wrong. Now, apologies work when you take full respons and that you assume that the viewers see that what you did was wrong. Letting a middle aged woman with graying hair go and replace her with a male anchor, well that's just wrong. It just is wrong. And you have to offer solutions that have a significant impact like that. What can you do now? You could bring her back in a different role. I mean, who knows if she would ever do that. But you need to let people know that it's never going to happen again. Again. And you can only do that if you have an effective apology with the right tone and the right message. Okay, so here we go. What would the statement sound like? Well, one, it would be a detailed account of the situation. You would need to explain precisely what happened. And then you would have to immediately acknowledge the hurt or the damage was done. Six months ago, we conducted research that indicated that our viewers were no longer responding to our current team. After many months of reviews, we decided that we needed to make that change. And that change was going to be by replacing the anchor, Lisa LaFleur, our managing editor and nighttime anchor. We acknowledge that that was a mistake because we hurt not only a longtime beloved colleague, but also all of the viewers who trusted and respected our news organization. We know. We acknowledge that we lost your trust by letting go of someone who was a trusted journalist. We recognize that we made a mistake and we regret the hurt that we caused all of our viewers, but in particular the hurt that we caused Lisa Laflen, especially considering the 35 years that she is devoted to this newscast and to ctv. We're asking somehow for forgiveness, and we promise you to the viewer that we're never going to let that happen again if there isn't salient reason why. And then there needs to be some form of retribution. You know, they're not going to can the new anchor, but I don't know how this new anchor is even going to work anyway. But that's the type of statement, and that's what it should sound like. Okay? You have to apologize for how you handled the intention announcement. You do not double down on how difficult it was for Bell Media to make this decision. It was signed by two people, a man and a woman, and they both had to double down on it. And then there was a news director, a male, who was apparently behind this decision. And it sounds like these are three people who do not want to admit that they were wrong. And the reason why that statement is wrong is this is the first sentence. So my indestructible tip is this. If you are writing a statement where you are responding to a crisis, look at that first line. Who are you writing that first line for? Is it about you or is it about the victim? If you write that first line about yourself in the case of Bell Media, where they said, we've been dealing with a difficult and high profile change in recent days, then you are almost guaranteeing that your crisis is going to continue into the foreseeable future. Future. But if that first line acknowledges the hurt and the pain, or whatever your role is and responsibility in that crisis, you are going to put forth the steps that you need for an effective response for retribution. Not retribution, for restoration, for repair. You have to own it, and you have to start it by owning it. And usually owning it to the hurt that you've caused to the victim. Victim. That's all for this week on the podcast. Here's a little postscript. Don't fire women of a certain age, especially women who have raised kids, women who have been through, you know, raising kids till they're out of the house, women who have been by the side of a partner, women who have started careers in a time when they were always the minority and still considered minority. Women, especially women of a certain age, can be your best resource. My goodness, I am on the last legs of raising kids and I feel like my brain right now is in tip top shape. I've never been smarter. I've never been quicker. This entire podcast came from a bunch of notes, really came from my head. And why am I able to do that is because I have been juggling this type of work, being a parent and working and working through the trenches and going through a lot of it, like a lot of women have. So whether it's dealing with just parenting or strife or sick parents or divorce or sick kids, you know, whatever it is, women are used to dealing with the hard. I mean, we all are men too. But you know what women we know. So if you have a woman in your business and she has been through it, you do not let her go when she is at her prime because she is going to be the resource. She is going to be the person that is going to bring so much value to your business. And if you cut her down, well, then frankly, you deserve to go down with it. All right, that's all for this week on the podcast. Thanks for listening, everyone. We'll see you again next week. Bye for now.