Durchgesickertes Audio des CBC -Disziplinarentreffens mit dem ehemaligen Fernseher Travis Dhanraj
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cbc-travis-dhanraj-disciplinary-meeting
Durchgesickertes Audio des CBC -Disziplinarentreffens mit dem ehemaligen Fernseher Travis Dhanraj
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cbc-travis-dhanraj-disciplinary-meeting
8 Kommentare
You’d have to believe Dhanraj’s motives were completely pure to believe he was „simply doing his job.“
Pretty clear there are some personal motives involved well beyond his professional role as a journalist.
So the reporter in question secretly makes a recording of his disciplinary hearing but only releases a portion of it that supports his version of events?
That’s not suspicious at all
The CBC want to be a government entity when it serves them, journalist when it serves them, and a corporation when it serves them. But never any one thing. This isn’t that different than the BBC and Jeremy Clarkson.
Canadaland did a great podcast on this last week.
Interesting un-censored take on what really going on from both Travis and the CBC sides.
https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/1195-the-genius-plan-to-fix-the-cbc-forever/
I listened to the recording. It seems the managers are very keen on protecting the corporation. Which is their job as managers. Now, that speaks to a larger more salient question— who does CBC serve the interest of? The corporation? The Canadian public? Catherine Tait? It seems like the fundamental disagreement is that the managers want to protect the shield. While Dhanraj wants to serve the public. If CBC was a private corp the managers would very much be in the right. But they’re not. A good chunk of their budget comes from the taxpayer.
Honestly, I think Tait is a coward for not accepting the interview request. If you’re the boss then this falls on you, and you have to defend it to the Canadian people. If that means you need to eat shit on prime time, then that’s the cost of doing business.
I remember thinking this when Lindsay Sheppard released her recordings with Waterloo – who’s going to want to hire someone that they know is going to broadcast their internal, confidential HR proceedings?
>Marshall said CBC has [still not accepted Dhanraj’s resignation](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/travis-dhanraj-employed-cbc) despite him voicing his clear intent and, in fact, are still paying him.
>“I want to be very clear: The CBC doesn’t get to hold him hostage. This is a free country. He’s allowed to resign.”
>Marshall said Dhanraj is pressing a human rights lawsuit against CBC over his departure.
Well that’s an interesting twist. He hasn’t been dismissed, they did not accept his resignation, he is still on their payroll. So what this amounts to is management brought him before a disciplinary hearing, with a union representative present, and aired their grievances with him. He stood his ground, asserted his belief that he did nothing out of line, and … No disciplinary action was taken.
So what’s his problem? Did he expect he could criticize his employer without experiencing *any* sort of friction?
Reporters reporting on their employer, is always going to be a sensitive topic. Dhanraj tweeting what he did, can easily appear like he’s being a loose cannon. I don’t know if it merits a disciplinary meeting, but I can understand why his higher ups would want him to exercise more discipline.