There's a morbidly fascinating direction to media cycles. When a crisis occurs, the immediate reaction is to seek an explanation. How did this happen? Who do we blame? How can we help? We aren't after information; information is obtained through rigour, not through rapid development. We're after judgement, and the quicker the better, because the intoxicating power that comes with being on the side of judgement is something we love to taste when the opportunity comes. Feeding this frenzy are the parties involved. Say the right words, spin the right message, find the right button to push, and you can wield that brief moment of opportunity like a glove.
Such is the case with the ongoing development of Jian Ghomeshi and the CBC.
Some framework: what do we know so far?
1) On Sunday, Oct. 26, the CBC issued this statement for immediate release:
"TORONTO, Oct. 26, 2014 /CNW/ - The CBC is saddened to announce its relationship with Jian Ghomeshi has come to an end. This decision was not made without serious deliberation and careful consideration. Jian has made an immense contribution to the CBC and we wish him well."
2) As Chuck Thompson was the designated contact person for further information on the announcement, he was contacted by several journalists for additional comment. The Globe and Mail quotes Thompson, in an email, as saying:
“Information came to our attention recently, that in CBC's judgement, precludes us from continuing our relationship with Jian Ghomeshi.”
3) Subsequently, Ghomeshi, through his agent, issued a media release indicating his intention to file suit against the CBC for damages in the amount of $50 million, and to seek reinstatement in his position. Ghomeshi also retained the services of a "high-stakes public strategy and communications firm," Navigator.
4) Finally, on his public Facebook page, Ghomeshi issued a statement outlining his belief that his termination from the CBC emerged from, in his words "the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer."
From a purely PR perspective, it doesn't take much critical thought to realize who has obtained that crucial first step. That one party accomplished this isn't surprising. What is surprising, even alarming, is how quickly that first step has been picked up as the dominant narrative in this situation.
Already, the online argument is being framed around if we think the CBC was right or wrong to fire someone over private sexual conduct, if an employer has any business knowing our personal life, if consent is applicable in this situation, etc. etc. etc. All of this has been accomplished in the span of hours. I'd be impressed if I didn't find the whole thing so repellant.
I shouldn't be surprised, really. We've seen this happen before. People who are otherwise sane, forward thinking individuals, supporters of equal rights and a new dialogue around rape culture, suddenly forming ranks and drawing lines in the sand to support one of their own. As ever before, it relies on the individual in question issuing a pre-emptive statement, "getting ahead of it," as it were. We've seen it with Woody Allen. We've seen it with Roman Polanski. We'll undoubtedly see it again.
"Presumption of innocence," goes the reply, when I become critical of the unique treatment these people seem to receive. Indeed, presumption of innocence is one of our most sacred rights. Unfortunately, that's not what's at stake in today's events.
In the sequence of events I have listed above, there is no accusation. There is no criminal charge. In order for there to be a need for presumption of innocence, one must first be charged with an offence. Ghomeshi has not been charged.
No. What we are dealing with now is something different. We are dealing with the presumption of conspiracy.
By issuing his statement, Ghomeshi has thrown into question every aspect of whatever eventual consequences might have befallen him / may yet befall him still. His statement attacks the character of potential accusers, not actual ones. That they may transition to a point of actual accusers following this means they begin their position under scrutiny. In his statement, there are a myriad of different forces to be accounted for: the CBC, the jilted lover, the freelance writer, the various friends (including ex-girlfriends), a major Canadian publication. That none of these are named specifically means the audience is free to interpret however they like. And there we have it: presumption of conspiracy. Conspiracy, until proven otherwise, no matter how unprovable that may be.
Of course, one cannot have a conspiracy without having an objective, and that is where the final piece of the narrative falls into place: the victim. This narrative would not be complete without reminding us of the human cost at stake. This "campaign of vengeance" as Ghomeshi calls it, is taking its toll only "two weeks after the death of my beautiful father."
I have no doubt that in days to come, there will be further additions to the narrative, from Ghomeshi or from other parties, that he has begun this crisis as a victim. That he is proceeding forward from a place of weakness.
Make no mistake. By taking careful pains to frame the conversation, Ghomeshi has begun from the strongest position of all.
Such is the case with the ongoing development of Jian Ghomeshi and the CBC.
Some framework: what do we know so far?
1) On Sunday, Oct. 26, the CBC issued this statement for immediate release:
"TORONTO, Oct. 26, 2014 /CNW/ - The CBC is saddened to announce its relationship with Jian Ghomeshi has come to an end. This decision was not made without serious deliberation and careful consideration. Jian has made an immense contribution to the CBC and we wish him well."
2) As Chuck Thompson was the designated contact person for further information on the announcement, he was contacted by several journalists for additional comment. The Globe and Mail quotes Thompson, in an email, as saying:
“Information came to our attention recently, that in CBC's judgement, precludes us from continuing our relationship with Jian Ghomeshi.”
3) Subsequently, Ghomeshi, through his agent, issued a media release indicating his intention to file suit against the CBC for damages in the amount of $50 million, and to seek reinstatement in his position. Ghomeshi also retained the services of a "high-stakes public strategy and communications firm," Navigator.
4) Finally, on his public Facebook page, Ghomeshi issued a statement outlining his belief that his termination from the CBC emerged from, in his words "the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer."
From a purely PR perspective, it doesn't take much critical thought to realize who has obtained that crucial first step. That one party accomplished this isn't surprising. What is surprising, even alarming, is how quickly that first step has been picked up as the dominant narrative in this situation.
Already, the online argument is being framed around if we think the CBC was right or wrong to fire someone over private sexual conduct, if an employer has any business knowing our personal life, if consent is applicable in this situation, etc. etc. etc. All of this has been accomplished in the span of hours. I'd be impressed if I didn't find the whole thing so repellant.
 |
| DaveBleasdale via Compfight cc |
I shouldn't be surprised, really. We've seen this happen before. People who are otherwise sane, forward thinking individuals, supporters of equal rights and a new dialogue around rape culture, suddenly forming ranks and drawing lines in the sand to support one of their own. As ever before, it relies on the individual in question issuing a pre-emptive statement, "getting ahead of it," as it were. We've seen it with Woody Allen. We've seen it with Roman Polanski. We'll undoubtedly see it again.
"Presumption of innocence," goes the reply, when I become critical of the unique treatment these people seem to receive. Indeed, presumption of innocence is one of our most sacred rights. Unfortunately, that's not what's at stake in today's events.
In the sequence of events I have listed above, there is no accusation. There is no criminal charge. In order for there to be a need for presumption of innocence, one must first be charged with an offence. Ghomeshi has not been charged.
No. What we are dealing with now is something different. We are dealing with the presumption of conspiracy.
By issuing his statement, Ghomeshi has thrown into question every aspect of whatever eventual consequences might have befallen him / may yet befall him still. His statement attacks the character of potential accusers, not actual ones. That they may transition to a point of actual accusers following this means they begin their position under scrutiny. In his statement, there are a myriad of different forces to be accounted for: the CBC, the jilted lover, the freelance writer, the various friends (including ex-girlfriends), a major Canadian publication. That none of these are named specifically means the audience is free to interpret however they like. And there we have it: presumption of conspiracy. Conspiracy, until proven otherwise, no matter how unprovable that may be.
Of course, one cannot have a conspiracy without having an objective, and that is where the final piece of the narrative falls into place: the victim. This narrative would not be complete without reminding us of the human cost at stake. This "campaign of vengeance" as Ghomeshi calls it, is taking its toll only "two weeks after the death of my beautiful father."
I have no doubt that in days to come, there will be further additions to the narrative, from Ghomeshi or from other parties, that he has begun this crisis as a victim. That he is proceeding forward from a place of weakness.
Make no mistake. By taking careful pains to frame the conversation, Ghomeshi has begun from the strongest position of all.
I know it's been a very long time since I've blogged.
I can put this to a lot of things: a rather marked increase in the workload at my day job, a pair of volunteer tasks that require a fair amount of focus and attention, a need to work at writing things that I hope to send out for publication in the near future. There's more to it, though.
Unless you've been completely cut off from all human contact (pity the lonely Mars rover) you've probably noticed that in the past year or so, the internet has been an awful, awful place to be, particularly if you're a woman. It is genuinely exhausting. With the criminal hacking of female celebrities' nude photos, the now-omnipresent tumour of hate and nerd-rage known as GamerGate, and today, the bizarre condemnation of a woman having the nerve to show up to an event after having aged, it seems like we're in the throes of a resurgence of misogyny of such unprecedented proportions that it threatens to send us back to the days of pinching secretaries and drive-through backseat blurred lines (you know, the times of Mad Men).
Of course, the truth is that there's tragically little about today's misogyny that is unprecedented. The creepy critters were always hiding under the rocks and it's only now that we're trekking out into the backwoods for a little constitutional refresher that we're finding them still slithering about. As Emma Watson aptly observed in her address to the UN, no country in the world can truly be said to be completely equal.
There are people who take umbrage with this statement, or, failing that, with movements largely aimed at adding some counterweight to the inequity. The argument, if I can collate it is as such, is that the counterweight will go/has already gone too far, and people on the other side (in this case, ye olde white men) are being harmed.
I'm going to do something, right now, for any of those people who feel attacked by feminism who chance upon this blog entry. It might come off as crazy, or patronizing, or just a blatant lie, but I want you to know - and I want any feminists to bear with me until the end of this entry, because this is going to take a sharp left turn - that I am being completely, truthfully, sincere.
I am going to take you at face value.
Not you, crazy death-threat twitter-user. Not you, dudebro with the ex-girlfriend who thinks all women are evil. No, I'm talking to you, the self-proclaimed "moderate," the person who theoretically exists behind a thick veil of awful, calling out from the sidelines that they are being unfairly represented. Feel unfair no more, you are the fairest here.
I can accept that you may have issues you legitimately want to raise. You may have honest concerns about how certain people are treated, on or offline. You may even have real points to make about video games (triviality to the common man, but YES, I get it, RealGamers™ really, really care)!
I'm afraid there's a problem. When you tack your Totally Legitimate Concerns on to someone who is asking to simply have the right to be treated the same as everyone else, you invariably come off as a douchebag.
I don't CARE if you have legitimate concerns. I don't CARE if you think that somebody posting their nudie pics on iCloud is reckless. When that person is saying to you, "I would love to be treated with respect and equality," your only answer should be FOUR. WORDS.
"I support equal rights."
Full stop. End thought. Final statement. Close the deal. Drop the mike. Glitter bomb it.
Now I can hear you out there. I can feel your fingers poised above the keyboard, ready to tell me how wrong I am, that THEY cast the first stone, that YOU'RE being attacked, that EVERYONE is out to get you. Most of all, I hear you saying "but this is REALLY about..."
Nope! Don't do it! Resist the temptation!
See, here's the thing. Equal rights are equal rights. I realize this may be a sticky wicket to navigate, but when people talk about equal rights, they don't tend to attach bizarre riders in the fine print. You didn't listen to Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I have a Dream" speech only for him to turn around and add "but no jews." Equal rights don't come with conditions. They don't come with attacks.
There are many important things that you may want to talk about. No, scratch that...I have no doubt that there are important things that DESERVE to be talked about.
Equal rights are not the forum to use.
Your first reaction to a woman's plea for respecting her right to privacy should not be "she should have secured herself better."
Your first reaction to a woman's suggestion for more equality in video games representation should not be "she's wrong/she's a liar/I can't even go further because these attacks are endless and increasingly vile."
All you have to do...all you ever should do...is remember four words: "I support equal rights."
By all means, write about how everyone can protect themselves online. Write about how you think video games are best represented. Write about corruption in games journalism. Just don't go attaching it as a reaction to those four words, because the moment you say "also" you're really saying "except." Equal rights aren't an exception. That's what makes them equal. If you have a real point to make, it should be strong enough to stand on its own without relying on the crutch of being framed as a reaction, right?
And if you have trouble with that concept, if you find yourself struggling at the keyboard to resist hammering out your own personal vendetta whenever someone stands up and has the nerve to suggest they want to hear those four words bouncing about the four corners of the world until they're on the lips of every last human being with total and complete openness...
...well, then the bad news is that you probably didn't believe in the four words to begin with if you thought they couldn't stand on their own.
The choice is there, though. Everyone can do it. Think of this as an offer. An invitation, even.
I support equal rights. Will you?
I can put this to a lot of things: a rather marked increase in the workload at my day job, a pair of volunteer tasks that require a fair amount of focus and attention, a need to work at writing things that I hope to send out for publication in the near future. There's more to it, though.
Unless you've been completely cut off from all human contact (pity the lonely Mars rover) you've probably noticed that in the past year or so, the internet has been an awful, awful place to be, particularly if you're a woman. It is genuinely exhausting. With the criminal hacking of female celebrities' nude photos, the now-omnipresent tumour of hate and nerd-rage known as GamerGate, and today, the bizarre condemnation of a woman having the nerve to show up to an event after having aged, it seems like we're in the throes of a resurgence of misogyny of such unprecedented proportions that it threatens to send us back to the days of pinching secretaries and drive-through backseat blurred lines (you know, the times of Mad Men).
Of course, the truth is that there's tragically little about today's misogyny that is unprecedented. The creepy critters were always hiding under the rocks and it's only now that we're trekking out into the backwoods for a little constitutional refresher that we're finding them still slithering about. As Emma Watson aptly observed in her address to the UN, no country in the world can truly be said to be completely equal.
There are people who take umbrage with this statement, or, failing that, with movements largely aimed at adding some counterweight to the inequity. The argument, if I can collate it is as such, is that the counterweight will go/has already gone too far, and people on the other side (in this case, ye olde white men) are being harmed.
I'm going to do something, right now, for any of those people who feel attacked by feminism who chance upon this blog entry. It might come off as crazy, or patronizing, or just a blatant lie, but I want you to know - and I want any feminists to bear with me until the end of this entry, because this is going to take a sharp left turn - that I am being completely, truthfully, sincere.
I am going to take you at face value.
Not you, crazy death-threat twitter-user. Not you, dudebro with the ex-girlfriend who thinks all women are evil. No, I'm talking to you, the self-proclaimed "moderate," the person who theoretically exists behind a thick veil of awful, calling out from the sidelines that they are being unfairly represented. Feel unfair no more, you are the fairest here.
| threephin via Compfight cc |
I can accept that you may have issues you legitimately want to raise. You may have honest concerns about how certain people are treated, on or offline. You may even have real points to make about video games (triviality to the common man, but YES, I get it, RealGamers™ really, really care)!
I'm afraid there's a problem. When you tack your Totally Legitimate Concerns on to someone who is asking to simply have the right to be treated the same as everyone else, you invariably come off as a douchebag.
I don't CARE if you have legitimate concerns. I don't CARE if you think that somebody posting their nudie pics on iCloud is reckless. When that person is saying to you, "I would love to be treated with respect and equality," your only answer should be FOUR. WORDS.
"I support equal rights."
Full stop. End thought. Final statement. Close the deal. Drop the mike. Glitter bomb it.
Now I can hear you out there. I can feel your fingers poised above the keyboard, ready to tell me how wrong I am, that THEY cast the first stone, that YOU'RE being attacked, that EVERYONE is out to get you. Most of all, I hear you saying "but this is REALLY about..."
Nope! Don't do it! Resist the temptation!
See, here's the thing. Equal rights are equal rights. I realize this may be a sticky wicket to navigate, but when people talk about equal rights, they don't tend to attach bizarre riders in the fine print. You didn't listen to Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I have a Dream" speech only for him to turn around and add "but no jews." Equal rights don't come with conditions. They don't come with attacks.
There are many important things that you may want to talk about. No, scratch that...I have no doubt that there are important things that DESERVE to be talked about.
Equal rights are not the forum to use.
Your first reaction to a woman's plea for respecting her right to privacy should not be "she should have secured herself better."
Your first reaction to a woman's suggestion for more equality in video games representation should not be "she's wrong/she's a liar/I can't even go further because these attacks are endless and increasingly vile."
All you have to do...all you ever should do...is remember four words: "I support equal rights."
By all means, write about how everyone can protect themselves online. Write about how you think video games are best represented. Write about corruption in games journalism. Just don't go attaching it as a reaction to those four words, because the moment you say "also" you're really saying "except." Equal rights aren't an exception. That's what makes them equal. If you have a real point to make, it should be strong enough to stand on its own without relying on the crutch of being framed as a reaction, right?
And if you have trouble with that concept, if you find yourself struggling at the keyboard to resist hammering out your own personal vendetta whenever someone stands up and has the nerve to suggest they want to hear those four words bouncing about the four corners of the world until they're on the lips of every last human being with total and complete openness...
...well, then the bad news is that you probably didn't believe in the four words to begin with if you thought they couldn't stand on their own.
The choice is there, though. Everyone can do it. Think of this as an offer. An invitation, even.
I support equal rights. Will you?