Glenbow severs ties

Posted by Suzy Thompson

The Glenbow museum pulled its advertising from Fast Forward Weekly on Aug. 16. The decision came on the same day Fast Forward Weekly published a news article about layoffs at the museum. On July 19, Fast Forward Weekly also published a story, “The Struggles of the Glenbow,” about financial problems and allegations of mismanagement at the museum over the past three years. Both stories received an unusually high number of online comments.

An internal email sent to museum staff on July 23 by Glenbow Board of Governors chair Jack Thrasher and president and CEO Kirstin Evenden in regards to the original story implies their dissatisfaction with the story’s tone.

“As many of you are aware, an article came out in FFWD [sic] on Thursday, July 19, 2012, which represented Glenbow’s finances and management in an unfortunate light,” reads the email, which was originally given to Fast Forward Weekly by a person in contact with current Glenbow employees, and confirmed as genuine yesterday by other staff who asked to remain anonymous.

“Unfortunately, the resulting article does not reflect the information that was provided by Glenbow to the reporter in these interviews but instead gives prominence to allegations by unidentified persons… It is important you know how truly valued the Glenbow team is – you are a group of talented, passionate and dedicated staff who make up the core of Glenbow. We know that each of you will maintain your ongoing professionalism in the face of the hurtful allegations in this article… Senior management will monitor the blog for any further comments regarding Glenbow.”

This internal email was sent after the decision had been made to conduct the layoffs at the Glenbow that were made public on August 15. The Glenbow had not responded to multiple requests for interviews in regards to this post.

 


more in City     |     posted Aug 17th, 2012 at 3:24pm     

Comments: 15

Suzy Thompson wrote:

Now that I am free to express a bit of subjectivity as a commenter, please don't take the above article as an invitation to engage in inappropriate or personal attacks on anyone, including specific Glenbow management. It's as unnecessary to lose your temper as I think it was necessary to report this development. Just tell the truth, OK guys?
I am still interested in interviewing representatives of the Glenbow for their perspectives on this and other relevant stories, and will correct any inaccuracy they draw my attention to.

on Aug 17th, 2012 at 3:54pm Report Abuse

rube wrote:

Curious why this is newsworthy. It'd be more surprising if they kept the advertising, really.

on Aug 18th, 2012 at 11:30am Report Abuse

identity_crisis wrote:

It's definitely newsworthy. What if the Glenbow is like the AB Health superboard? Entitlement, waste, mismanagement at the top? Punitive with its critics? I'd like to know how the archives will fare in this. Also, it's newsworthy because it points to a media bind: reportage versus advertising income.

on Aug 18th, 2012 at 8:48pm Report Abuse

rube wrote:

If it's entitlement, waste and mismanagement, report on that (as the other articles have).
It's not condoning management's other actions to say that it's understandable for them to pull advertising from a group that is actively criticizing them. And really, which is more punitive: withdrawing ads or publicly shaming an advertiser for backing out?

on Aug 19th, 2012 at 12:26am Report Abuse

dejaview wrote:

Wow. Even Val Cooper maintained advertising here after the AGC was skewered by FFWD in 2008.

on Aug 21st, 2012 at 9:36pm Report Abuse

Lady Rose wrote:

Maybe the Glenbow was trying to cut some unnecessary spending given their current financial difficulties. I'm not really sure how it's considered "news" that FFWD lost some advertising revenue...

on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 1:23pm Report Abuse

BluManSolo wrote:

To Lady Rose, I see this is posted as a blog and not a news story, and of course the purpose of a blog is a place for discussion.

Since Fast Forward is a free publication that requires ad revenue to publish the paper, and the website i would say loss of ad revenue is actually very important.

on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 2:11pm Report Abuse

Lady Rose wrote:

I guess I just feel like FFWD hasn't provided the most unbiased journalism in the case of the Glenbow. Suzy Thompson's initial article spent 10% of it's time on a very weak analysis of financial statements and about 80% on gossip from former staff members. It was a much more slanted piece than I would have liked to have seen.

The thing is, I have worked for non-profits for more than a decade and every single one I have worked for has a handful or more of disgruntled former staff. The environment at the Glenbow seems magnified by the culture of entitlement produced by a completely unnecessary union.

I also doubt that FFWD is going to start printing news articles or blog articles or whatever every time an ad client pulls their advertising. Companies pull ads all the time for all sorts of reasons. Maybe the Glenbow did pull their ads because FFWD printed a negative story about them. Maybe they pulled their ads because advertising in FFWD isn't a priority considering their current budget restraints. But are we really saying that there should be a precedent set where FFWD reports on and companies issue statements about how they allocate their advertising dollars?

on Aug 23rd, 2012 at 9:22pm Report Abuse

Annanana wrote:

I can't see what about this ISN'T newsworthy. The Glenbow should should strive to be a first class, respected facility in our so-called world-class city and instead of addressing the issues Suzy raised head on, they pull their advertising dollars as a sort of punishment. It's like the corporate equivalent of saying, "Well then you can't come to my birthday party."

If Ms. Thompson had some sort of personal vendetta against the Glenbow or had done weak sauce research as Lady Rose implies, I'm sure FFWD's editor or publisher might have stepped in and said, "Hey this is a pretty negative story with no basis that may cost us advertising revenue. Let's not run it."

But that's not what happened and FFWD should be applauded for valuing news over revenue.

on Aug 24th, 2012 at 9:40am Report Abuse

Lady Rose wrote:

Hm, I'm not suggesting that Suzy Thompson has a personal vendetta but I think I am suggesting that people are looking very hard for conspiracy and controversy where none may exist.

I realize that Suzy Thompson likely does not have the background (nor perhaps does FFWD have the resources to bring on board someone with the right expertise) to properly analyze financial statements. FFWD isn't the Wall Street Journal, they don't regularly provide financial reporting. I do think, however, that is what is required regarding this story.

If the Glenbow provided comment it would help to give a more balanced look at the issues (rather than relying on information solely from former staff who would have their own totally biased viewpoints). But I can also see how the Glenbow might be avoiding comment, feeling that they have provided as much information about their current financial struggles as are appropriate for the general public.

on Aug 24th, 2012 at 1pm Report Abuse

dugger wrote:

Lady Rose, unless you have facts to argue against the financial reporting in this case, then you really have no place criticizing anyone's analysis.

on Aug 24th, 2012 at 2:17pm Report Abuse

Lady Rose wrote:

You're suggesting that I can't hold a media outlet to any standards of journalism? We can and most definitely should criticize media when we feel it doesn't live up to the highest of standards. Media claims to essentially be doing the work for us. They bring us the news, the facts, so that we don't have to research every single current affairs topic ourselves. Is convenience not what these reporters are offering us?

Yes, I could spend a couple of hours sitting down and analyzing 10 years of financial statements from the Glenbow. But FFWD was making the claim that they had already done that for me. They looked at the "facts" and presented me with an unbiased story. Except they didn't do that. I know enough to know that the financial analysis presented was superficial at best. I don't think there is anything wrong with asking this publication to hold itself to a higher standard of reporting.

on Aug 24th, 2012 at 7:31pm Report Abuse

officematt2002 wrote:

There is no such thing as an unbiased or objective journalist. Read between the lines, figure out what is fact and fiction and make your own determination. Stop allowing the media to force feed you. Watch The National much lately?

on Aug 25th, 2012 at 1pm Report Abuse

identity_crisis wrote:

"Unions," management and advertising aside, the sale of artifacts last year, without First Nations consultation, got me wondering about the Glenbow. I read Ms Conway Fisher's explanation, but it was not satisfying. It didn't strike me as a contemporary decision, instead it fell into a kind of 1952 era model, and an alternative arrangement might have been more profitable. I do worry about the archive collection, because 1) it is fantastic and 2) very accessible to the public or researchers.

on Aug 27th, 2012 at 10:39am Report Abuse

paulhughes wrote:

The Artocracy is increasingly crusty & out of touch. Yanking support for a local publication that has always supported the arts is petty, childish & smacks of Gary Holden, (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2010/12/06/calgary-enmax-holden-forbes-email.html ).

The Glenbow has basically created an entirely new category of D-Baggery.

on Sep 6th, 2012 at 5:34pm Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © Fast Forward Weekly 1995-2012

About Us Contact Us Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use