While scrolling through Twitter messages with the hashtag #LisaLaFlamme, I came across a job posting.

It was for a senior manager, media relations at Bell Media.

It made me laugh out loud because Bell Media owns the CTV network.

Here's a company that continues getting pilloried in the third week after announcing the "departure" of its chief news anchor for "business reasons".

Other corporations are signalling their support for LaFlamme through clever marketing campaigns. Members of Canada's elite have written a two-page open letter condemning Bell Media.

Even CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, and People magazine have covered this story. And CTV newsroom employees have hired their own lawyer to defend them against an alleged toxic work culture.

Yes, Bell Media certainly needs a senior manager of media relations to get this situation under control.

Here's some free advice for the lucky job applicant.

1. Tell the CEO of Bell Media parent company BCE, Mirko Bibic, that it was a major blunder to wade into this story on August 26.

Here's my guess about the sequence of events.

Someone in the Globe and Mail's marketing department or even the publisher's office warned Bell Media that there was going to be a huge ad signed by various Canadian luminaries in the Saturday paper condemning Bell Media for its treatment of LaFlamme. If I'm correct in that assumption, then it's also fair to assume that Bibic sprung into action and posted something on his personal Linkedin page on the Friday night to get ahead of the story.

But here's the problem—when there's bad news swirling, you don't send the general into the battle unless it's absolutely necessary.

As Ronald Reagan's spin doctor Michael Deaver used to say, it's far easier to replace a lieutenant than to replace a general. So it's best to protect the general by only having him speak about good-news stories and let the lieutenants take the bullets except when it absolutely cannot be avoided.

Once Bibic jumped in and claimed that LaFlamme's ouster had nothing to do with her age, gender, or grey hair, then he became a central character in this drama. It became a BCE story, not just a CTV story.

That, in turn, dragged in the BCE board of directors, some of whom have ties to the Royal Bank of Canada, Loblaw companies, Scotiabank, and other corporate heavyweights in Canada.

Now, not surprisingly, some think that Bibic should be the fall guy for this monumental public-relations blunder involving LaFlamme.

If Bibic and his subordinates can't manage the replacement of a news anchor without it turning into a three-week international controversy, can he really be trusted with the reins of a corporation worth $58.2 billion?

2. Tell the CEO of BCE that sending out Wade Oosterman's letter was a decent start at containing the story.

When Bell Media president Wade Oosterman later responded to a letter from a lawyer to Bibic, it showed that BCE may have learned its lesson from Bibic's Linkedin lunacy.

Oosterman is one of those replaceable, little-known lieutenants. He's like a cabinet minister who can be shuffled out of his portfolio if he takes too much flack. And to Bell Media's advantage, his letter was widely quoted in the media. 

But here's the problem. Oosterman waited until near the end of his letter to mention "an environment of declining ratings".

These are weasel words. Were CTV's ratings at 11 p.m. with Lisa LaFlamme on the decline? Or weren't they?

If they were (and remember, CTV is Canada's most-watched national newscast), then please elaborate. Bell Media needs to put up or shut up. Report on the ratings. CTV is a news organization, for Christ's sake.

3. Tell the CEO of BCE that it's lunacy to give so little coverage to this story.

Everyone else is covering the LaFlamme story because it's so damn juicy.

Who fires a household name as a result of a "business decision" and then provides no substantive explanation before sending the vice president of news on leave?

Yet the story barely exists on CTV. One of the few exceptions came when CTV News aired a report on a campaign by Wendy's, only to generate complaints from unnamed staff about alleged censorship.

Compare that with CBC's Jian Ghomeshi scandal, which the Mother Corp. covered diligently and responsibly. There was no management interference.

Here are the real questions that CTV reporters should be asking.

Is Bell Media concerned that LaFlamme wasn't connecting with nonwhite and younger audiences? Or was she bounced because she complained about management not wanting to spend money covering the news? Or is there another reason—i.e. was it a salary dump?

How much was LaFlamme paid per year and how does that compare to what Omar Sachadena will earn as her replacement?

I sometimes wonder if CTV News has had a lock on viewers who vote Conservative but was failing to attract more liberal-minded urban and suburban viewers.

Come clean, Bell Media. Otherwise, lots of your CTV viewers will continue to believe that LaFlamme was dumped due to sexism, ageism, and her decision to go grey, no matter how often you deny it.

4. Tell the CEO of BCE that a national news anchor is bigger than any corporate executive.

Hardly anyone in Canada could have identified the CEO of BCE or the vice president of news at Bell Media in a police lineup before this situation erupted. So they had no real track record with CTV viewers against which their integrity could be measured.

Therefore, it was game, set, and match as soon as LaFlamme issued her one and only public statement.

I'm not a shareholder in BCE, but if I was, I would ask the following question: Why the hell wasn't any settlement with LaFlamme based on a full vetting of her statement, including the use of the term "blindsided"?

Did the CTV lawyers overlook that on the recommendation of the bosses? If so, this should be of concern to the board of directors.

5. Tell the public who had a hand in the decision to replace LaFlamme.

Did this issue come before BCE's board of directors?

If so, in the interest of transparency, which directors actually thought it was a good idea to dump LaFlamme?

Once that becomes clear, shareholders can decide if they want to retain these directors in the next board election.

That's what corporate transparency should look like. But we can't expect that from BCE or Bell Media, based on their handling of this public-relations fiasco.

Eventually, the LaFlamme story will fade from public consciousness, but not before a fair amount of damage has been inflicted on the brand.

Sorry Mr. Bibic, but sending Sandie Rinaldo out to anchor the 11 p.m. newscast on weekdays in the midst of this controversy won't be sufficient to stem the outrage.

The only lasting solution is to admit you made an error and give LaFlamme back her job.

And in the meantime, hire a senior manager of public relations at Bell Media who's studied the work of Michael Deaver.