# CBC's Heather Mallick shows her True Form



## TCBF (21 Sep 2008)

An over the top - even for the Communist Broadcorping Castration - piece of dirt:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/f-vp-mallick.html

Jonathan Kay's response:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/09/jonathan-kay-on-heather-mallick-another-week-another-disgrace-at-the-cbc.aspx?CommentPosted=true

Greta van Susterin calls Mallick a "pig":

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/my-comment-about-the-pig/


----------



## newfin (21 Sep 2008)

Wow!  I have only read the Mallick article and the monitor is still smoking.  She raised my eyebrows with that article.  I don't think I have ever read an article by a Canadian author with so much venom in it.  I could never be a journalist since I could only be _that_ angry about so few people.  Chretien comes to mind.  I love politics and I usually pick a side but I never feel that much anger about anything, especially not to want to publish it for the world to see.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Sep 2008)

Good to see we have our share of Ann Coulters....


----------



## DBA (21 Sep 2008)

Seems to be trying to imitate the "stream of stupidity" writting style of Maureen Dowd. Lot quicker for her to write whatever crap pops in her head instead of doing actual journalism. The construct an argument/viewpoint, research facts to support it and write with a reasoned measured approach style of doing editorials and opinion pieces is just too much work for her.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Sep 2008)

OWDU's view from outside the box:

She even made the news here in Australia, and quite frankly is not only a Canadian national embarassment, but an overall international disgrace.

Glad to see the CBC in all its glory.

Lorne Green and other famous CBC reporters of the War Years would roll over in their graves if they knew of such unethical behaviour.

PIG is too kind of a word for such gutter trash.

Shame on the CBC.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Sep 2008)

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3100036&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/#

She calls her a pig twice!

diles

tess

 :rofl:

dileas

tess


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Sep 2008)

Wow.
I could not believe my eyes when I read that trash.  In my mind, it is the equivalent of any piece that would call Obama supporters a bunch of "Boyz from da' Hood", or make reference to his ethnic heritage.  In other words, racist and disgusting.  Fire.  Her.  Now.


----------



## RangerRay (21 Sep 2008)

Wow...just...wow...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot was that?  I've read a lot of stuff by columnists that I don't agree with, and think is completely out to lunch, but this was nothing by pure prejudiced venomous bile hatred.  I've seen a lot of crap on CBC, but THIS takes the cake.  Wow.

While I believe in freedom of speech, that does not mean that MY TAX DOLLARS should support her to spew such crap.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Sep 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Fire.  Her.  Now.



In the CBC world, thems 'promotion' words.

 ;D

OWDU


----------



## gaspasser (21 Sep 2008)

Hmmm, so much for MSM being unbiased towards the subject they are reporting on.
Another reason why I do not subscribe, watch, listen to, read anything with the CBC logo on it. 

"While I believe in freedom of speech, that does not mean that MY TAX DOLLARS should support her to spew such crap."
If _we_ "pay" her salary, does that mean _we_ can fire her   ???
My two cents worth.


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2008)

_Fox(trot) Uniform Charlie Kilo._

She has got to be the rudest, crassest and venomous little excuse-for-a-reporter that I've read in some time.

This is intriguing from her column:



> But do they not know that women I have been trained to resent other women Americans and that they I only learn to suppress this by constantly berating themselves and reading writing columns like this one? I'm a feminist who understands that women (like me) can nurse terrible and delicate woman American hatred.



Fuck, you don't say? Terrible and delicate!!?? <---- I feel the "C" word about to erupt from my mouth and I save it for those who truely deserve it.

This is one of those times. Best to throw the rock back over the entrance to the to the little burrow she slithered out of. And be careful too - that's a highly poisonous pen she seems to be weilding when writing her little-preteen girlish Diary entiries that the CBC is happily publishing for her.

Fire. Her. Now.


----------



## Ralph (21 Sep 2008)

Hear hear! My tax dollars should only go towards supporting opinions I share...


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2008)

Ralph said:
			
		

> Hear hear! My tax dollars should only go towards supporting opinions I share...



Now, I don't agree with that statement at all.

But do you remember the time when reporters were supposed to report the facts and keep their bias' OUT of the reporting? I do.

Surely (I voted Liberal 2 elections ago BTW), Canadian tax dollars aren't supposed to go towards supporting what is clearly becomming the Liberal Party's *C*heerleading *B*roadcasting *C*onsortium do they?

Didn't the Conservatives just get raided for some kind of "trick" with money like that?


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (21 Sep 2008)

What?  I thought that was a humour piece...


----------



## TheCheez (21 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Now, I don't agree with that statement at all.
> 
> But do you remember the time when reporters were supposed to report the facts and keep their bias' OUT of the reporting? I do.
> 
> ...



This isn't a story it's an opinion column. Although it is definitely over the top with it's hate and sweeping judgements. People are allowed to disagree in this country and the US.

Much like Anne Coulter isn't a journalist, neither is this column a factual news story.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Sep 2008)

She's redundant (and poorly at that), CBC already had Rick Mercer's Report.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (21 Sep 2008)

The Cheez has it exactly right.  This isn't reporting, it's _commentary_, and there's an enormous difference.  I don't find people here slagging the CBC when there are comments they agree with.  

Personally, I find the US reaction as offensive and over the top as the original CBC piece.  The Fox News page is filled with hate-mongering towards Canada, based entirely on one commentator's rather poor column.  I didn't see posters on this forum rise up in righteous indignation when Pat Buchanan referred to Canada as "Soviet Canuckistan", spread lies about Sept 11th, etc.  Try this one out for size:



> [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.



Ann Coulter on Fox News, 30 Nov 04

Tempest in a teapot...


----------



## greentoblue (21 Sep 2008)

Actually, this commentary isn't so much anti-American (it is that) but really the biases shared by a fairly large number of people based out of the large cities of the US east & west coasts, central Canada and Vancouver towards those in rural, industrial - agricultural areas.  Substitute "Alaska" for "Alberta" and "Republican" for "Conservative" and it could be an editorial from the Toronto Star.  It overweens with cultural pretensions, elitism and patronizing ie "you people in the hinterlands don't know what is good for you, we do - so we will take the money you produce from your natural resources and labour and tell you how to spend it - in the meantime we reserve the right to talk down to you, make fun of your values and your demands for a say in how to spend it."


----------



## Don.G (21 Sep 2008)

Nothing but garbage... fire her.There are lots of people out there who can do a fair and honest job at reporting.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (21 Sep 2008)

Exactly - and well said, Greentoblue.  Mallick displays an attitude that is shared by many Canadians, unfortunately.  It's the same mentality that paints Afghanistan as "Bush's War" and that seems to take particular glee in US mis-steps.  However, it _is_ commentary after all, and commentary is designed to stir strong emotions and to provoke a reaction.  She's certainly succeeded in doing that and what she's said is hardly worse that what is sometime spouted by the US right-wing.

Fire her?  Get serious.  Why?  For having an opinion and for getting paid to share it?


----------



## Don.G (21 Sep 2008)

I say fire her because working for a news service does not give a person the right to spew trash via live feed or computer.Report the facts.Tell the truth.That is her job.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Sep 2008)

Though there are many columns with which I disagree, one must certainly see the (a) racism (b) sexism and (c) blatant anti-americanism in this piece by Ms. Mallick.  There was no added value to have this piece put up, except under the guise of "freedom of speech".  Given the recent Human Rights' commisions on "hate speech" by Ezra Levant (sp?).  I'm rather shocked that the CBC would stoop so low.


----------



## Greymatters (21 Sep 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Fire her?  Get serious.  Why?  For having an opinion and for getting paid to share it?



Would this be part of an increasing trend in Canada towards sensationalist news pieces to garner public attention?  Or is it just a few articles that stand out?


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Sep 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Exactly - and well said, Greentoblue.  Mallick displays an attitude that is shared by many Canadians, unfortunately.  It's the same mentality that paints Afghanistan as "Bush's War" and that seems to take particular glee in US mis-steps.  However, it _is_ commentary after all, and commentary is designed to stir strong emotions and to provoke a reaction.  She's certainly succeeded in doing that and what she's said is hardly worse that what is sometime spouted by the US right-wing.
> 
> Fire her?  Get serious.  Why?  For having an opinion and for getting paid to share it?



For having a racist opinion, and expressing it on taxpayers dollar.

BTW, what articles are you inferring to, that no one comments on, due to them agreeing.

Do you mean here, on these forums, like we are doing now, or do you mean at other media outlets.

That is one mighty big brush you use to paint, all people who have posted on this thread teddy.

dileas

tess


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Sep 2008)

Don.G said:
			
		

> I say fire her because working for a news service does not give a person the right to spew trash via live feed or computer.Report the facts.Tell the truth.That is her job.



Don, I believe it is more the CBC paying her from time to time for an "opinion piece"...money well spent?  I think the CBC should domuch  better for us taxpayers, but let's not for a second mistake her opinion for "news reporting".

If people want to watch the news in its most professional form, watch/read the BBC.

G2G


----------



## Don.G (21 Sep 2008)

G2G..well said...I guess it is my Pro Canada,Pro Canadian Infantry,Pro U.S.Marines, and love of our brothers to the south that got my blood boiling.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (21 Sep 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Though there are many columns with which I disagree, one must certainly see the (a) racism (b) sexism and (c) blatant anti-americanism in this piece by Ms. Mallick.  There was no added value to have this piece put up, except under the guise of "freedom of speech".  Given the recent Human Rights' commisions on "hate speech" by Ezra Levant (sp?).  I'm rather shocked that the CBC would stoop so low.



Oh I agree - it is over the top.  However, it is nothing worse than what one can read/hear on Fox News and on some other US outlets.  A CBC editor obviously made the decision that such US-style sensationalization was suitable for publication.  As G2G says, it is _not_ "reporting" and the two have to be separated.

Having said this, in a Canadian context, such articles are hardly the norm, and Greymatters may have the right of it.  One wonders what would have happened had similar language been published about Muslims...

For 48th:  I find that some posters on this forum are ready to leap to the defence of a particular (ie:  right-wing, US Republican) political viewpoint, but are very quick to engage in polemics if that viewpoint is challenged - even intellectually.   Would the reaction here been as visceral had the article been about the Democrats and Obama?  I think not.  It's nothing new and I can refer you to the threads on the US election (or Iraq, or Israel, or Lebanon, or....) for further evidence.

Case in point:



> I guess it is my Pro Canada,Pro Canadian Infantry,Pro U.S.Marines, and love of our brothers to the south that got my blood boiling.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Sep 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> For 48th:  I find that some posters on this forum are ready to leap to the defence of a particular (ie:  right-wing, US Republican) political viewpoint, but are very quick to engage in polemics if that viewpoint is challenged - even intellectually.   Would the reaction here been as visceral had the article been about the Democrats and Obama?  I think not.  It's nothing new and I can refer you to the threads on the US election (or Iraq, or Israel, or Lebanon, or....) for further evidence.
> 
> Case in point:



So you feel that this far left wing bilge, is say comparible to mainstream right wing news that we ingore?

I don't want to get into symatics here but you are comparing this;



> It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman.





> Doyle's job includes watching a lot of reality television and he's well-versed in the backstory. White trash — not trailer trash, that's something different — is rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like Bush himself), suspicious of the urban, frankly disbelieving of the foreign, and a fan of the American cliché of authenticity.



To this??



> I guess it is my Pro Canada,Pro Canadian Infantry,Pro U.S.Marines, and love of our brothers to the south that got my blood boiling.




I appreciate your obersvations, and your touting of your social conscience with regard to you posting elshwere, I have heard you, but do we really need to here it again on this thread?

Good on you that have been socially aware, and have done your due diligence to get your opinion out, however I don't think it is fair to stand on a pedestal and criticize those that do the same, albeit a first time.

She was empoyed by us, the tax payers, and other media outlets do not have the same pull as publicly funded conglomerates like the CBC.  Therefore, you will see more of a effort made by the average taxpayer, like us here, attacking the CBC to allow such garbage to be published.

Ah well, we did fall into their trap and attract attension to her.

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (21 Sep 2008)

I was hardly comparing DonG's comment to Mallick's tripe; it was an example of the attitude of some posters here.



> I have heard you, but do we really need to here it again on this thread?



"Again"?  I suppose not - if three or four times in well over 2000 posts is hectoring, so be it.  Asking for an adult approach to political discussion is a bit much, it appears.  

Therefore, I'll cave and report to the re-education camp.  The CBC is blowing taxpayer's money in an effort to elect Dion and Obama and to provide a mouthpiece for the Taliban.  The entire organization is populated by socialists whose secret agenda is to see Sascha Trudeau as PM.  Moreover, Mallick should be fired immediately (assuming she is indeed an employee of the CBC) and brought before the CHRC Tribunal for sexism and racism, while Ann Coulter should be brought in to provide a "balanced" view.  I'll set my homepage to Fox News...  

Better?   :


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Sep 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Did you bother to read what I posted?  I was hardly comparing DonG's comment to Mallick's tripe; it was an example of the attitude of some posters here.
> 
> "Again"?  I suppose not.  Asking for an adult approach on Army.ca to political discussion is a bit much, it appears.



Yes I did read it, and in the context of this thread, the political talk is of Mallicks comments, hence my comparrison.

Well I am glad we have such a seasoned politcial debater, as yourself, willing to jump in and correct us infantile pundits.

dileas

tess

Whew,

Thanks for the addition, after my post.  For a moment I thought our indoctrination course 101 was failing.

Now back to the tent for you classes, otherwise it is back to the rock pile for you.


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Fire her?  Get serious.  Why?  For having an opinion and for getting paid to share it?



Why?

Because she is doing this precisely on the Taxpayers dime. A Canadian Institution - representative of this government. 

And, last time I checked --- proper foreign policy had one's Government keeping their noses and opinions regarding another Government's elections to themselves. Or at least being unbiased about them.

Right here on this very forum we jumped all over a US Ambassador's comments regarding the election process that was occuring in Canada. We've jumped on US columnists for sticking their noses into OUR election processes as being out of line.

Now we have a bonified Canadian Government Institution PUBLISHING "commentary" clearly biased towards a certain party in the US democratic process. That's why it's wrong. That's why the CBC needs to be sorted out. Commentary is one thing. So are opinions. Venomous, clearly biased attacks upon the American Public, their political candidates and their political electoral process on the Canadian Government's Official Dime --- are not.

I'd be saying the same damn thing were this a column so rabidly anti-Obama as well.

When you are an Institution that is repsresentative of the Canadian Government --- you keep your diary entires to your damn diaries where they belong. Not published in Canada's Official "Government backed & funded" Media as "representative commentary". There are privately funded media outlets which can (and do) do this kind of venomous reportage - that is not the case in this instance.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Because she is doing this precisely on the Taxpayers dime. A Canadian Institution - representative of this government. candidates and their political electoral process on the Canadian Government's Official Dime --- are not.
> <-------------------------------------------------------------------------snip------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
> When you are an Institution that is repsresentative of the Canadian Government --- you keep your diary entires to your damn diaries where they belong. Not published in Canada's Official "Government backed & funded" Media as "representative commentary".



So did Carolyn Parish, and everybody thought she was wonderful....... >


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So did Carolyn Parish, and everybody thought she was wonderful....... >



Ahhh yes, that lovely lady that I share a birthday with: and, eventually even her ass got fired (expelled from Caucus) by PM Martin even given that she was with the "ruling" party at the time - and during a minority government at that.

Fire Mallick. Now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Sep 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So did Carolyn Parish, and everybody thought she was wonderful....... >



C'mon Kat. Even her own party nailed her hide to the wall on that one.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Sep 2008)

-She was largely unknown nationally until the eve of the U.S.-led Invasion of Iraq in 2003. On her way out of a meeting, Parrish was overheard on a boom mike saying "Damn Americans, I hate the bastards."

-In August 2004, Parrish again created controversy by referring to those supporting the North American missile defence proposal as "a coalition of the idiots", mocking the phrase "coalition of the willing" used by Bush describing the American-led alliance in the invasion of Iraq. Paul Martin, who had succeeded Chrétien as Prime Minister, asked her to use more tact and discretion when sharing her opinions about such subjects but stopped short of asking her to apologize.

-Following the November U.S. election, she expressed shock at the re-election of George W. Bush. She said that "America is completely out of touch with the rest of the free world" and blamed this on collective "extreme psychological damage" due to the September 11, 2001 attacks. When Conservative Party members called on her to apologize for these remarks she said that such comments "are in the best traditions of free speech and independence of thought." These comments came just hours after Paul Martin warned his MPs in a private caucus meeting not to make incendiary comments in the wake of the U.S. election. Parrish explained that she wasn't at the meeting, but that even if she had been, it wouldn't have stopped her from speaking her mind.

-On November 17, 2004 clips of a skit for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television comedy This Hour Has 22 Minutes, in which she stomped on a Bush doll and performed voodoo on its head, where, she said, "it would do the least damage", were released (the full version was to air on Friday, November 19). This again caused intense outrage from Conservative members and prompted Martin to ask for a meeting with her.

-On November 18, a Canadian Press story quoted her as saying Martin, and those around him, could "go to hell" if they wanted her to stop making similar comments. She went on to say that she had no loyalty towards the Liberal Party and that if it were defeated in the next election she "would not shed a tear," as she had felt betrayed by Martin's lack of help for her during her nomination and election campaigns. In response to these comments, Martin, with the support of National Liberal Caucus chair Andy Savoy, expelled her from caucus.


All from Wikipedia (I know, I know).  Point is it took four collosal fuckups to get a political figure removed.  Bet it'll take longer than that to get Mzzzzz. Mallick canned.  By the way, the devil guy indicated I was just effin' about, I thought.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Sep 2008)

:boring:

My first statement about Ann Coulter still stands, and I am of the mind of Teddy Ruxpin on this.  How come there isn't righteous indignation when Coulter releases book after book labelling anybody not a member of the GOP as essentially a terrorist?

Big deal.  Her opinion piece sucked - I think she made it so on purpose.  But it is no different then watching an hour of FOX News.  Don't get mad at this women - she's only a representative of the types of opinions that North American politics has devolved to.  I see the right in the US spitting out the same line of crap on Barack Obama; christ - if you run for the Democrats, prepare to have your Patriotism(TM) questioned every day because you are obviously keen on selling out the United States of America!

Give me a break - we're reaping what we've sowed.


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> By the way, the devil guy indicated I was just effin' about, I thought.



Shhhh, there is to be no introduction of humour into this thread. Vern rule #698.2a(1.3b) to Annex Z quite clearly states so.  >


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Sep 2008)

Noted, I am duly chastened.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Sep 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Oh I agree - it is over the top.  However, it is nothing worse than what one can read/hear on Fox News and on some other US outlets.



Perhaps; however, my taxes don't pay for Fox, CNN, VOA, Al Jazeerah or any of the others.  As for Fox (as an example), it is a privately owned network, and they obviously have a following.  Hence their money comes from those who watch.  In the case of the CBC, whether we watch, or not, we pay.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Sep 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> My first statement about Ann Coulter still stands, and I am of the mind of Teddy Ruxpin on this.  How come there isn't righteous indignation when Coulter releases book after book labelling anybody not a member of the GOP as essentially a terrorist?
> 
> ...


I disagree.  HUGE difference.  Fox is privately owned, people buy Ann Coulter's trash.  People buy it because they want it.  Mallick spewed her racist/sexist venom and we paid her for it, against our choice.  
So, since I paid her salary against my choice, I am angry with this woman.
Free speech is one thing, but if I'm paying for it, I'll decide what is said.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Sep 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Perhaps; however, my taxes don't pay for Fox, CNN, VOA, Al Jazeerah or any of the others.  As for Fox (as an example), it is a privately owned network, and they obviously have a following.  Hence their money comes from those who watch.  In the case of the CBC, whether we watch, or not, we pay.



Here here.

dileas

tess


----------



## Infanteer (21 Sep 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I disagree.  HUGE difference.  Fox is privately owned, people buy Ann Coulter's trash.  People buy it because they want it.  Mallick spewed her racist/sexist venom and we paid her for it, against our choice.
> So, since I paid her salary against my choice, I am angry with this woman.
> Free speech is one thing, but if I'm paying for it, I'll decide what is said.



Roger - I don't like paying for it at all, especially since I watch CTV for Canadian news anyways.  But can we blame the CBC; they are only putting forth what readers and listeners want to hear - as evidenced by the sales of such things.  Just go to the Canadian and American politics section of any Chapters section and you'll see what I mean.  I found a real find of a book on Parliament in the 21st Century; it was really the only one - all the rest was partisan crap.

Again, we reap what we sow.


----------



## Don.G (21 Sep 2008)

Cheers guys(and girls).T hank god we live in a nation that can have an open discussion about such a important subject.
We may not always agree...but we are all in this together.
Don


----------



## RangerRay (21 Sep 2008)

As others have noted, FOX and Anne Coulter are private enterprises.  Big difference.  Thoughtful but biased commentary that I disagree with is one thing.  But this thoughtless hate-filled slanderous screed is not in the same league.  This is something I would expect from an uneducated 12 year old, not a so-called journalist who studied English literature.  Mallick is free to publish this tripe through private means, but I am VERY offended that MY TAX DOLLARS published this crap.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Sep 2008)

Fellow happy campers (and not so happy ones),

Summing up, whatever goes on with this embarassing incident or how you as Canadians residing in Canada, try seeing things from outside the border of Canada, through the eyes of other nationalities. Although I am Canadian, I am also Australian, and what we see here about 'tolerant' Canada is precieved differently than if you are somewhere between Victoria and St John.

The CBC here is seen as a cousin to the Aussie ABC, who would not even stoop as low as this woman has. Even for a left winger, she's a shocker and out of line! Many here find this article very irresponsible to say the least, and figure that Canada is supposed to be much more tolerant than what this article appears.

Like I said, its embarassing, and she certainlly does NOT speak for the majority of the moral citizens of Canada.

Not wishing to offend, but yet again just an opinion from someone outside of Canada.

Happy days,

OWDU


----------



## Don.G (22 Sep 2008)

Everyone who put in thier 2 cents...good job...that is why we are the greatrst nation(s) in the world.


----------



## YZT580 (22 Sep 2008)

the press is entitled to free speech: that is a given.  But what I resent most, and I resent it a lot, is the publishing of such tripe and calling it journalism.  It was purile, vendictive, and poorly written to boot.  No red-necked, beer drinking, cracker with a 12 guage in the back window and an 8 track cranking out "The Devil came down to Georgia" would ever use such language to slander another individual.  They may be poorly educated, but they have respect for another individual and their talents.  This lady has demonstrated that she lacks prowess as a writer, is incapable of accepting another individual's position, has no knowledge of the ladies who have truly fostered the advancement of women and finally lacks the grace to admit when she may have crossed the line into insult.  Sadly, we deserve the criticism being levelled at us globally for setting such a low standard for journalism and then consistently failing to even live up to it.


----------



## time expired (22 Sep 2008)

Poor Heather M.,I feel somewhat sorry for her,don't people
realize that the fact this(Palin) heterosexual,attractive,politically savvy,
hockey mother should be seem in some quarters as a model
modern woman,must be a slap in the face for Ms.M.The fact
that she is also a conservative and an American probably drove
Ms.M. to temporarily to take leave of her senses and pen this
evil diatribe.After all this a direct contradiction of her Left wing
feminist belief system that she obviously has difficulty dealing
with.
We had a similar situation here in Germany,a very successfully
 female TV presenter wrote a book in which she claimed that
her pursuit of her career along well established feminist lines
had done irreparable damage to her relations with children and
eventually destroyed her marriage.She went on to express her 
regret for the contempt she and her feminist sisters had shown
women who had followed the traditional roles of housewife and
mother.Further to this she stated that mothers were better supported
and treated with more respect under the NSDAP regime than in
modern Germany.The howl from the feminist banshees was 
heard all over Europe and the poor woman was driven from public
life.
I would like to agree with many of the posters here and express my
contempt with the CBC for publishing this trash,however after reading
the posts that attached to this article show how many Canadian share
Ms.M.s virulent anti-Americanism,Pity.
                                    Regards


----------



## TCBF (22 Sep 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> ....Further to this she stated that mothers were better supported
> and treated with more respect under the NSDAP regime than in
> modern Germany....



- WOW!  Dynamite...


----------



## Wookilar (22 Sep 2008)

From the CBC Ombudsman page:

"The CBC is fully committed to maintaining accuracy, integrity and fairness in its journalism. As a Canadian institution and a press undertaking, the CBC is committed to compliance with a number of principles. Foremost among those is our commit-ment to scrupulously abide by the journalistic code of ethics formulated in our own handbook of journalistic standards and practices which stresses lack of bias in reporting. We are committed to providing information that is factual, accurate and comprehensive. Balanced viewpoints must be presented through on-the-air discussions. As it is for other public and private journalistic undertakings, credibility in the eyes of the general population is our most valuable asset and must be protected."

Also: (NOTE: emphasis is my own)

"Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman covers all information programs on Radio, Television and the Internet. These programs include News and all aspects of Public Affairs (political, economic and social) as well as journalistic activities in agriculture, arts, music, religion, science, sports and variety. *Complaints involving entertainment programming are generally beyond the Ombudsman’s mandate and should be addressed directly to the programs concerned*."

As this was an "opinion piece" and therefore probably falls under entertainment programming (even though it was paid for by CBC News), the chances of the Ombudsman actually looking into this is slim....but I am still firing off a notice to him and I have already left a comment on the CBC site in regards to Ms. Mallick's "special to CBC news."

For those that are interested in putting a few intelligent words together, here is the required info.

ombudsman@cbc.ca 

or

Vince Carlin
Ombudsman
CBC
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6
Fax: 416/205-2825 
Tel.: 416/205-2978 


Wook


----------



## Don.G (22 Sep 2008)

For the record...I have sent a letter to the CBC editor re: Mallick's rude comments.We all have to obey rules and sometimes we do not agree with them ...but we do our job...she crossed the line.If it was me...at the very least I would be charged....perhaps a visit to Edmonton...or at worst thrown out...You cannot hide behind the "freedom of the press" in this case.
I would like to hear everyone's thoughts


----------



## TCBF (22 Sep 2008)

- Since I started this thread fifty replies ago..

1.  I don't want Heather Mallick fired.  Her viewpoint, cultural arrogance and sense of bureaucratic entitlement is quite common among Canada's well paid chattering classes.  It would be a shame to muzzle that viewpoint and then assume we have solved the problem.  As long as those views exist, I want Heather to be able to expand on them, with or without vitriol (preferably with - it gets us going).

2.  Greta's calling Heather a 'pig' was tactically unsound.  She retrograded from the moral high ground for no solid reason.  The Left will call it "typical right wing bullying" or somesuch.  The Right fails to understand that the Pottymouth Protocol dictates that only the Left gets points for the 'progressive' use of bile.

This round goes to Heather, unfortunately.


----------



## defenceman (24 Sep 2008)

I complained to the CBC about Mallick's column and, in response to my message and others, the Ombudsman will investigate.  I have a high degree of confidence in Mr. Carlin to do a good job in accordance with his mandate.  Just the fact that he has taken it under investigation is highly significant.  I believe Mallick has the right to express her opinions.  However, I cannot cancel my subscription to the CBC in protest.  Why must I pay for something that I consider unacceptable from almost every point of view by which a piece of writing can be judged?  As I pointed out in a message to Mr. Carlin, if what Mallick wrote is not hate speech, it is extremely close.  If we were to substitute the names of other groups for the ones she vilified in her column, can there be any doubt that she and the CBC would be called to account before one or several Human Rights tribunals?  I support Mallick's right to spit filth at her moral and intellectual superiors.  I deeply resent subsidizing the weapons she uses.


----------



## pizzathahut (24 Sep 2008)

I got as far as:


> I'm a feminist



(3rd paragraph) And had to shut my browser. thats all I need to see.
BAN THE CBC! Liberal penkos!


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2008)

pizzathahut said:
			
		

> I got as far as:
> 
> (3rd paragraph) And had to shut my browser. thats all I need to see.
> BAN THE CBC! Liberal penkos!



It's a good thing you didn't write any more, because this would have been as far as I got.... :


----------



## GAP (26 Sep 2008)

I have reviewed complaints about Heather Mallick's column, "A Mighty Wind Blows Through the Republican Convention."  You can find my review under the Findings section of my website (www.cbc.ca/ombudsman), or by clicking on this link:  MALLICK-PALIN.pdf

Sincerely,

Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Sep 2008)

Sorry Vince, but that link takes me to nowhere, as does the heading under the findings area also, when I click, pause and nothing.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## 2 Cdo (26 Sep 2008)

Wes, the gist of his finding was that Mallick failed to provide any factual evidence to some of her assertations. Further it also reported that by the CBC's own standard it must provide a counter balance of sorts in opinion pieces, something the ombudsman found lacking(Say it isn't so! :)

Whether anything further comes of this, I doubt it. But I will give kudos to the ombudsman for investigating the complaint in a timely manner.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Sep 2008)

The way to handle these folks is to use their own tools against them. If I were an American living here, I would launch a Section 13 HRC complaint. If McLeans and Steyn can be persecuted prosecuted for repeating someone else's comments, then surely this "lady" can be for the comments she made.


----------



## DBA (26 Sep 2008)

I emailed the CBC ombudsman, today I received a response. It's a general response to all who inquired about the issue. Findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, 2008/2009. The short summary (conclusions) stated are:



> CONCLUSION:
> Portions of Ms. Mallick’s column do not meet the standards set out in policy for a point-of-view piece since some of her “facts” are unsupportable. She may, of course, resubmit her column taking account of our editorial standards. The editors are free to, in fact obliged to, exercise appropriate editing standards.
> It is not my job to agree or disagree with Ms. Mallick’s opinions or the tone in which they are expressed. She is free to craft them as she chooses.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2008)

Any idea of how one goes about getting the job of CBC Ombudsman?  I really would love a six figure pay cheque just for responding to people that I have no legal rights to do anything, other than reply to queries with a canned response stating that I can't legally do anything.


----------



## greentoblue (28 Sep 2008)

It seems that the amount and weight of the criticism of Ms Mallick's commentary got to the CBC.  They just announced an apology:

CBC offers online apology for Mallick column maligning Sarah Palin

"Following 300-plus complaints from readers, and attacks from Canadian and American media organizations, including Fox News, publisher John Cruickshank said the public broadcaster had erred in its editorial judgement and should never had been posted.

In an online statement, Cruickshank said reaction to the column has caused the CBC to install new editing procedures that will ensure inappropriate work won't appear. "
---
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2008/09/28/6913901-cp.html

I am willing to bet it was the criticism from their peers in the media that hurt the CBC the most and made it take a double-look as opposed to us mere taxpayers who fund the organization.  Question: in light of this retraction as well as the cooperation of their (former) Ottawa reporter Erickson with a Liberal MP how can the CBC claim partiality? And why is their no cleanup of the political partisans in it?


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2008)

Full text of apology - .pdf attached in case link disappears - shared with usual disclaimer...

*LETTER FROM THE PUBLISHER:  We erred in our judgment*
John Cruickshank, CBC News, 28 Sept 08
Article link

More than 300 people have taken the trouble this month to complain to the CBC ombudsman about a column we ran on CBCNews.ca about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Sept. 5.

The column, by award-winning freelance writer Heather Mallick, was also pilloried by the National Post in Canada and by Fox News in the U.S. Despite its age — it is three weeks old, several lifetimes in web years — this posting remains a subject of fascination in the blogosphere.

Vince Carlin, the CBC Ombudsman, has now issued his assessment of the Mallick column. He doesn't fault her for riling readers by either the caustic nature of her tone or the polarizing nature of her opinion.

But he objects that many of her most savage assertions lack a basis in fact. And he is certainly correct.

Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan.

And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site.
Healthy restraint

On the whole, the CBC News policy handbook takes a very anxious view of any mixing of opinion in with the news business. It sees the two as nitro and glycerin, innocuous on their own but explosive together. This is a very healthy restraint for a public broadcaster.

But every news organization needs to have an opinion dimension. Access to different viewpoints helps readers, listeners and viewers make reasoned choices, especially during an election campaign.

As a public broadcaster we have an added responsibility to provide an array of opinions and voices to complement our journalism. But we must do so carefully. And you should be able to trust us to provide you with work that's based on solid reporting and free from the passionate excesses of partisanship.

We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to insure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear. We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack. It's a fine line.

Ombudsman Carlin makes another significant observation in his response to complainants: when it does choose to print opinion, CBCNews.ca displays a very narrow range on its pages.

In this, Carlin is also correct.

This, too, is being immediately addressed. CBCNews.ca will soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions and be home to a diverse group of writers with many perspectives. In this, we will better reflect the depth and texture of this country.

We erred in our editorial judgment. You told us in no uncertain terms. And we have learned from it.


----------



## 2 Cdo (29 Sep 2008)

Personally I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the CBC to provide balance in opinion pieces. In the past their idea of balance has been centre-left, middle-left and looney left. :


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2008)

Micheal Coren provides some balance:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2008/09/27/6899131-sun.html



> *Scared witless*
> 
> Anyone left shaking after CBC's lowbrow attack on Sarah Palin?
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2008)

If you look here you will see a list of CBC radio stations – all those locations have a Radio 1 station (with announcers, etc) and some have a Radio 2 station, too – all Radio 2 stations are FM, many Radio 1 stations are FM, too. Here is a list of the licensed frequencies that support the whole shebang.

This is a large network – one of the largest in the world – and it has considerable value as a large, national radio network, as several regional networks or as 30± independent stations. While commercial broadcasting is no longer a licence to print money I don’t hear too many private broadcasters threatening bankruptcy.

Prime Minister Bennett said, and most Canadians still agree, that “This country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources. Without such control, broadcasting can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened.” But *national control* of radio broadcasting need not and, clearly - based on world-wide evidence (even China has private broadcasters)- does not equate to a government own broadcasting service. In Canada the CRTC is the *regulatory* heir of the old CRBC and Board of Broadcast Governors. The CBC, proper, was created, in some part, to suppress religious broadcasters – including a pioneer Jehovah’s Witness station and also to rescue a few pioneer private broadcasters from financial messes but it need not have been perpetuated beyond 1936 – there was, I’m pretty certain sufficient money and interest to develop and sustain several competing private broadcasters – even regional networks – in English and French.

Could we sell the CBC and still retain *control* over radio broadcasting in Canada. *Yes*, without question, 100%, no worries and so on.


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2008)

What's wrong with bashing Sarah Palin?
MARGARET WENTE From Tuesday's Globe and Mail September 30, 2008 at 3:54 AM EDT
Article Link

It's fun to bash Sarah Palin. I should know. I've been doing it for weeks. But nobody has bashed her quite as viciously as a semi-obscure columnist named Heather Mallick.

"Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look ... the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression," she wrote in a column that was posted Sept. 5 on the CBC's online news site. And she didn't stop there. She went on to refer to Republican men as "sexual inadequates," small-town Americans as "hicks" and "hillbillies," Bristol's boyfriend, Levi, as a "ratboy," and the Palins as terrible parents. "What normal father would want Levi 'I'm a fuckin' redneck' Johnson prodding his daughter?" she wondered.

Vitriolic drivel is all the rage these days. The blogosphere is full of it. But this drivel was bought and paid for by the CBC. And soon the organic waste material hit the fan. The National Post went ballistic. So did Fox News, which loves nothing better than denouncing the left-wing loonies who live up here in Canada. 

"Is this what actually passes for commentary at a publicly funded broadcasting company in Canada?" seethed a Fox News babe. Even Fox's Greta Van Susteren got into the act. She called Ms. Mallick a "pig." Ms. Mallick was deluged with hate mail, and the CBC with hundreds of complaints. Ms. Van Susteren said it was all in fun and invited Ms. Mallick on the air, but she declined.

Backlash prompts CBC to apologize  
 Ms. Mallick has professed shock at the hate mail she's received (tell me about it), while revelling in her new-found notoriety. But Sunday, the CBC finally ate crow and yanked the column from its website. "We erred in our judgment," said news publisher John Cruickshank, who called the column a "viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan" piece of political invective that should never have been published. The ombudsman had looked into the matter, and found many of her "most savage assertions lack a basis in fact." I'll say. For one thing, she obviously knows nothing about the sex lives of Republicans.

The Mallick affair is bad news for the CBC, because it reinforces the widespread belief the place is a hotbed of left-wing bias. That's not good news when a Tory government controls the purse strings. Nor is it entirely fair. The CBC's online commentary arm is not exactly the flagship of the network. It is a backwater that has served as a sort of semi-retirement home for aging lefties (think Judy Rebick) who could no longer find an outlet in the mainstream media and, one suspects, supplied copy cheap. They had little oversight and less influence - until now.

The truth about the CBC is more complicated. Its problem isn't an overt left-wing bias. Its problem is an earnest, mushy-liberal mindset that can scarcely entertain a contrarian idea. Its editors, producers and directors strive to be fair-minded. It's just hardly any of them would ever vote Tory. Oh, they try. Once they even had right-wing commentator David Frum guest-host The Current. But people were so shocked they never did it again.

Ironically, no one is more bothered by this groupthink than the top CBC managers themselves. More than one have told me that it drives them crazy. And it's no accident that left-wing faces such as Avi Lewis have recently decamped for the greener fields of English-language Al Jazeera. Although I haven't talked to Mr. Cruickshank (a former colleague), my guess is that part of his mandate is to vigorously encourage a wider range of world views. Too bad Ms. Mallick popped up to prove the critics right.

Meantime, I'm not feeling too sorry for Ms. Mallick. She is a sour, narrow-minded writer - the kind of who makes Michael Moore look like a world-class wit. Her reflexive anti-Americanism is heavy-handed and stale, to say nothing of casually racist. There are many, many ways of dissing Sarah Palin. But Ms. Mallick's naughty, coarse puerility is not among them. 
More on link


----------



## Hollywog (30 Sep 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The way to handle these folks is to use their own tools against them. If I were an American living here, I would launch a Section 13 HRC complaint. If McLeans and Steyn can be persecuted prosecuted for repeating someone else's comments, then surely this "lady" can be for the comments she made.



If she had used the same adjectives to talk about Obama just change the colour/sex every journalist in Canada would have wanted her head on a platter.  The front of our MSM's would be reeling saying to fire her.  Instead they are trying to paint her as the victim.

HRC's will never charge her they support legal affirmative action.

Why would she think  its ok to call someone white trash but not another colour? Isn't treating people differently based on their race, racist?


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Aug 2011)

Reviving the necrothread with Strike Two for Ms. Mallick:


> The following apology appears in the print edition of today’s _Toronto Star_.
> 
> 'A column by Heather Mallick on July 28 contained a number of inaccurate statements about the well-known British journalist and author Melanie Phillips.
> 
> ...


Source:  melaniephillips.com, 15 Aug 11

Heather's original article in response to Melanie's piece on the Norway killing is not available, but it MUST have been a doozy to get this result.  Here's Strike One if you don't want to go all the way back through the thread.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Aug 2011)

Here is a link to a blog spot with the column. Click on the column to enlarge it. 

http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2011/08/melanie-phillips-apology.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Here is a link to a blog spot with the column. Click on the column to enlarge it.
> 
> http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2011/08/melanie-phillips-apology.html




And another: http://www.sooeys.com/viewtopic.php?t=6222&start=30&sid=9c75d7e76b99f54f9402e0ef2387e3c7

Mallick is a real 'piece of work,' but, not surprisingly, she has big 'cheering sections' amongst e.g. the "Friends of Judy Rebik," and other assorted lost causes.


----------

