CBC's Heather Mallick on Palin

[capricorn]

I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.

----

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. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously.

----

Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi "I'm a fuckin' redneck" Johnson prodding his daughter?

(emphasis mine)

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

Note that the CBC does not dissociate itself from Mallick's vicious and hate filled opinions. Nowhere does it say that the views expressed are solely those of the author. Therefore I must conclude that the CBC endorses Mallick's opinions. Since when is it permissible for the CBC, paid for by taxpayers' dollars, to facilitate such garbage?

Here's Barbara Kay's response to the Mallick piece.

The media are awash in commentary. Some of the reaction from feminists has been especially vituperative and hypocritical. Criticism they would never have leveled at a liberal woman candidate or any man – But who will look after the children? Why didn’t she stop her daughter from getting pregnant? – was put forward by the very women who not only have been touting the idea that women’s ambitions must come before childcare, but advocating early and frequent and diverse experiments in sexuality to America’s girls for decades.

But a new low in Palin-targeting journalistic sewage – and that is saying something – fetched up on the CBC’s online shores on September 5, written by Heather Mallick. Her VIEWPOINT blog post, “A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention” Is so beyond the ethical pale that it comes close to hate speech.

Not that I want Mallick reported to a Human rights Commission. I just want the CBC to fire her and I want to see her blackballed from Canadian media altogether.

---

Extreme ideology linked to a brain without a filter can lead to terrible writing. Mallick doesn’t criticize, she castrates. She doesn’t analyze, she garburates. If she said any of these things about a liberal woman, she’d be tarred and feathered by the Sisterhood, and fired in a heartbeat.

Mallick is a national embarrassment that we all have to pay for. I have found my election issue.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...on-the-cbc.aspx

If this was the private sector press, I'd say fine, I'm not paying for it. I draw the line when my tax dollars are used to promote sexist, over-the-top, one-sided, hateful columnists with an axe to grind.

Grrrrr!!!!!!

[White Doors]

Yes, how progressive of her.

I hope the CBC goes away..

[Topaz]

Yes, how progressive of her.

I hope the CBC goes away..

Canada needs the CBC to off set CTV and the bias they have at times with dear old Duffy!!

[Guest American Woman]

Looks as you've got a Canadian Ann Coulter there.

[guyser]

Nowhere does it say that the views expressed are solely those of the author. Therefore I must conclude that the CBC endorses Mallick's opinions.

And you would be wrong.

INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY (I) THAT THE WEB SITE AND/OR CONTENT WILL BE ACCURATE, COMPLETE, RELIABLE, SUITABLE OR TIMELY; (II) THAT ANY CONTENT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY INFORMATION....

Right frm the website.

[Black Dog]

Looks as you've got a Canadian Ann Coulter there.

Not really. I must say, as a long time reader of Mallick's, I was taken aback by the ferocity of her piece. That said, I think the angle that the CBC should not be running opinion pieces is a bit off the mark.

As an aside I do find it comforting that, months after Mark "The Human" Steyn's veneration as a free speech martyr, right-wingers are back to their old censorship-friendly ways. Bunch of fcuking babies.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Black Dog

[HisSelf]

Amazing. Looks lie Mallick is about to retire. Hard to believe the CBC would let this stand. She must have had too much to drink or maybe she had just been screwed somehow in the CBC shuffle.

Too bad. She is a great reporter. Hopefully she will have a soft landing.

[capricorn]

Not really. I must say, as a long time reader of Mallick's, I was taken aback by the ferocity of her piece. That said, I think the angle that the CBC should not be running opinion pieces is a bit off the mark.

The CBC's mandate needs to be re-examined. I don't believe that when our national broadcaster was set up that this kind of "opinion piece" would fit within its raison d'etre. The question remains. Should our tax dollars be spent on this kind of garbage? What does this kind of "reporting" contribute to national unity and pan-Canadian information?

As an aside I do find it comforting that, months after Mark "The Human" Steyn's veneration as a free speech martyr, right-wingers are back to their old censorship-friendly ways. Bunch of fcuking babies.

If this was an attack on a Liberal or left-wing woman, there would be a line-up a mile long at the door of the Canadian Human Rights Commission with complaints. So don't give me this BS about the right wing being "a bunch of fcuking babies".

[Riverwind]

As an aside I do find it comforting that, months after Mark "The Human" Steyn's veneration as a free speech martyr, right-wingers are back to their old censorship-friendly ways. Bunch of fcuking babies.

I don't see anyone demanding that she be denied the right to spew her views in whatever venue she can find. The complaint is the CBC should not be providing her a forum to express such views. BTW - I am speaking as someone who supports the CBC and does not have a problem with tax payer funded media provided it maintains a neutral point of view on all issues.

[blueblood]

Not really. I must say, as a long time reader of Mallick's, I was taken aback by the ferocity of her piece. That said, I think the angle that the CBC should not be running opinion pieces is a bit off the mark.

As an aside I do find it comforting that, months after Mark "The Human" Steyn's veneration as a free speech martyr, right-wingers are back to their old censorship-friendly ways. Bunch of fcuking babies.

Mark Steyn is not paid for by the tax payers, hence the problem. If Mallick was on CTV, there wouldn't be a problem.

[Black Dog]

I don't see anyone demanding that she be denied the right to spew her views in whatever venue she can find.

I just want the CBC to fire her and I want to see her blackballed from Canadian media altogether.

-Barbara Kay

The complaint is the CBC should not be providing her a forum to express such views. BTW - I am speaking as someone who supports the CBC and does not have a problem with tax payer funded media provided it maintains a neutral point of view on all issues.

Frankly I think that's namby-pamby bullcrap. It's an opinion piece, which, by definition, are not neutral. So should the CBC not publish or broadcast opinions?

Mark Steyn is not paid for by the tax payers, hence the problem. If Mallick was on CTV, there wouldn't be a problem.

Ask yourself this: if the piece was pro-Palin, would any of the people suddenly concerned with taxpayer dollars be complaining? I think not. It's a front.

[HisSelf]

As an aside I do find it comforting that, months after Mark "The Human" Steyn's veneration as a free speech martyr, right-wingers are back to their old censorship-friendly ways. Bunch of fcuking babies.

Interesting that Mark Steyn has to add the qualifier "the human". Feeling a bit tetchy are we? Show us your belly button, Mark. LOL.

[Riverwind]

It's an opinion piece, which, by definition, are not neutral. So should the CBC not publish or broadcast opinions?

They need to maintain a neutral POV. The could accomplish that objectived by presenting opposing opinions together, however, the Mallick peice appeared in isolation.

Take a lot at the GM site: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinions/

You have a choice of slant ranging from Lawrence Martin and Rick Salutin to Rex Murphy and Margrent Wente.

CBC should offer at least that range. Preferrable something that throws in Terance Corcoran and Naomi Klien as well.

Ask yourself this: if the piece was pro-Palin, would any of the people suddenly concerned with taxpayer dollars be complaining? I think not. It's a front.

What's your point? That people dislike seeing taxpayers dollars spent promoting one side of an issue? That is hardly a surprise. Especially when the CBC deos not distinguish between opinion peices and news articles. Edited September 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[August1991]

Not really. I must say, as a long time reader of Mallick's, I was taken aback by the ferocity of her piece. That said, I think the angle that the CBC should not be running opinion pieces is a bit off the mark.

As an aside I do find it comforting that, months after Mark "The Human" Steyn's veneration as a free speech martyr, right-wingers are back to their old censorship-friendly ways. Bunch of fcuking babies.

I agree.

It would be crazy for the CBC to fire Mallick. Columnists are supposed to be controversial and attract attention. And given the attention this column has attracted, Mallick is clearly good at her job.

My only comment is that the CBC should offer a job to Barbara Kay too. Or heavens, Mark Steyn.

[Black Dog]

They need to maintain a neutral POV. The could accomplish that objectived by presenting opposing opinions together, however, the Mallick peice appeared in isolation.

Take a lot at the GM site: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinions/

You have a choice of slant ranging from Lawrence Martin and Rick Salutin to Rex Murphy and Margrent Wente.

CBC should offer at least that range. Preferrable something that throws in Terance Corcoran and Naomi Klien as well.

Looks a lot like this.

What's your point? That people dislike seeing taxpayers dollars spent promoting one side of an issue? That is hardly a surprise

My point is people will only get upset over tax dollars promoting one side of an issue if it's not their side. It's called selective outrage.

Especially when the CBC deos not distinguish between opinion peices and news articles.

I would humbly suggest that someone would have to be suffering some form of cognitive impairment to not understand the Mallick piece was an opinion piece. The content and the large "Viewpoint" header above the story are dead giveaways, as is the fact that Mallick is known as a columnist.

[M.Dancer]

One of the problems of television as a news medium is it is hard for the viewer to distinguish between political reporting, political analysis and opinion editorial.

It seems though to me that sometime CBC goes the extra mile to appear biased.

[M.Dancer]

Looks a lot like this.

My point is people will only get upset over tax dollars promoting one side of an issue if it's not their side. It's called selective outrage.

I would humbly suggest that someone would have to be suffering some form of cognitive impairment to not understand the Mallick piece was an opinion piece. The content and the large "Viewpoint" header above the story are dead giveaways, as is the fact that Mallick is known as a columnist.

Was this broadcast? I mean ,during the whole segment they had a viewpoint banner on the TV screen?

[Black Dog]

Was this broadcast? I mean ,during the whole segment they had a viewpoint banner on the TV screen?

AFAIK, this only appeared online, not on the telly.

[M.Dancer]

AFAIK, this only appeared online, not on the telly.

The interwebs is a completely different mediums than telebision....yes only an idjiot would confuse opinion with analysis or reporting on the interwebs

[blueblood]

They need to maintain a neutral POV. The could accomplish that objectived by presenting opposing opinions together, however, the Mallick peice appeared in isolation.

Take a lot at the GM site: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinions/

You have a choice of slant ranging from Lawrence Martin and Rick Salutin to Rex Murphy and Margrent Wente.

CBC should offer at least that range. Preferrable something that throws in Terance Corcoran and Naomi Klien as well.

What's your point? That people dislike seeing taxpayers dollars spent promoting one side of an issue? That is hardly a surprise. Especially when the CBC deos not distinguish between opinion peices and news articles.

I wouldn't care if the piece was critical of Palin, going as far as she did I have a problem with.

The same goes the other way, pro is alright, but if a columnist for the CBC said she is a reincarnation of the virgin mary or something radical along those lines and that slant I'd have a problem with it.

The CBC is supposed to be a respected news agency, not a conduit for childish banter regarding a serious topic, and that goes either side of the story.

[jefferiah]

Looks as you've got a Canadian Ann Coulter there.

The difference being that Ann Coulter could not get a job as a CNN reporter. And also that Ann is actually funny.

[Black Dog]

The difference being that Ann Coulter could not get a job as a CNN reporter. And also that Ann is actually funny.

This is what I'm talking about. Right wing pundit serves up crass, tasteless "childish banter"? Take a fuckin' joke.

Someone from the other side takes aim at the G.O.P? Call the Waaaaahmbulance.

[jefferiah]

This is what I'm talking about. Right wing pundit serves up crass, tasteless "childish banter"? Take a fuckin' joke.

Someone from the other side takes aim at the G.O.P? Call the Waaaaahmbulance.

I didn't whine or complain about it. I just pointed out the difference. You are the one whining and cussing. And so is Mallick. I dont take offense to the article she wrote. I dont even care about it. She makes herself sound like an infant who is not getting her way. With Coulter I get a sense that she is actually laughing while she writes, but Mallick sounds as if someone got to her and she is pissed off.

Edited September 10, 2008 by jefferiah

[Smallc]

The CBC is supposed to be a respected news agency, not a conduit for childish banter regarding a serious topic, and that goes either side of the story.

It is a respected news agency. This wasn't a news piece nor was it presented as such. I see no problem with it. It may be a bit over the top, but its an editorial, just like those presented at other agencies.

[blueblood]

This is what I'm talking about. Right wing pundit serves up crass, tasteless "childish banter"? Take a fuckin' joke.

Someone from the other side takes aim at the G.O.P? Call the Waaaaahmbulance.

Pot meet kettle, your having a bird at us taking shots at mallick, but it's all right for the left to take pot shots at coulter...