CBC's Heather Mallick on Palin

[capricorn]

I missed this article last week about the CBC's coverage of Palin.

Imagine my embarrassment, then, when it turned out this week that the flagship newscast on the biggest, deep-pocketedest, old-fashionedest Canadian media outlet of them all -- the taxpayer-funded CBC--got suckered into reporting a story that the blogosphere chewed up, debunked and spit out two days earlier.

The story revolves around Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who on Friday was announced as John McCain's pick for VP candidate. Almost immediately, a weird rumour took flight: that Palin's fifth child, four-month-old baby, Trig, was actually born to her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol. According to sources swirling feverishly around left-wing clearinghouse Daily Kos, Sarah had fraudulently claimed maternity of the child while Bristol was removed from school under a phony excuse involving mononucleosis.

Many conservatives were concerned. A Michigan-based political-junkie friend of mine--a tireless Web surfer who acts as a sort of human RSS feeder for his friends -- sent out a worried e-mail on Friday night declaring: "I think that the accusation ? is credible enough to require evidence --more than just words --in reply."

But then the rumour fell apart. Photos surfaced of Sarah, clearly pregnant, going about her gubernatorial duties in early 2008. It was also established that Bristol is five months pregnant right now -- making the rumour a biological impossibility. "I shouldn't have dignified this with an e-mail," my friend reported rumour -- even before it had been debunked. The Daily Kos itself shut up about the subject from Monday onwards.

But on Tuesday night -- two full days after the rumour was killed -- CBC's The National went live with it.

"Sarah Palin was strangely absent from public view today," reporter Neil Macdonald told viewers from the Republican convention in Minnesota. "The story surrounding her grew ever stranger, too."

"It's baby Trig who's generating the questions," Macdonald went on. "There are the pictures of [sarah] Palin looking slim just weeks before the April birth. In March, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Palin 'simply doesn't look pregnant.' Then, there was the birth itself. Palin was in Texas on April 17 when her water broke, but she went ahead with a speech, then, rather than checking into a hospital, she headed back to Alaska." (The CBC provided a helpful map showing Palin's lengthy plane ride, with dramatic-sounding music.)

"There is no record of the birth," Macdonald added somewhat breathlessly. "Some suspect that Trig is actually Palin's grandson, and that Bristol, the now-pregnant teenage daughter, is the baby's real mother."

All total nonsense, of course. Total taxpayer-funded nonsense.

-----

Putting aside the role of Macdonald -- who has a history of left-wing smears for which the CBC has later had to apologize -- how did no one at the CBC catch this? As taxpayers, doesn't our $1-billion buy us a fact-checker or two?

Left-wing bias from the CBC-- that we expect. But rank amateurism is unforgivable. If this is the face of the mainstream media, maybe they won't miss us so much when we're gone.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...469cee5&p=2

Here is a link to this same author's take on Heather Mallick's "editorial" on Palin dated today which he titles: Another week, another disgrace at the CBC

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/s....html?id=780605

Looks like the CBC is quite taken by Sarah Palin and her family.

[Black Dog]

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.

Not that you care...

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.

And that has nothing to do with your own political inclinations, nosiree...

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...

I don't care if you don't like what Mallick wrote. That's not the issue. The issue is that some are suggessting taxpayer funds for the CBC mean that the content should be neutered or that Mallick should be blackballed. I would never suggest anyone fire or blackball Ann Coulter because she represents such a great insight into the dark rescesses of the Republican lizard brain.

[Smallc]

The issue is that some are suggessting taxpayer funds for the CBC mean that the content should be neutered or that Mallick should be blackballed.

Yes, it seems that some think that the CBC should be denied journalistic independence because of where its funding comes from. That would be a rather silly notion. The CBC has received many awards for its journalistic quality. It does have somewhat of a bias to the left, but most media do, and that's not really anything to complain about.

[jefferiah]

I don't care if you don't like what Mallick wrote. That's not the issue. The issue is that some are suggessting taxpayer funds for the CBC mean that the content should be neutered or that Mallick should be blackballed.

I agree. She should not be blackballed or kicked out of the media. We are just pointing out that most mainstream media would not print a column like this from either side of the spectrum. That's why Ann Coulter isn't doing opinion columns for mainstream newspapers. I don't care if CBC prints it. However......

Instead of saying Mallick should be neutered because of tax dollars, I'd say tax dollars should be neutered because of Mallick. If CBC wants to be an ideologue news source, they can do it on their own dime.

When I want to read Ann Coulter, you dont have to buy the book for me.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[kimmy]

The mention of Coulter is interesting for 2 reasons.

First off, because the fact of giving people like Coulter a platform is one of the main reasons left-leaning people dismiss Fox News as a legitimate news source. Giving people like Coulter a platform is one of the reasons left-leaning people often raised when discussing whether the CRTC should let Fox News into Canada.

Secondly, this piece is decidedly Coulter-like.

In fact, it's so Coulter-like that Coulter wrote a similar piece in 2004 regarding the Democrat National Convention. As I recall, the tone was remarkably similar, right down to labelling the men of the party as sexually inadequate.

Coulter had been asked by a newspaper (the Boston Herald, maybe?) to write them a column from the convention, as part of a "point-counterpoint" type feature, where they'd planned to have a righty and lefty both write about the convention. Coulter's column, as it turned out, was deemed by the paper to be so utterly stupid that they didn't even publish it.

Coulter went on to rant about how she'd been "censored" by the left-wing media, and published the article elsewhere (on her own website? on a right-wing news website? I can't recall.)

But anyway, the point is that Coulter wrote a similar column for a newspaper, and the newspaper thought it was such a piece of shit that they didn't run it. They said "this is inflammatory and has no redeeming value," and that was the end of it as far as they were concerned.

Heather Mallick can write whatever she wants. If this is honestly what's in her heart and mind, I think she's got some serious problems, but that's not for me to say.

What I question here is not that she wrote it, but that the CBC decided to put it on their website. Seems to me like there's a role for an editor to say "you know, no thanks."

-k

[jefferiah]

deleted

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[August1991]

I agree. She should not be blackballed or kicked out of the media. We are just pointing out that most mainstream media would not print a column like this from either side of the spectrum. That's why Ann Coulter isn't doing opinion columns for mainstream newspapers. I don't care if CBC prints it. However......

Instead of saying Mallick should be neutered because of tax dollars, I'd say tax dollars should be neutered because of Mallick. If CBC wants to be an ideologue news source, they can do it on their own dime.

When I want to read Ann Coulter, you dont have to buy the book for me.

I disagree.

Somebody has to pay Mallick's and Coulter's salary and if it's private media, that means advertising. I find advertising disruptive and I can see the advantage of a subscription service such as the CBC. As it is, each Canadian pays now on average $30 annually and for this, we get the CBC/Radio-Canada.

I think that's a good deal - in principle. It's cheaper than Sirius.

----

Unfortunately, the CBC has been taken over by a bunch of left wing high school teachers (is there any other kind?) who feel they are on a mission to shape us into model citizens.

I have three main compalints of the CBC's news division:

1. The CBC never presents the other side. (Where is the right wing equivalent of Mallick?)

2. The CBC's left wing bias filters into their supposed objective reporting. Michael Colton and Micheal Enright are Obamatons with fluid voices. I am very, very tired of nudge/wink remarks about the unpopularity/stupidity/meanness of Bush/Harper.

3. The CBC's self-devoted mission to uplift Canadian humanity with its enlightened ways.

Incidentally, Radio-Canada has its own problems but it does not suffer from the same afflictions as the CBC.

[Black Dog]

Instead of saying Mallick should be neutered because of tax dollars, I'd say tax dollars should be neutered because of Mallick. If CBC wants to be an ideologue news source, they can do it on their own dime.

WTF is an "ideologue news source?"

Again: opinion =/ news.

First off, because the fact of giving people like Coulter a platform is one of the main reasons left-leaning people dismiss Fox News as a legitimate news source. Giving people like Coulter a platform is one of the reasons left-leaning people often raised when discussing whether the CRTC should let Fox News into Canada.

Personally, I dismiss FoxNews because it's bias filters into the "news" portion of its coverage. Of course, I'm honest enough to admit that's a problem for me because of my own political stance. That and Fox News is a crock of shit. Just kidding. Sort of. Really, I couldn't care less about FoxNews.

But anyway, the point is that Coulter wrote a similar column for a newspaper, and the newspaper thought it was such a piece of shit that they didn't run it. They said "this is inflammatory and has no redeeming value," and that was the end of it as far as they were concerned.

Heather Mallick can write whatever she wants. If this is honestly what's in her heart and mind, I think she's got some serious problems, but that's not for me to say.

What I question here is not that she wrote it, but that the CBC decided to put it on their website. Seems to me like there's a role for an editor to say "you know, no thanks."

I see the CBC has a handy form for registering complaints like yours. Click here!

[blueblood]

I disagree.

Somebody has to pay Mallick's and Coulter's salary and if it's private media, that means advertising. I find advertising disruptive and I can see the advantage of a subscription service such as the CBC. As it is, each Canadian pays now on average $30 annually and for this, we get the CBC/Radio-Canada.

I think that's a good deal - in principle. It's cheaper than Sirius.

----

Unfortunately, the CBC has been taken over by a bunch of left wing high school teachers (is there any other kind?) who feel they are on a mission to shape us into model citizens.

I have three main compalints of the CBC's news division:

1. The CBC never presents the other side. (Where is the right wing equivalent of Mallick?)

2. The CBC's left wing bias filters into their supposed objective reporting. Michael Colton and Micheal Enright are Obamatons with fluid voices. I am very, very tired of nudge/wink remarks about the unpopularity/stupidity/meanness of Bush/Harper.

3. The CBC's self-devoted mission to uplift Canadian humanity with its enlightened ways.

Incidentally, Radio-Canada has its own problems but it does not suffer from the same afflictions as the CBC.

then you must love PBS then... The cbc does have advertising, and its bankrolled by the federal government. That's thirty dollars taken from me to fund a quack. That thirty dollars could be in my pocket that I can spend on literature that I would prefer to support by my own choice. CBC isn't a subscription it's mandatory.

When coulter is on and the advertisers are advertising in that span of time, I can change the channels rendering their advertising useless on me, no matter how futile it is in the scheme of things. I think coulter is a quack as well. Some people do support her by watching her and the advertisers capitilize on that by sponsoring her with the hope that those watching her buy her products. Coulter has a hope of funding. Mallick's has guaranteed funding.

Good on harper for slashing the arts.

[Smallc]

Good on harper for slashing the arts.

He must like the CBC since he increased their budget.

[CANADIEN]

The CBC should rid itself of people who write (or say, for that matter) hate-filled, ignorant opinion peaces? When is that idiot Don Cherry leaving?

[jefferiah]

The CBC should rid itself of people who write (or say, for that matter) hate-filled, ignorant opinion peaces? When is that idiot Don Cherry leaving?

I don't care so much about the piece she wrote. But I highly doubt they would hire the right-wing equivalent to do such an opinion column. We made the comparison here with Ann Coulter. If Ann were Canadian we would not be seeing many opinion columns by her on CBC. I would venture to guess that if Ann Coulter were Canadian, not only would she not be funded with government money but she would also have to pay a pretty chunk every time she wrote a column defending herself at a Human Rights tribunal.

Who do you suppose would have a larger audience on the free market, Cherry or Mallick?

[jefferiah]

I disagree.

As it is, each Canadian pays now on average $30 annually and for this, we get the CBC/Radio-Canada.

I have three main compalints of the CBC's news division:

1. The CBC never presents the other side. (Where is the right wing equivalent of Mallick?)

2. The CBC's left wing bias filters into their supposed objective reporting. Michael Colton and Micheal Enright are Obamatons with fluid voices. I am very, very tired of nudge/wink remarks about the unpopularity/stupidity/meanness of Bush/Harper.

3. The CBC's self-devoted mission to uplift Canadian humanity with its enlightened ways.

Incidentally, Radio-Canada has its own problems but it does not suffer from the same afflictions as the CBC.

Even if the CBC only cost 30 dollars combined, let alone 30 a person, is it the role of the state to give us the news.

By virtue of it's own tax-funded existence the CBC is bound to be left-wing.

Let's imagine a fictional character running for the office of Prime Minister. He is a capitalist. Let's call him August Pliny. He gains alot of popularity so that he has an actual chance of winning. One of his platforms is to slash CBC funding by two-thirds. Do you think he will receive any favourable coverage on CBC?

[White Doors]

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

except Ann Coulter is not a governmnet employee...

[Smallc]

except Ann Coulter is not a governmnet employee...

That's not important. It doesn't matter where her money comes from. She is a professor who's only media job is to write one opinion column a week. Even if she was a journalist, it wouldn't matter. In this country, we have freedom of the press, and it doesn't matter where they get paid from, they are free to say and write whatever they feel like it and that shouldn't change.

[White Doors]

That's not important. It doesn't matter where her money comes from. She is a professor who's only media job is to write one opinion column a week. Even if she was a journalist, it wouldn't matter. In this country, we have freedom of the press, and it doesn't matter where they get paid from, they are free to say and write whatever they feel like it and that shouldn't change.

Yes, it does matter. I don't want her to not speak, I want to see how much of a freak she is. The CBC provides no alternative counterpoint at all. THAT does matter. The CBC clearly has an agenda and I don't like them shoving opinions down my throat at every news cast especially when i am forced to pay for it. It most CERTAINLY DOES matter. I am sure your 'mid winter celebration' invitation will still be in the mail for appearing all progressive and all smallc, but this is outrageous. On my local cbc news last night they had an interview with Buzz Hargrove and the local liberal MP candidate and that was it. Nothing else. I expect more from a government funded media organization.

Maybe you don't but I do. Or maybe you do too but don't have the cajones to say it.

[capricorn]

Yes, it does matter. I don't want her to not speak, I want to see how much of a freak she is. The CBC provides no alternative counterpoint at all. THAT does matter. The CBC clearly has an agenda and I don't like them shoving opinions down my throat at every news cast especially when i am forced to pay for it. It most CERTAINLY DOES matter.

Well said. The $30.00 per year per Canadian excuse doesn't cut it.

[Smallc]

Maybe you don't but I do. Or maybe you do too but don't have the cajones to say it.

Well, I suppose it depends what you look for when you watch CBC. On Politics, With Don Newman, they always have all sides represented. On the National, they have a panel made up of people from all sides. If you want to simply look at the opinion of the journalists that the CBC employs, then go ahead, and get mad about it while your at it. The truth is though, that there are programs on CBC that do show both sides of the issue. An editorial column is just that, editorial, and does not in any way necessarily reflect the views of the CBC.

All media organizations have bias. People seem to focus on the CBC because they are left wing and taxpayer funded. Well, see, the thing about that is, most Canadians are left wing according to their voting habits. Maybe we are getting our money worth?

The CBC should not be forced to provide any type of alternate view if they don't want to and they should be able to provide one if they want to. They are independent media. It doesn't matter where their money comes from.

[Smallc]

Let me also just state that I don't agree with what she said, but I would protect her right to say it.

[White Doors]

No one is questioning her RIGHT to say it.

Do you not get it?

Bias? EVERYONE has a bias. But clearly, the CBC has an agenda and that agenda is pretty obviously to have the liberals elected. It is not only not right, it is dangerous.

If you can't see that or refuse to, then it is you and your views that are dangerous to a free press and a free society. Government should have NO role in telling us what to think.

[Black Dog]

Government should have NO role in telling us what to think.

Here on Planet Earth that's exactly what governments do, regardless of political stripe.

[White Doors]

Here on Planet Earth that's exactly what governments do, regardless of political stripe.

I would have no problem with this if it were called the Liberal party broadcasting system, but it is not. It is the cbc. (and if I wasn't forced to financially support it)

By the way, must you come across as arrogant in every post that you direct at me?

Edited September 11, 2008 by White Doors

[Black Dog]

I would have no problem with this if it were called the Liberal party broadcasting system, but it is not. It is the cbc.

Would you have a problem if it was the CPC broadcasting system? I doubt it.

By the way, must you come across as arrogant in every post that you direct at me?

Sharks gotta swim, birds gotta fly. But it's not just you, if that's any comfort.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Black Dog

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

Actually, this analysis is way off the mark.

Right wing "babies" have no problem with left wing hate-drivel in-and-of-itself. What we can't stand is subsidizing these wingnuts with our tax dollars.

[White Doors]

Would you have a problem if it was the CPC broadcasting system? I doubt it.

Sharks gotta swim, birds gotta fly. But it's not just you, if that's any comfort.

Wha? Did you read what I said? I said if they came out and said that they supported the liberals I would have no problem with it. Why would I if it was called the CPC? I am free to donate to whatever political party I like.