CBC's Heather Mallick on Palin

[Black Dog]

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.

So it's not the bias, it's the fact it isn't overt. Yet isn't the complaint here that the public shouldn't be funding partisan political speech? So you're fine with publicly funded partisan politicking, provided the partisanship is worn on the sleeve, is that right? Interesting position and kind of contradicts what you said earlier:

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.

[Smallc]

Apparently everyone missed the part where I talked about the balanced panels on Politics and the Naional. In the large majority of actual news cases the CBC has balance in reporting. I'm not sure what people want here. This is an editorial, completely separate from their news information.

People should also remember that part of the CBCs job is to showcase the views and work of Canadians. Thats what they seem to be doing here.

[Guest American Woman]

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

"Ann is actually funny"

That says it all right there. If Heather Mallick were dissing the Democrats/liberals, you'd think she was funny too.

[jefferiah]

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.

No one is saying Mallick should not have the right to freedom of expression. But that right does not include the inalienable entitlement to someone else's money to do so. If that were the case Ann Coulter could say she is being censored because the government is not funding her, and so could I for that matter.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

"Ann is actually funny"

That says it all right there. If Heather Mallick were dissing the Democrats/liberals, you'd think she was funny too.

Well, actually, you are focusing more on my opinionated assessment that Ann is funnier (which is just a little jab on my part--I knew it was biased when I said it), than you are on the argument at large, which is that no one on the right wing would receive this kind of funding to do the same thing. And most likely a conservative Ann Coulter in Canada would be standing before the Human Rights tribunal so often it would make it costly just to write her column. My comment about Ann Coulter being funnier (which is the objective truth by the way ), does nothing to discredit my other arguments on their own merits.

But I do think Ann is better. She does inject alot of opinion into her columns and her books, and exaggerates her assessment of the fact sometimes, by saying things like "look see Liberals are only happy when America is losing a war." That's for effect. But on the other hand she also does alot of meticulous research which does make a good point. When saying Al Gore is a pansy, she provides a reason or several reasons for her assessment. When saying that Democrats are flip-flopping cowards, she points out the Iraq War. They voted against the original Gulf War. Then later criticized Bush Sr for not finishing the job. They voted for the current war, and then began to rail against it immediately afterward. After railing against it for two years and demanding that troops be withdrawn, she points out that the Republicans called the Democrats bluff and decided to propose a bill that would do exactly what they wanted. In 2005, after wailing about the war, the vote was 403-3 against withdrawing. I don't agree with Ann on everything, but, love her or hate her, the fact is she does do her research and makes a lot of good points. She goes beyond what the media says and actually examines the written records, what is going on in congress, the senate, how people voted, what they said, what ideas they proposed etc.

What research has Mallick done to support any of her claims in this article. She has got the insulting part down. But that's about it. Simply put, Heather Mallick in her column sounds as if she has lost it. Her comments remind me of myself, when I complain about the officiating in the NHL and the opposing team being dirt bags whenever the Habs lose a hockey game. And this is why I would not make a good sports columnist.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

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

This is not a good argument. Remember we are the ones who do not support government funded media. We do not want a public funded Conservative Broadcasting channel.

[Black Dog]

No one is saying Mallick should not have the right to freedom of expression.

Except, as noted earlier, the Posts's Kay.

But that right does not include the inalienable entitlement to someone else's money to do so. If that were the case Ann Coulter could say she is being censored because the government is not funding her, and so could I for that matter

No one has argued that it is an inalienable right, though.

This is not a good argument. Remember we are the ones who do not support government funded media. We do not want a public funded Conservative Broadcasting channel.

The poster I was responding to implied as much. But the argument I'm making is that opposition to government funding flows from the perception of bias, and if the CBC was biased to the right, we wouldn't be hearing any complaints from the likes of you. It's easy to say you'll stand on principle when you won't actually see those principles put to the test.

[jefferiah]

The poster I was responding to implied as much. But the argument I'm making is that opposition to government funding flows from the perception of bias, and if the CBC was biased to the right, we wouldn't be hearing any complaints from the likes of you. It's easy to say you'll stand on principle when you won't actually see those principles put to the test.

And I am not that poster. And how do you know you would not be hearing any complaints from the likes of me? Part of the reason that I am "right-winged" is because I do not believe in government run news media. If what you were saying was true the main point of my argument would be to say that CBC should hire more right winged columnists, reporters. I do make the argument that they obviously would not hire right winged people like Ann Coulter (to show that indeed has a bias), but I do not say that they should be forced to either. I rather think it should be cut loose from the government and sent out into the free market. First on principle, that I do not believe this ought to be the role of the state. And secondly I point to the result of tax funded news media--that media cannot be unbiased and that CBC has the incentive to be left-wing. Why should government spend billions on news media which tells you to vote for one party???

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

Well, actually, you are focusing more on my opinionated assessment that Ann is funnier (which is just a little jab on my part--I knew it was biased when I said it), than you are on the argument at large, which is that no one on the right wing would receive this kind of funding to do the same thing. And most likely a conservative Ann Coulter in Canada would be standing before the Human Rights tribunal so often it would make it costly just to write her column. My comment about Ann Coulter being funnier (which is the objective truth by the way ), does nothing to discredit my other arguments on their own merits.

But I do think Ann is better. She does inject alot of opinion into her columns and her books, and exaggerates her assessment of the fact sometimes, by saying things like "look see Liberals are only happy when America is losing a war." That's for effect.

Right. When she does it it's "only for effect." If a liberal were to say something comparative about conservatives, they'd be lying bastards.

But yeah. She's hilarious. The anniversary of 9-11 seems like an appropriate time to quote her regarding the widows of 9-11 who played a major role in the creation of the 9-11 commission. I'll highlight for emphasis too:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president ... cutting campaign commercials... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy.

That's what you're defending. That's what you are saying is "better" than Mallick. You honestly believe that??

Edited September 11, 2008 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

Right. When she does it it's "only for effect." If a liberal were to say something comparative about conservatives, they'd be lying bastards.

But yeah. She's hilarious. The anniversary of 9-11 seems like an appropriate time to quote her regarding the widows of 9-11 who played a major role in the creation of the 9-11 commission. I'll highlight for emphasis too:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president ... cutting campaign commercials... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy.

That's what you're defending. That's what you are saying is "better" than Mallick. You honestly believe that??

Yes I do. I have actually read that book. She was not criticizing the widows of 9/11. She was criticizing four widows of 9/11 in particular, the Jersey Girls, who were not satisified with the money they received from the airlines and apparently considered themselves more important than the other widows. They said that they just wanted to know why their husbands died that day. Apparently people crashing planes into buildings had nothing to do with it, only America and Bush were to blame in their eyes. (Translation: We have a better chance at getting more money in reparations from the US than we do Al Qaeda.) Ann makes a really good argument as to why she accuses them of being self-obsessed women. You have to read beyond that single paragraph.

Maybe you don't agree with Ann on this, but I think she was right in calling them out myself. I think the Jersey Girls were using their husbands deaths for fame and fortune.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

Yes I do. I have actually read that book. She was not criticizing the widows of 9/11. She was criticizing four widows of 9/11 in particular, the Jersey Girls, who were not satisified with the money they received from the airlines and apparently considered themselves more important than the other widows. They said that they just wanted to know why their husbands died that day. Apparently people crashing planes into buildings had nothing to do with it, only America and Bush were to blame in their eyes. (Translation: We have a better chance at getting more money in reparations from the US than we do Al Qaeda.) Ann makes a really good argument as to why she accuses them of being self-obsessed women. You have to read beyond that single paragraph.

Maybe you don't agree with Ann on this, but I think she was right in calling them out myself. I think the Jersey Girls were using their husbands deaths for fame and fortune.

Well, my opinion of you has just taken a major turn for the worse. I'm not even going to engage in any discussion that defends that kind of talk except to say it's so typical of blind partisanship. It's the same with the troops. Total respect for those who are fighting and supporting Bush, total disrespect for those who are fighting but critical of Bush.

Anyway, as I said, your defense of Coulter and your judgement of the widows who played a major role in the creation of the 9-11 commission says all that needs to be said. If Mallick said the exact same thing she said only in reverse politically, you'd be defending her too; saying how great she is.

Edited September 11, 2008 by American Woman

[guyser]

But on the other hand she also does alot of meticulous research which does make a good point

Why yes, yes she does.....

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---

COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn’t really say that, did you?

"Canada sent troops into the Viet Nam war" ...her getting browbeaten by the CBC interviewer who knows better can be seen here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84EjWeTMBZs

Ann is well know for exactly the opposite of what you claim. She also is not seen much anywhere that I can find. and that is because Rep's know enough to keep her away.

This is of course no defence for Mallick, just consider it this a public service.

[jefferiah]

Why yes, yes she does.....

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---

COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn’t really say that, did you?

"Canada sent troops into the Viet Nam war" ...her getting browbeaten by the CBC interviewer who knows better can be seen here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84EjWeTMBZs

Ann is well know for exactly the opposite of what you claim. She also is not seen much anywhere that I can find. and that is because Rep's know enough to keep her away.

This is of course no defence for Mallick, just consider it this a public service.

Sure, I think I said I don't agree with everything that Ann says. And much of it is outrageous. But nonetheless there is a lot of good information on certain topics to be found in her books, and well-researched. Quoting examples of her outrageous statements does not mean that her well-researched claims do not exist. As for the comment she made in the interview with Deutsch, you don't have to agree with it, but it is NOT ANTI-SEMITISM.

If you know anything about Christianity, one of the central tenets is that everyone is a sinner and that no one is perfect. The other tenet is that Jesus died to redeem people of their sins and was resurrected. St. Paul said that believers would be perfected, that "in the twinkling of an eye" we would become like Christ. So she is not saying Jewish people are imperfect by nature of their being Jewish, but by nature of their being human like all of us. And that according to Christianity the only way to be perfected is to accept Jesus. So it's not a case of racial superiority, but of religious superiority. I have no problem with someone believing their religion is superior. To me that makes perfect sense, since religions all contradict each other on certain points, if you believe one you must be saying that the contradiction is wrong. If she was being anti-semitic it would make no sense that she would think Christianity could perfect them. Since Jews are semitic by virtue of their genes. Converting to Christianity does not change your gene code.

But aside from all of this, I don't have to defend Coulter. And defending Coulter plays no part in the main argument I have been making. Heather Mallick is a columnist for a major news agency in our country which is funded by the tax-payer. Ann Coulter sells.

[jefferiah]

Right. When she does it it's "only for effect." If a liberal were to say something comparative about conservatives, they'd be lying bastards.

Once again, I don't care about Mallick's article. I am not outraged over it. She can write whatever she pleases. But I think it shows the bias in the CBC. You don't have to agree with Coulter. I don't agree with her all the time either. I don't have to agree with Mallick. But our government supports news media which only reflects one side of the political spectrum. Does that make sense?

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[Smallc]

But nonetheless there is a lot of good information on certain topics

Isn't that funny. That also applies to the person we're discussing here.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Smallc

[jefferiah]

Isn't that funny. That also applies to the person we're discussing here.

So what. You are missing the point. You have jumped on the same bandwagon American Woman has, which is to critique my personal reasons for liking Ann Coulter more, which I never said you have to agree with anyways---and which are not relevant to the argument.

I would have probably saved myself a load of trouble if I simply hadn't offered my opinion that "Ann Coulter is funnier," but how was I to know it would distract everyone from the reason we brought up Coulter in the first place.

The reason Coulter was brought up was because American Woman referred to Mallick as a "Canadian Ann Coulter". And we pointed out that right-wing Ann would not get government funding up here to write for CBC, while Mallick does. And I further pointed out, that most likely, Ann would spend so much time at human rights tribunals (conservative silencing trials) that the cost of defending herself would make writing an expensive hobby. So while you might say this also applies to the person we are discussing here, what does not apply to both people is the favoritism received by government run media like the CBC.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Well, my opinion of you has just taken a major turn for the worse.

So you are saying that it is wrong to believe that the Jersey Girls may have been a bit selfish? I did not know they were immune to criticism.

Maybe even alot of other 9/11 families and others see that the same way I do.

"The hearing room that day had seen a substantial group of 9/11 families, similarly irate over the Jersey Girls and their accusations--families that made their feelings evident in their burst of loud applause when Ms. Rice scored a telling zinger under questioning. But these were not the 9/11 voices TV and newspaper editors were interested in. They had chosen to tell a different story--that of four intrepid New Jersey housewives who had, as one news report had it, brought an administration "to its knees"--and that was, as far as they were concerned, the only story.

A fair number of the Americans not working in the media may, on the other hand, by now be experiencing Jersey Girls Fatigue--or taking a hard look at the pronouncements of the widows. Statements like that of Monica Gabrielle, for example (not one of the Jersey Girls, though an activist of similar persuasion), who declared that she could discern no attempt to lessen the casualties on Sept. 11. What can one make of such a description of the day that saw firefighters by the hundreds lose their lives in valiant attempts to bring people to safety from the burning floors of the World Trade Center--that saw deeds like that of Morgan Stanley's security chief, Rick Rescorla, who escorted 2,700 employees safely out of the South Tower, before he finally lost his own life?

But the best known and most quoted pronouncement of all had come in the form of a question put by the leader of the Jersey Girls. "We simply wanted to know," Ms. Breitweiser said, by way of explaining the group's position, "why our husbands were killed. Why they went to work one day and didn't come back."

The answer, seared into the nation's heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn't come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows who asked the question--though in no way one would notice.

Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

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.

Once again, Black Dog: bad example. No one wants to censor Mallick. We are just pointing yet one more example of left-wing CBC bias. Mark Steyn does not receive tax funding for his books.

[Guest American Woman]

So you are saying that it is wrong to believe that the Jersey Girls may have been using their husbands deaths as a means to fame and fortune? I did not know they were immune to criticism.

Who says they are immune to criticism? But nice to know that "criticism" like "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" and "how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?" and "Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy" is nothing more than "criticism."

Let's look at a hypothetical "criticism:"

<Palin is using her Downs Syndrome baby for political gain. I've never seen a mother enjoying her baby's disability so much. And how do we know her husband wasn't planning on divorcing the harpie before she decided to get pregnant and have her Down Syndrome baby? On the bright side, if she doesn't get elected, the washed up beauty queen can always pose for Playboy. >

Do you think that's "criticism?" If someone had posted that, would you defend them saying 'I did not know Palin was immune to criticism?' and 'what's wrong with believing that Palin is using her baby as a means to political gain?'

We both know the answer to that, don't we?

Edited September 11, 2008 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

Do you think that's "criticism?" If someone had posted that, would you defend them saying 'I did not know Palin was immune to criticism?' and 'what's wrong with believing that Palin is using her baby as a means to political gain?'

We both know the answer to that, don't we?

Yes you do know the answer. Because I am not outraged or offended over Mallick's column.

It basically that sounds kind of what like Mallick said. She even compared Palin to a porn star and mocked Bristol. But I think I have said over and over and over, that I am not offended over it. All I said was I thought she sounded like to me like she was a little ticked off in that way where you are more apt to laugh at her than with her, whereas with Ann I find it the opposite. You don't have to agree with my assessment. (Even though its true)

I am simply asking why dont we hold Mallick (who is not very funny) to the same standards that we hold Coulter (who is). Coulter (who is much funnier than Heather Mallick), I believe should not (and most certainly would not, if she were Canadian) receive government funding. So why should Mallick (who is nowhere near as funny as Ann Coulter)? And in the case of Human Rights Commissions I would say that right wingers (who have a far superior sense of humor to left wingers) should not be called before a tribunal to defend their right-wing columns, statements, etc. Do we agree then?

(Note: For the record, Ann Coulter is much funnier than Heather Mallick.)

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[CANADIEN]

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?

Cherry... people love clowns.

[jefferiah]

Cherry... people love clowns.

To be honest I am not a big Cherry fan either. Don't hate him. I'm a habs fan, you?

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[CANADIEN]

To be honest I am not a big Cherry fan either. Don't hate him. I'm a habs fan, you?

I don't hate him. He's not worth it.

[White Doors]

So it's not the bias, it's the fact it isn't overt. Yet isn't the complaint here that the public shouldn't be funding partisan political speech? So you're fine with publicly funded partisan politicking, provided the partisanship is worn on the sleeve, is that right? Interesting position and kind of contradicts what you said earlier:

The assumption was the CPC broadcasting system and the LPC broadcasting system wouldn't be publicly funded, of course...

[Guest American Woman]

Is the CBC biased or is it only those who think "the media is liberal" and Fox News is "fair and balanced" who think that it is?