• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CBC's Heather Mallick shows her True Form

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.
 
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.


 
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?  
 
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
 
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
 
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. :cdn:
 
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.
 
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
 
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?  ::)

 
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.


 
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.
 
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....... >:D
 
Kat Stevens said:
So did Carolyn Parish, and everybody thought she was wonderful....... >:D

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.

 
Kat Stevens said:
So did Carolyn Parish, and everybody thought she was wonderful....... >:D

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

 
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?

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.
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.
 
Back
Top