• 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

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
 
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.
 
Cheers guys(and girls).T :cdn: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
 
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.
 
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
 
Everyone who put in thier 2 cents...good job...that is why we are the greatrst nation(s) in the world. :cdn:
 
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
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
 
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 :cdn: :cdn: 
 
- 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.
 
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 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.... ::)
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top