Author
|
Topic: CBC apologizes for Mallick piece
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 28 September 2008 03:09 PM
Since the previous thread was closed for length, I thought I would add this into a new thread.It is by John Cruickshank, publisher of CBC News and called "We erred in our judgment": quote: But he objects that many of her most savage assertions lack a basis in fact. And he is certainly correct.Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan. And because it is all those things, this column should not have appeared on the CBCNews.ca site. We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to insure that in the future, work that is not appropriate for our platforms, will not appear. We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack. It's a fine line. Ombudsman Carlin makes another significant observation in his response to complainants: when it does choose to print opinion, CBCNews.ca displays a very narrow range on its pages. In this, Carlin is also correct. This, too, is being immediately addressed. CBCNews.ca will soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions and be home to a diverse group of writers with many perspectives. In this, we will better reflect the depth and texture of this country.
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 28 September 2008 06:59 PM
So satirical or obviously sarcastic comments now have to be "factual" to be presented on CBC?And a slight exaggeration that was obviously done for legitimate comic effect is now morally equivalent to a lie, in the view of their ombudsman? The most telling comment in the ombudsman's report was the note that there were a lot of complaints about Heather Mallick's column in the comments section. Why didn't they just come right out and say "We're bashing Heather because the Freepers scared us and we pooed in our pants"?
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 28 September 2008 07:00 PM
The CBC are sniveling, toe licking cowards. Next the cons want to cut their funding, I'm supporting it and I will be informing Friends that I'm canceling my monthly contribution. This is just the last straw for me. I can hardly listen to their radio programming any longer.ETA: Went to the friends web site to locate contact info and found this: http://www.friends.ca/News/news09150801.asp Goes to show, eh? [ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 28 September 2008 08:11 PM
quote: I didn't know that was the definition, I took Mallick's comment to mean baby faced, as she is definitely not worn around the edges.Bristol Palin stopped being a girl the minute she adopted adult responsibilities. The Kennedy family's children have always been targeted, so were the Bush twins and their cousins, as well as the Trudeau boys, and Ben Mulroney. I see no difference here.
Also I seam to remember the right calling chelsea clinton "HORSE FACE" yeah I guess that is ok to call a 16 year old. How about this tid bit does this qualify as bullshit from the right, while what we say isn't allowed?
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
brockm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15579
|
posted 28 September 2008 09:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by thorin_bane: Yep and rex murphy is their ring leader I was listening to this asshole on ccc today beat up on one of the callers for his quote of manning being an evangelical. Rex bashed this person around and said how intelligent a person preston is blah blah blah. The caller had to concede that he had never talked directly to preston manning about whether the earth is 6000 years old or not. So rex said it could not be true. Yeah I guess rex never talked to einstein either so e=mc2 must have been made up as well. I tried to call in to ask dion a question about how "progressive" he was but I waited almost the full hour without getting on. I was "in que". I wonder how many leftwingers get left "in que" regularly on CCC.
And what exactly is the basis of your belief that Preston Manning believes this? I happen to know he doesn't believe this. Are you mixing up Mr. Manning with Mr. Day? Or are you just engaging in typical political pigeonholing?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
brockm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15579
|
posted 28 September 2008 09:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess: The CBC are sniveling, toe licking cowards. Next the cons want to cut their funding, I'm supporting it and I will be informing Friends that I'm canceling my monthly contribution. This is just the last straw for me. I can hardly listen to their radio programming any longer.ETA: Went to the friends web site to locate contact info and found this: http://www.friends.ca/News/news09150801.asp Goes to show, eh? [ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Of course, if you read the ombudsman report, which cites the CBC mandate, it can be clearly seen that Mallick did not meet the standards for an opinion piece set forth. The CBC's mandate also calls for opinion pieces to be balanced along side the "widest possible" degree of alternate viewpoints. The CBC ombudsman's report points out that all of the editorials on cbc.ca are of a apparent left-wing perspective, without sufficient counterbalance. Considering that most of the people here are left-wing, I guess it should come as no surprise that people here don't generally see a problem with this. Your position comes from a completely biased point of view. So does mine. We're all biased. I will not sit here and pretend that the National Post, Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail, and Toronto Star don't have biases. They do, they're evident and we all know what they are. But we're not talking about private media here. We're talking about a taxpayer funded broadcaster, that we all pay for. The point is that our publicly funded broadcaster is not supposed to biased, and pursuant to it's mandate it's not technically allowed to be either. Further, the CBC mandate calls for all opinion pieces to be written according to a specific standard outlined in the CBC's mandate. That being, opinions pieces should flow from verifiable points set forth. Ms. Mallick admitted to the ombudsman that she could, in fact, not verify the facts. People on the left are arguing from a position that the things she presented are self-evident facts. But of course, writing a polemic piece filled with invective language where the entire justification of the piece is held simply as self-evident – particularly in situations where the fact being held self-evident is a generalization of a group of people – one can hardly say that it proper or decent argumentation. If a right-leaning journalist were to put forward the position that "all gun crimes in Toronto are perpetuated by black men", I am sure that many on the left would take issue with what they would call a generalization. In fact, this has been said before, and people on the left have complained about the generalization. The issue here seems to be that the "progressive" left is the only group that is qualified to generalize people. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. When "progressive" people hate someone, it's for good reason. It is then interesting how the same people then throw around terms like "the politics of division" in characterizing right-leaning politics. Whereas, the derision of people with capitalist, conservative, or social conservative views is not practising "divisiveness" because social democrats and socialists are all about "inclusiveness and diversity". Except of course, exactly like the right, it's only about those things for people who agree with you. [ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: brockm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
brockm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15579
|
posted 28 September 2008 09:30 PM
.[ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: brockm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
brockm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15579
|
posted 28 September 2008 09:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by thorin_bane: Well as you have pointed out your bias I am sure then that you read babble policy. Did I say it was my point of view in regards to manning. NO I did not. My point was Rex was ATTACKING the caller. When have you heard him do that in regards to YOUR rightwingers calling anyone not conservative a bunch of commies as I have often heard on sunday afternoons. Yes the media is biased and almost exclusively to the right. And no the CBC is not to the left as YOU may think it is. Please read the article I linked to as the person points out many falsehoods presented about ALL parties. The person does not vote for any of the 5 parties in canada as they point out at the bottom of the article.
Rex was attacking the caller, and the caller was attacking Preston Manning. I don't get your point. I don't think the CBC is pushing a "communist" or "socialist" perspective like many others on the right would characterize it. Certainly, Rex Murphy is a right-leaning voice on the CBC. However, I'm not going to venture outside the mainstream concepts of these terms for simplicity sake, and I will state this: The CBC *does* have a left-wing bias in the mainstream sense of the word. Of course, if you're a socialist or communist, I could see how you could interpret the CBC as being right-leaning. It does after all, perpetuate a general acceptance of a mixed-market economy, etc. However, I am not going to quibble about this. In terms of the vast majority of Canadians (and we're talking in the ninety percentile), we believe in a market economy, with varying degrees of government intervention. In mainstream terms, the NDP believes in the most intervention, and the Liberals and Conservatives are often hard to tell apart in this regard. But for the sake of argument we'll say the Conservatives support a bit less. If we accept that this is demographic that the CBC serves, than I would say that the latter viewpoint (save Mr. Murphy) is completely locked out of the CBC. And I stand by that.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 28 September 2008 10:12 PM
Actually the vast majority believe in a mixed economy as do I. I don't care what kind of glasses you wear as long as you have them on while driving. The libs are and cons are both laissez faire. Even if their campaigns say otherwise. Ms Petty has an obvious disdain toward the NDP as does Peter Mansbridge. All the while lobbing softballs to Harper. When a few lowly reporters such as neil macdonald are the best you(those that say the cbc is left) can do to point out how left the CBC is while ignoring that allen greg and andrew coyne both former/current cardholding PC members make up 2/3 of the at issue panel "canadas number 1 watched poltical commentators" while chantal herbert is there for nothing but bashing the bloc or for the "quebec" perspective. Most of the reglaur commentators are right wing. Even the friday panel on Politics, Don martin-reformer, chris hall, red tory, then 1 or 2 libs. Where do the 20% social democrats have a voice in the media. If the cbc is left it is a far cry from what most would consider left. Do they advocate anything but tax cuts???Not that I have heard. What issues have they covered of the NDP without derision or question us fiscally despite the best provincial records even if you include ontario. I would say to the left of mike duffy, but that isn't hard at all. That is like saying CNN is left of Fox wowee who would have thought that.ETA the point is you don't see the rightwing getting critisized for the same things as we get. If a strawman is built and demolished on CCC against the NDP, it is NEVER given a second thought. Rex might say "You made some interesting points" and move on. If it is us making any number of claims he doesn't agree with (see afghanistan) He will butt in, cut off, or downright attack the caller. This is unacceptable for, as you say, a publicly funded raodcaster. Be fair to all or don't. But stop pretending that you are.(the cbc) [ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 28 September 2008 10:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by bagkitty: thorin_bane, I am a bit confused, in your last post you requested that we read the article you had linked... I have gone through the thread 3 times, and the only link that I can find in your comments is one to a youtube video about Fox News. Could you please repost the link to the article you are referring to or, if it contained in another thread, link to that thread? Thank you.
Sorry wrong thread! This link is the one
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
brockm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15579
|
posted 28 September 2008 10:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by thorin_bane: Actually the vast majority believe in a mixed economy as do I. I don't care what kind of glasses you wear as long as you have them on while driving. The libs are and cons are both laissez faire. Even if their campaigns say otherwise. Ms Petty has an obvious disdain toward the NDP as does Peter Mansbridge. All the while lobbing softballs to Harper. When a few lowly reporters such as neil macdonald are the best you(those that say the cbc is left) can do to point out how left the CBC is while ignoring that allen greg and andrew coyne both former/current cardholding PC members make up 2/3 of the at issue panel "canadas number 1 watched poltical commentators" while chantal herbert is there for nothing but bashing the bloc or for the "quebec" perspective. Most of the reglaur commentators are right wing. Even the friday panel on Politics, Don martin-reformer, chris hall, red tory, then 1 or 2 libs. Where do the 20% social democrats have a voice in the media. If the cbc is left it is a far cry from what most would consider left. Do they advocate anything but tax cuts???Not that I have heard. What issues have they covered of the NDP without derision or question us fiscally despite the best provincial records even if you include ontario. I would say to the left of mike duffy, but that isn't hard at all. That is like saying CNN is left of Fox wowee who would have thought that.
Ok. I thought I made clear that we're talking about the CBC.ca website here. That is what this issue is about. We're talking about columnists on the CBC.ca/news website. This is made clear in the ombudman's reports. And in fact, I was careful to refer to "cbc.ca" in my comments. Mea culpa on the last comment for failing to re-clarify this. I would generally agree with you that I don't find The National as a news program to be terribly biased either way. Mansbridge is a reasonably balanced journalist, and in private, pretty rabidly a Liberal Party supporter in my experience. In terms of the television reporting of the election, I also agree with you that they've been interestingly reserved in terms of how critical they are of Stephen Harper. I should note, that during the 2006 election, I found them to be extremely critical of Harper, and quite boastful of Martin. On CFRB in Toronto, I was a in-studio guest on the Andrew Krystal show, and I challenged a CBC reporter on this bias (directly), at the time. If anything, this shows that the CBC has a bias towards the incumbent government, or at least a measured fear of pissing off the incumbent government in the case they are re-elected. Is that a problem? Yes it is. But on the other hand, this just proves the CBC is anything but balanced. It's strategizing in it's news room, and it's got a very one-sided editorial staff on CBC.ca. There's a lot of cleanup to do. And yes, as a libertarian my preference is for privatization. But I don't really want to have that discussion. My only purpose here was to push what I view as the facts of the case, which are: 1. The CBC has clear guidelines for editorialism 2. Heather Mallick clearly violated them 3. CBC.ca is demonstrably showing a one-sided perspective in terms of editorial analysis, particularly around Sarah Palin. [ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: brockm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443
|
posted 28 September 2008 11:35 PM
This discussion would be a little clearer if distinctions were made between CBC Television (main channel), CBC Newsworld, CBC Radio One and CBC.ca (online) -- oh yes, there is also the premium cable Country Canada channel -- but I know little about it other than its existence so I will refrain from commenting on it apart from pointing out that I could have watched curling on it, but as much as I enjoy curling, I didn't want to shell out the extra dollars to my cable company.Mallick's article appeared only on CBC.ca -- probably the least accessed of the 4 main English language branches of CBC (with apologies, I am ignoring Radio-Canada entirely in my comments). I think it has been pointed out quite clearly that the main television service has a pretty clear right wing bias. Is there anyone other than Rex Murphy who is allowed to expound upon his worldview with a regularly scheduled commentary piece on the National? The main criteria for inclusion on the expert panels seems to be to have served as a political advisor or organizer for Reform, PCs/Conservatives, Liberals or simply being anti-Bloc. I cannot think of anyone who is a regular panelist who is connected to either the Greens or the NDP. As to the behaviour of its anchor... well, I think enough has already been posted in this thread about Mr. Mansbridge. When it comes to national news programming on the main television service I cannot understand how anyone other than a Dittohead or Fox News fan could accuse it of being biased in favour of the left. Some of the entertainment programming (Mercer Report, This Hour etc.) are interpreted as being biased, but they are clearly satirical in nature, and should not be confused with the news. CBC Newsworld, when not repeating the National over and over, suffers from many of the same problems as the main service, unbalanced panels and excessive reliance on the same small pool of "experts" on its morning and lunch hour broadcasts. However, there are two blocks where I can see how there accusations of left wing bias. The first is "The Hour" - the program George Stroumboulopoulos hosts. While I would describe it as being primarily concerned with being "hip" and "cool" (painfully so, his fawning on his guests makes me gnash my teeth), I can see how it would be interpreted as being biased -- it takes environmentalism, multi-culturalism and cultural criticism as givens, and this would put it at odds with much of what I consider right wing culture. However, it is not "hard news" nor is there commentary as a distinct part of the program. The second would be the documentaries that are broadcast (primarily Hot Docs). I agree, hands down the majority of these documentaries have a left wing or environmentalist bias. Partly the nature of the beast, documentaries by their nature are critical of the existing order and since the existing order is right wing and business focused... well, you can take it from there. CBC Radio One is a mixed bag, its news programs suffer from the same problems as the "hard news" on television -- much too dependent on a small pool of experts and panelists, most of them clearly identifiable with the right and center right, very seldom are there voices from the left. Its non-news programming is all over the map, high culture, pop culture... it is hard to determine if there is actually any political bias on most of the spoken word broadcasting, the most damning thing I can say about it is that it is profoundly unbalanced regionally... there are huge swaths of the country never mentioned, and others (Saltspring Island, Cape Breton) that are referenced out of all proportion to their importance. Which of course brings us to the youngest member of the family, CBC.ca. It has a number of blogs, one of which is Heather Mallick's. I have read a few of them, by and large they strike me as of interest to hobbyists and the writers themselves, very seldom do they enter territory where the labels left and right have much importance. Heather, well she probably qualifies as the Rex Murphy of the left... she is an iconoclast, but she is a lefty iconoclast. I don't recognize any of the other columnists/bloggers as being particularly or consistently left or right. So, on one side of the ledger we have The Hour on Newsworld being "culturally" on the left (when he isn't fawning over a hockey player or film star), the documentaries on Newsworld being largely leftish, and Heather on the net being herself. On the other side of the ledger we have the main service broadcasting The National with its clearly biased panels, its small pool of "experts", its antagonistic to the left anchor, Rex Murphy's commentary from various spots in right field. On Newsworld we get multiple broadcasts of The National, the morning and noon-hour clones of The National, and of course its "business programming" (hey, can't miss a market report, can we). Taking these all together, I would suggest that the overall bias is on the right, and that when you weigh the audience numbers the various services have, the bias is strongly to the right. I understand why any particular program might be accused of being biased in favour of the left (again, specifically the documentaries that are broadcast) but I don't think that hold water when you look at the system as a whole. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, I don't pay for Country Canada... and its programming may have a lesbian-feminist perspective and originate entirely out of some enclave in Saskatchewan where they don't realize the NDP was defeated in the last provincial election. I don't think so though.
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 29 September 2008 04:30 AM
quote: Originally posted by bagkitty:
Some of the entertainment programming (Mercer Report, This Hour etc.) are interpreted as being biased, but they are clearly satirical in nature, and should not be confused with the news.
This is the point that the ombudsman was making - had Mallick's piece been obviously in the satire realm, rather than Analysis and Viewpoint, her piece would not have violated the CBC's standards and mandate. If she wants to write satire, then she should. But, she obviously would have read the standards and mandate before accepting freelance employment through cbc.ca. The same piece appeared on rabble.ca, and obviously there has been no apology etc., nor should there be. That piece had every right to appear here if the editors approved of it. CBC is not a private entity like rabble.ca, so it has much different responsibilities - including ones stemming directly from parliamentary legislation.
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258
|
posted 29 September 2008 07:20 AM
quote: This is the point that the ombudsman was making - had Mallick's piece been obviously in the satire realm, rather than Analysis and Viewpoint, her piece would not have violated the CBC's standards and mandate.
Perhaps you don't realize that satire is a literary device that any decent writer will utilize and it is certainly used in "analysis and viewpoint." Satire is not something that needs to be set off in a category by itself with strong warning labels so as not to offend literalist thinkers. The ombudsmen simply demonstrates his lack of understanding of decent writing. What is truly disturbing is that the CBC is bowing to a campaign orchestrated by the American right-wing media and in essence is capitualating to their construction of media bias. In doing so they are going against their alleged mandate amd shifting to an even more right wing bias than presently operates. The difficulty in these conversations is that some people speak of the political spectrum and effectively the dominant discourse as though they are fixed point. The reality is that the Corporate media has been leading the charge in dragging the spectrum and the discourse dramatically to the right. Part of this shift was to continually talk about the media's "liberal" bias. THe Fox commentators refered to Heather Mallick as "Hard Left". They really need to understand that the hard left were Stalinists, Maoists and Trots and they would be advocating that Palin, Rush Limbaugh and O'reilly be sent to re-education camps or gulags. Sometimes I can't help but feel nostalgic.
From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 29 September 2008 07:33 AM
Some folks are missing the fact that the CBC Ombudsman was critical of the editorial oversight, more than critical of Mallick: quote: even the best and most pointed editorial cartoonists have, at some point, run afoul of sensible editorial authority. There is a significant difference between censorship and appropriate editorial oversight. CBC journalists are required to exercise appropriate oversight over material that appears on CBC outlets.Ms. Mallick has the liberty to hold whatever views she wishes. And the CBC has both the right, and the obligation, to exercise appropriate editorial supervision. CBCNews.ca should address its editing standards to ensure that vigorous opinion thrives while ensuring that journalistic and quality standards are met. Opinion and analysis should be clearly labeled and not lumped together. If an item is meant to be satiric, it should be labeled as such.
"CBC journalists are required to exercise appropriate oversight." Not Mallick. The editor.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 29 September 2008 07:41 AM
quote: Originally posted by brockm:
Of course, if you read the ombudsman report, which cites the CBC mandate, it can be clearly seen that Mallick did not meet the standards for an opinion piece set forth. The CBC's mandate also calls for opinion pieces to be balanced along side the "widest possible" degree of alternate viewpoints. The CBC ombudsman's report points out that all of the editorials on cbc.ca are of a apparent left-wing perspective, without sufficient counterbalance. Considering that most of the people here are left-wing, I guess it should come as no surprise that people here don't generally see a problem with this. Your position comes from a completely biased point of view. So does mine. We're all biased. I will not sit here and pretend that the National Post, Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail, and Toronto Star don't have biases. They do, they're evident and we all know what they are. But we're not talking about private media here. We're talking about a taxpayer funded broadcaster, that we all pay for. The point is that our publicly funded broadcaster is not supposed to biased, and pursuant to it's mandate it's not technically allowed to be either. Further, the CBC mandate calls for all opinion pieces to be written according to a specific standard outlined in the CBC's mandate. That being, opinions pieces should flow from verifiable points set forth. Ms. Mallick admitted to the ombudsman that she could, in fact, not verify the facts. People on the left are arguing from a position that the things she presented are self-evident facts. But of course, writing a polemic piece filled with invective language where the entire justification of the piece is held simply as self-evident – particularly in situations where the fact being held self-evident is a generalization of a group of people – one can hardly say that it proper or decent argumentation. If a right-leaning journalist were to put forward the position that "all gun crimes in Toronto are perpetuated by black men", I am sure that many on the left would take issue with what they would call a generalization. In fact, this has been said before, and people on the left have complained about the generalization. The issue here seems to be that the "progressive" left is the only group that is qualified to generalize people. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. When "progressive" people hate someone, it's for good reason. It is then interesting how the same people then throw around terms like "the politics of division" in characterizing right-leaning politics. Whereas, the derision of people with capitalist, conservative, or social conservative views is not practising "divisiveness" because social democrats and socialists are all about "inclusiveness and diversity". Except of course, exactly like the right, it's only about those things for people who agree with you. [ 28 September 2008: Message edited by: brockm ]
I don't think I've ever read so much utter bullshit. How can it be balanced if it is an opinion piece? Is it opinion or isn't it?By definition, opinion is providing the author's perspective and in media the point of opinion is to generate audience feedback. Has the so-called ombudsman ever worked in media. And then, according to what you posted, the ombudsman, no doubt a conservative hack, makes the opinion, with neither resources nor balance, that the CBC leans left. What horseshit. Of course it does which is why there is much rah-rah for killing Afghanis. Incredible the crap people will buy.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226
|
posted 29 September 2008 07:53 AM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Has the so-called ombudsman ever worked in media. And then, according to what you posted, the ombudsman, no doubt a conservative hack, makes the opinion, with neither resources nor balance, that the CBC leans left. What horseshit. Of course it does which is why there is much rah-rah for killing Afghanis.
Hack? Not quite http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2005/08/08/ombudsman050808.html quote: The ombudsman's mandate is to represent viewers, listeners or readers who have concerns about the quality of CBC's journalism on television, radio or online. Apart from his experience as a journalism teacher, Carlin also knows his way around the CBC – he has been head of television news, head of radio news, and head of the 24-hour news network Newsworld. Among the highlights of the veteran journalist's career: in 1979, he was part of the team that helped reshape The National, CBC's flagship newscast, into an hour-long program at 10 p.m. Carlin has also worked for the weekly newsmagazine Time and the Time-Life News Service as a correspondent and bureau chief.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 08:33 AM
quote: Originally posted by Caissa: It's laughable that the CBC Ombuds can't differentiate hyperbole from the attempt to assert something as fact. He needs a good dose of Swift swiftly administered.
Haha, Swift wrote satire! So does Heather Mallick! Therefore, Mallick = Swift = Great! Mallick's piece was not a classic piece of satire. It was clearly written in anger and she lashed out at everyone within striking distance, hitting no one effectively. "She isn't even female" Haha, get it? She's not female because she's conservative!! "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" Straight for the proverbial jugular, attack her looks!! "Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface". SCORE!! Palin's daughter looks like she's only good for popping out babies. Fantastic stuff!! Honestly, people, the only thing Heather Mallick is satirizing is good argument. This piece has none of it.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 08:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by Caissa: Anyone who took Mallick's comments as being intended as statements of fact has much in common with the proverbial post.
Anyone who took it as effective satire does not understand satire. Oh, Hi Caissa. Just noticed you're from Saint John. I love Saint John. Used to live on the lower west side.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752
|
posted 29 September 2008 08:56 AM
Let's not talk about how Sarah Palin, like many politicians, is using her children in this campaign. Mallick's epithet is an apt descriptor of how her daughter looked up there paraded on the stage.My beef is with how the ombudsthingy interpreted the "standards". P.s. I was born in Toronto, Fischerville but grew up in the Old North End of Saint John. What part of Lower West Side were you from?
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 09:11 AM
I thought the Ombudsman was actually quite muted in his response. I was offended by her article, personally. If there was a "Satire" wing of the CBC website, you know, SNL or Onion type stuff, it would have been one of the lousy pieces. I read Opinion pieces in five or six different newspapers every day, and blogs, and compare and contrast. the thing with blogs is that if you write a hate-filled article full of untruths and awful satire, people can ignore it. But if it's published by the national broadcaster, you're automatically going to be taken more seriously because everyone knows there are more standards applied. So, basically, if you write something and it survives the "standards" test, it should be worth something at least.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 29 September 2008 09:26 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: CBC.ca is a very minor branch of the mothercorp. You ascribe it with far more reach, power and gravitas than it warrants. I read Mallick regularly, as do several thousand others. Clearly we do believe it to be 'worth something', and if you show up once and don't like it, you're not obliged to come back and read her again.
You whining libertarians claim to respect free speech, but are the first to try to censor anything that Conrad Black or Rupert Murdoch wouldn't personally approve.
No one is threatening to censor her. The same article appeared on rabble.ca and while I still object to her language, I have no problem with it appearing here. cbc is public and taxpayer funded, so they are supposed to strive to appear balanced. rabble.ca can take whatever position or bias it wants.
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 09:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: whining libertarians ... Conrad Black ... Rupert Murdoch
Nice work, i'm an undercover agent for Fox News and you've just won first prize! How did you figure it out? Seriously, "standards" is not a conservative idea. They came about because long ago people realized that if you argue something without basis in fact, you lose automatically. If you call someone a libertarian by association of some ideas, you lose the debate. If you call someone ugly in a policy debate, you lose too. And if you try to satirize someone by calling her husband a "roughneck", you get filed to the bottom of the pile.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258
|
posted 29 September 2008 09:43 AM
quote: Honestly, people, the only thing Heather Mallick is satirizing is good argument. This piece has none of it.
I think we understand you didn't like the piece. It is also apparent that you did not appreciate the context to the pieces of the article that you so slavishly repeat. What I don't understand is with all the constant stream of steaming crap that emanates from the media you feel it necessary to continuously focus on this piece. So you think it's bad writing. Never seen bad writing before? You've got nothing else to talk about? The fact that our national broadcasting corporation feels the need to capitulate in the face of incoherent reactionary rantings emanating mostly from the U.S. is disturbing. Much more disturbing than the odd piece of what you consider bad writing.
From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 09:44 AM
quote: Actually, I'm rather certain that it's legitimate to tag you as a libertarian when the ideas you've been associated with all fit the bill.
Yeah, all those ideas i posted up there, about... uhh... satire. and uhh... Heather Mallick. And... ummm, informed debate. if the shoe fits... anyway, i'm outta here. i still don't get why people liked her article. i'm glad the CBC formally pulled it. don't care what rabble does. [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 29 September 2008 11:17 AM
You know, if Mallick had published her piece down in the USA, it probably would have been protected as free speech. Republicans are past masters at the vehicle of using the media to push the worst kinds of invective about Democrats and getting their usual followers to rear up on their hind legs and hee-haw in unison at the barrel of yuks that their sophomoric smearing provides.Edit - did anyone notice that as usual all the pea-brained morons that watch Fox News collectively blew a gasket at Mallick and proved their All-American Patriotic Zeal (TM) by sending threatening and demeaning comments to her? This is gold for her; she could turn it all back on them by airing those comments aloud and saying, "Is this the best and the brightest of the United States? You all have represented the US and you fail. Miserably." [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
brockm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15579
|
posted 29 September 2008 12:35 PM
As has been pointed out by me, and at least one other. I find it interesting that everybody is just glazing-over, if not outright ignoring the fact, that if you read the CBC's mandate as it pertains to editorialism, Heather Mallick violated it.It's clear. It's simple. The CBC mandate spells out that if there is to be polemic commentary, it should be laid out along-side the widest possible range of viewpoints. It also states that such commentary must only rely on verifiable facts. Ms. Mallick admitted to the ombudsman that she could not personally validate statements pertaining to the sexual adequacy of Republican men, etc. Whether or not you agree or do not agree that such editorial standards should be in place is a completely different discussion. Ms. Mallick, nor her editors are within their authority to violate the mandate established for them. That's the situation. This isn't about free speech. It's about whether or not Ms. Mallick followed the rules set forth in her opinion piece as proscribed by the mandate of the CBC. You people are arguing as if that mandate either doesn't exist, or doesn't matter. One might observe that the people who seem to be avoiding this question of the mandate and it's authority, are people who agree with Ms. Mallick's commentary. Personally, I don't like Sarah Palin. I am an atheist, pro-secular government, free market supporting, libertarian. Like much of the left, I share the same disdain for the social conservatism. But this isn't about whether or not I like Sarah Palin. I'll therefore describe my bias in this case: I am 100% in favor of Ms. Mallick being able to have her views published, even on the CBC, as long as such polemic editorialism from the social conservative, classic liberal, libertarian, communist, socialist, anarchist, etc. is regularly given as much prominence as her point of view. My preference of course, is the privatization of the CBC. [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: brockm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 01:42 PM
quote: You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks ....
HeatherM, anyone? quote: You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law. You understand that racist, sexist, homophobic, classist (e.g. poor-bashing) and other excluding language is not appropriate on babble.
Since i've started posting here, i've been accused of being sexist and classist -- both of which Heather Mallick's column demonstrably is and i am demonstrably not -- and oddly, a "libertarian whiner". Do i win a gift card or anything?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 01:56 PM
46 posts? is that all? no one has at any point given a rational argument on the value of her article, but lots of people defending it, saying the CBC caved to fox news, etc. i'm open-minded, nothing forthcoming. edit: Yeah, whining perhaps, but libertarian whining, not at all. [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 September 2008 01:57 PM
Yes, this topic is a waster of bandwidth. Why bother contributing. Mallick went "off". So? It looks bad on her. Why defend her like she is relevant to progressive ideas anyway?People would be better off defending or promoting people who express those progressive values. And what cause does this defence serve? None, except a defence of the morally bankrupt Democratic party of the USA, and its faux-fight with the Repbulicans. Why bother acting as if Mallick, or Obama, or any of these people have anything to do with the "left". It's just misleading, and contributes to the pretense that US elections are relevant to the political landscape of the USA. Fischerville made a point about liberals and "affirmative action" programs. I ask again, when was the last time a US presidential candidate used the phrase "affirmative action" in a US election, as something they were proposing? [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 29 September 2008 02:01 PM
I have a great recipe for Banana Crunch Cake quote: * 3/4 cup rolled oats * 1/3 cup packed brown sugar * 2 tablespoons butter, melted * 2 tablespoons chopped walnuts * * 1/2 cup shortening * 2/3 cup white sugar * 1 cup mashed banana * 2 eggs * 1 teaspoon vanilla extract * 1 cup oat flour * 3/4 cup all-purpose flour * 1 teaspoon baking soda * 1 teaspoon salt * 1/2 cup chopped walnuts * add to recipe box Add to Recipe Box My folders: * add to shopping list Add to Shopping List * add a personal note Add a Personal Note DIRECTIONS 1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Grease and flour an 8x8 inch pan. Make the oat crunch topping: In a small bowl, combine the rolled oats, brown sugar, melted butter and 2 tablespoons chopped walnuts. Mix well and set aside. 2. In a large bowl, cream shortening and white sugar until light and fluffy. Blend in bananas, eggs, and vanilla. Combine the oat flour, all-purpose flour, baking soda and salt. Beat into creamed mixture. Stir in 1/2 cup chopped walnuts. Pour batter into the prepared pan. Sprinkle with the oat crunch topping. 3. Bake in the preheated oven for 35 to 40 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into the center of the cake comes out clean. Allow to cool.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 September 2008 02:12 PM
Obama cools to affrimative action quote: Obama has repeatedly gone on record as a supporter of affirmative action. But “if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it,” he said in the ABC interview, then “affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society.” He seemed to side with those who think class predominates when he said, “I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed.”
Well, ok, sort of mumbling here, but no explicit plan. He seems to think he will do nothing, but perhaps something, or not... or its done already, or what?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 29 September 2008 02:27 PM
quote: no one has at any point given a rational argument on the value of her article
Oh, my God! Are you thick? It was an opinion piece. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. It generated audience response and feedback. If Mallick was another knuckle-dragging right-winger, she would be offered a prime spot and given a raise.But because she's not, there's all this gnashing of teeth and wailing. Holy fuck. Right-wing columnists are openly racist and call for killings and violence but that's all perfectly okay. One lefty writes a perfectly good, angry column and everyone's got their panties in a knot and the CBC is selling her out quicker than Harper can sell out the whole Goddamned country. You know, it is no wonder the left is so freaking useless and powerless. They'd rather bash the shit out of each other than confront any real problem. I'm sick to death of being a freakin' thumb sucking, ass kissing, navel gazing so-called progressive/leftist. What could be more impotent or sterile? While the right assaults us with guns, knives, and rocket propelled grenade we all huddle around in the cold accusing each other of being too hard on the fuckers. One woman has the gonads to say as it is and we're all "Oooh! She's not one of us! That was offensive! Someone's feelings might have been hurt! I don't care about my broken legs, dangling eye ball, and beaten and naked children. I just want to be nice and polite and grovel at their feet. That's how we win ..."
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 02:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by thorin_bane: I have a great recipe for Banana Crunch Cake
Yay, i win a recipe for Banana Crunch Cake! Thank ye much. Yeah, the affirmative action thing was probably a bit of a stretch. My point, i think, holds true. It's hard to see yourself associated with a specific group of people if you look at them and see hypocrisy. I guess my point was, more non-partisan people could have been offended by the article -- and distanced from the left -- than was worth the benefit of scoring ad hominem points against Palin and her family. I think Greta was ridiculous to call Heather a pig, but on exactly the same level of ridiculous as Heather calling Palin and her supporters trash. I'm repeating myself, aren't i?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
brockm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15579
|
posted 29 September 2008 02:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: No, she didn't. And no, that's not what you find interesting.-
Have you read the mandate? And if so, I'd be interested in your counter explanation as to how she didn't violate it. quote: You find it interesting to push our buttons. If you were so very concerned about mandates, you might consider the one for this site. The one you accepted when you signed up here. This is a place where the left comes to discuss their own issues, not where we come to justify our existence to whining rightwingers.And that's what's 'clear' and 'simple'.
I'm sorry, but at what time did I try to push your buttons? At what point did I attempt to draw anybody into an ideological debate.? There was in fact an individual who took highly ideological jabs at me (as you are doing now) and I might point out that I made no attempt to respond to them. Instead, I stayed with what I believed were the objective facts. I find it confusing, given my attempts to be as objective as possible, that you think I am here to create an ideological debate. I'm not. I've even pointed that out more or less. To that end, I find it interesting you're lashing out at my motive in this regard. For the record: I have no interest in drawing anybody into a ideological debate. I did point out my personal position on the CBC as a footnote, to be transparent about my bias or position. If you construed this as attempt to push yours (or anyone else's) buttons, then I apologize. [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: brockm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 02:48 PM
How about this... we agree that this thread is about CBC's apology on the whole Mallick thing. You could easily start a thread called ¡VIVA LA REVOLUCÍON! and spew your Che Guevara "lets shoot the landowners through the eyes" nonsense. We're talking about a journalistic opinion piece. As soon as someone says "why are we arguing about this when holy crap the right wingers are still alive!", then there's something fundamentally wrong with the whole basis of your belief system. [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 03:20 PM
Yeah, me and Jonathan Kay, we have beers together after work.No, I just read a lot. I read practically everything. 100% non-partisan. Heather Mallick offends me 1/3 of the time due to her blinding hatred toward ordinary people wrapped up in a thin veneer of liberalism. I finally got fed up and decided i'd come to rabble and find out what her appeal is -- since she is published here -- and when i didn't find it, i wrote emails to my friends and relatives asking them to tell me what i was missing. I am totally perplexed. Utterly dumbfounded. Somewhat disillusioned. It irritates the hell out of me that people just tend to respond with "it doesn't matter what we say about conservatives because they're the worst people in the world". Geez, let's just put up a guillotine and line 'em up, shall we? Sarah Palin and her family first.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 September 2008 03:33 PM
No. Not really, what is not being discussed is the fact that pretending that Mallick represents left wing ideas, and that she is under attack from "conservative" forces, as if there is a tangible distinction between the "left" forces, and the "right" forces, as represented by the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party respectively, merely contributes to the circus distraction that are US federal elections.Mallick, in no way represents me, and I have no need to defend her or appologize for her at all, nor to pay much attention to the ridiculous spectacle of the US media attack upon her. What is left about Mallick? She attacks Republicans? [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 29 September 2008 04:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by fischerville: Yeah, me and Jonathan Kay, we have beers together after work.No, I just read a lot. I read practically everything. 100% non-partisan. Heather Mallick offends me 1/3 of the time due to her blinding hatred toward ordinary people wrapped up in a thin veneer of liberalism. I finally got fed up and decided i'd come to rabble and find out what her appeal is -- since she is published here -- and when i didn't find it, i wrote emails to my friends and relatives asking them to tell me what i was missing. I am totally perplexed. Utterly dumbfounded. Somewhat disillusioned. It irritates the hell out of me that people just tend to respond with "it doesn't matter what we say about conservatives because they're the worst people in the world". Geez, let's just put up a guillotine and line 'em up, shall we? Sarah Palin and her family first.
I don't believe you. I think you're here just to get your kicks in on Mallick for daring to say far less than the hateful rights says day-in and day-out. quote: No. Not really, what is not being discussed is the fact that pretending that Mallick represents left wing ideas
You'll have to forgive me if I get a bit of a chuckle out of that Cueball. Who, exactly, represents the left? Anyone? Who, exactly, is even really left? Isn't everyone just a poseur to someone else?The left lacks any sense of cohesion. It is like trying to define the shape of water. quote: What is left about Mallick? She attacks Republicans?
And that's good enough for me, really. Let's understand this very simple concept: she is an opinion columnist. If she isn't offending someone, she isn't doing her job. Mallick is probably the first opinion columnist, ever, taken to task for doing exacttly what she is being paid to do. And not surprisingly it was the spineless CBC, probably under a mountain of email, 99% generated through conservative web sites, that did so.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 29 September 2008 04:24 PM
quote: Mallick, in no way represents me, and I have no need to defend her or appologize for her at all, nor to pay much attention to the ridiculous spectacle of the US media attack upon her.
Who on the left does? Your so radical you have your own faction. If she dosen't represent you, what the hell are you doing here in this thread? Pack up your hammer of compulsive iconoclasty and stop hitting her statue. [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 29 September 2008 04:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess: And Mallick's is very mild as political opinion goes.
Ok, here's an experiment. Find on any Canadian news organization on the left or right that has an opinion piece or columnist who uses ad hominem personal attacks with the same abandon that Heather Mallick has used them, and i'll concede the point. Even though you say she's 'mild', i don't think you can find someone who's 'medium' and published. American news, too. Except i would say Fox News doesn't count because it's already on the table (Greta called HeatherM a pig.... stupid stupid stupid). [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: fischerville ]
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595
|
posted 29 September 2008 04:35 PM
fischerville you said you were done here so why are you still yammering on. Typical Gen Yhiner, There are entire threads to explain the merit or lack there of regarding Mallick's column. We aren't your monkeys, we don't dance on the command of immature children. I personally laughed my ass off, as a feminist some of it tickled the funny bone - Sarah Palin is an affront to me. I got it, and as angry as this bullshit with Palin made me, I got to laugh out loud over the sheer lunancy of it all. So you can take your PC bullshit and shove it were the sun don't shine. Even at her worst Mallick didn't touch the sides of what Coulter is encouraged to vomit on tv, Mallick was funny. If you can't see that I pity you and suggest you cover your eyes till you grow up. The right needs to suck it up. For the record babble has moderators - they boss us around not ignorant rude newbies who think they are smrt.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 September 2008 04:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess: You'll have to forgive me if I get a bit of a chuckle out of that Cueball. Who, exactly, represents the left? Anyone? Who, exactly, is even really left? Isn't everyone just a poseur to someone else? The left lacks any sense of cohesion. It is like trying to define the shape of water.
No actually its a highly structured set of ideas, with a long tradition of analysis and critique. Within this tradition there are a variety of views. I am asking how Mallick's conception fits within that. Her muttering about "white trash", doesn't fit with any notions I have seen in traditional left wing discourse. It's elitist and highly devisive, and certainly has nothing to do with equality, equity, or the "brotherhood of man," or about the purpose of managing the resources of society to the betterment of all. The fact that Mallick and people such as her pose themselves as being of the left, while at the same time exposing a lot of their elitist assumptions that are entirely at odds with those traditions, might have something to do with the fact that you percieve that 'the left' "lacks any sense of cohesion." and that "it is like trying to define the shape of water." Perhaps not getting sucked into this bullshit, and defeding it as if Mallick has any notion of left wing analysis, or its tradtions or its goals, would be the best course of action. You are totally right. Mallick is just an editoria columnist who scores points by being nasty and acerbic. But who cares? All she is doing is playing her part in the circus.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 September 2008 04:51 PM
Look dude. A lot of my friends qualify as "white trash". They are not universally racist, nor homophobic, nor anti-left. Quite the opposite. My dad would have qualified as "white trash". White trash, are often those closest to poor black folks and other marginalized people. Having some rich liberal columnist lumping in poor white folks with idiots like McCain is simply divisive and offensive.There is nothing "left" about the term. It's pejorative and an ugly slur. So why bother defending her? For the sake of Obama? What is left about Obama? That is what this discussion should be about. Let's look at what she is defending, and who she is attacking. She is not defeding much in the way of progressive ideas as far as I can tell, nor is Obama, although McCain camp would like you to think so -- that too is part of the con-job. [ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 29 September 2008 05:36 PM
quote: You are totally right. Mallick is just an editoria columnist who scores points by being nasty and acerbic. But who cares? All she is doing is playing her part in the circus.
That's a very valid point, Cueball. Who cares? An entire thread wasted on waylaying a columnist for being a columnist and certainly not one of the worst.ETA: Sorry, but I must ask: quote: Look dude. A lot of my friends qualify as "white trash".
Do your friends know you qualify them as white trash?[ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629
|
posted 29 September 2008 07:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: CMOT, you're not an idiot if you're humble enough to stand corrected when you realize you were wrong.
CMOT wasn't even wrong, just asked a question. Same question I had. Please don't call yourself an idiot CMOT. I thoroughly love your investigative spirit.
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275
|
posted 30 September 2008 01:59 AM
quote: Find on any Canadian news organization on the left or right that has an opinion piece or columnist who uses ad hominem personal attacks with the same abandon that Heather Mallick has used them, and i'll concede the point.
There's a good half dozen right-wing haters published regularly in Canada (Ezra Levant, Charles Adler and Lorne Gunter immediately come to mind) but I'm sure as hell not spending any time re-reading any of their toxic spew to prove it to you. I should point out that no one here is claiming that this was Heather Mallick's best work; only that despite its flaws it made most of its points, and that sometimes a little outrage is understandable. Given the leeway the right is allowed for their lies, hate, bigotry and misogyny, the hypocrisy of censoring Mallick needs to be pointed out. [ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fischerville
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15483
|
posted 30 September 2008 03:23 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: ... sure as hell not spending any time re-reading ...
Well that's a convenient position. Can't read 'em, because they're bigots. Not sure how you know they're bigots, though. Honestly. Someone tell you? Anyway, my point is not whether they're bigots or not, but whether they have the editorial leeway to use ad hominem.In my posts on this subject, i've consistently argued that Heather Mallick is illiberal in her writing. It irritates me that you think i'm some neo-con trying to mess up your message board. This is my last post on the subject. I promise. Sorry for the reply reflex.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 30 September 2008 04:45 AM
quote: Originally posted by fischerville: Ok, here's an experiment. Find on any Canadian news organization on the left or right that has an opinion piece or columnist who uses ad hominem personal attacks with the same abandon that Heather Mallick has used them, and i'll concede the point.
Ever read Charles Adler? Or these people? [ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 30 September 2008 08:16 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
Ever read Charles Adler? Or these people? [ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Have any of them ever been paid by rabble.ca to publish classist and sexist writing?
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957
|
posted 03 October 2008 07:23 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: Bowing to the potential Tory majority - Russell Smith, in the Globe.[ 03 October 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
I think you are right there - you can always see a difference in CBC depending on who they think is going to win an election...after last night you would think they would start treating the ndp with more respect....
From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 03 October 2008 08:04 AM
Wente's column was particularly mendacious in the way it "nonpersoned" Mallick, never once mentioning that she had long been on the Globe's staff - her former colleague - while menionting some guy I'd never heard of as a Globe staffer. We can also be a bit catty (miaou) about the "ageing leftist" comment, in light of the fact that Wente is nine years older than Mallick! (Not that it matters, and we are all "ageing" from the time we are born, but she did make herself ridiculous. The rewrite of the column Mallick did for a UK audience on the Guardian site (see www.heathermallick.ca ) was much better, as she contextualised the stuff by talking about her own backwater town upbringing. But it is ludicrous to pull Mallick's piece, when allowing gaseous windbags like Rex Murphy and Don Cherry (he of the anti-Québécois and other bigotries) to hold forth...
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 07 October 2008 02:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by Caissa: Mallick's latest piece on the Palin Affair.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/10/06/f-vp-mallick.html
I have read this latest piece and I am almost speechless--completely shocked and appalled. Listen to this direct quote: quote: Two things about the whole debacle are of interest. One is the matter of protecting writers' safety when villagers approach with torches and pitchforks.
The clear claim here is that her accusers were carrying torches and pitchforks and meant to burn and impale her. Where oh where is the PROOF Heather? And further, there is no evidence that those you purport to be be carrying this alleged rustic weaponry are in fact "villagers". AGAIN, NO PROOF. Shame on you Heather for these unfounded and unbalanced statements. And shame on you, Mr. Cruikshank. Despite your fine words of not allowing "savage assertions" which "lack a basis in fact". you have failed miserably in allowing this "biased invective".Dear God, will these enormities never cease.
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 07 October 2008 08:49 PM
quote: Originally posted by contrarianna:
The clear claim here is that her accusers were carrying torches and pitchforks and meant to burn and impale her. Where oh where is the PROOF Heather? And further, there is no evidence that those you purport to be be carrying this alleged rustic weaponry are in fact "villagers". AGAIN, NO PROOF. Shame on you Heather for these unfounded and unbalanced statements.
She was writing metaphorically, not that you'd understand the concept. She was writing about how those lame-brained lack-witted morons that think Fox News is the be-all-and-end-all of the human race's font of knowledge decided to collectively bray like the asses they are and spewed their invective and folderol all over her. [ 07 October 2008: Message edited by: DrConway ]
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|