|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mallick column removed, CBC apologizes
September 29, 2008
- Posted by
You really cannot, in Canada, link a U.S. vice-presidential candidate like Republican running mate Sarah Palin with the phrases "white trash" and "porn-actress look" and get away with it.
The CBC reversed its position of standing by its opinion columnist Heather Mallick, apologized and retracted her online column posted Sept. 5, “A Mighty Wind Blows Through the Republican Convention.” The column became the subject of extreme vitriol by the right wing, threats against Mallick, hundreds of reader complaints and thoughtful, strong criticism from media analysts including the CBC's own ombudsman.  In her piece, Mallick said Palin appeals to “the white trash vote” with her “toned-down version of the porn actress look.” CBC publisher John Cruickshank originally stood by the column but then changed his position, said the public broadcaster had erred in its editorial judgment and the column should never have been posted. "Vince Carlin, the broadcaster's ombudsman who was later asked to assess the offending article, determined many of Ms. Mallick's assertions lacked a basis in fact," noted a Canadian Press story. “Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective,” Cruickshank agreed. “It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan.” This tawdry episode is not victimless. CBC critics are howling that Mallick's column confirms their charges of the public broadcaster's lefty bias. An early story in the National Post was headlined, "Another week, another disgrace at the CBC" -- but as usual the Post never mentions that its own masters, the owners of CanWest, which competes with the CBC and which can arguably be slammed for their own right-wing bias, have repeatedly called for the CBC to be privatized. The story itself hammered this theme (without one mention of CanWest's conflict of interest in trying to wipe out its competition), asking, "Why, exactly, should Canadians be paying $1-billion for agitprop they can get from DailyKos.com or Rabble.ca?" Predictably the American Fox News -- the unapologetically neoconservative mouthpiece that insists it's fair and balanced -- referred "to the notoriously liberal Canadian Broadcasting Corporation." Numerous commentators whose own work wouldn't stand a chance under Carlin's critical eye expressed glee, including calling Mallick a "poo-poo head" and a "largely anonymous journalist, a legend in her own lunchtime ..." (No, I'm not going to give them oxygen by linking to any of them). Mallick's reputation has also been tarnished. Maybe that's not important to her, given the outrageous things she seems to delight in writing, but she will have a worsening problem getting herself published. Mallick previously had a column in the Globe and Mail and has a following of readers. Personally, I've been occasionally repelled by Mallick's intentional outrageousness, but as a writer it's impossible not to relish her ability with words. She has an often-refreshing and occasionally insightful point of view, seems to be consistent and stands out in Canada's mostly bland landscape of liberal mainstream media commentary. And what none of the critics admit is that her outrageousness remains bland compared to the vitriol spouted by what has come to pass as the far right. Cruickshank said changes will be made at the CBC, including in editing for the website and broadening the range of commentary. The Globe's Adam Radwanski expanded the criticism of the CBC website to the online portals of most mainstream media (he said, of course, that the Globe's site is an exception J). "There are those who would argue that these remedies are needed in all that the CBC does, not just on its website. But you get the impression on the radio, and especially on TV, that the network is consistently aware of the need to give the appearance of balance -- and, more broadly, professionalism. On the website there seems to have been a lower standard, which unfortunately isn't all that unusual." A previous Townhall post is here. Mallick's web site is here; it includes links to her columns. (Image: screenshot of Fox News) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The opening line to this post contains the operative phrase: "You cannot, in Canada..." Meanwhile in a New Yorker column titled My Gal, George Sanders begins: "So you know the difference between me and a hockey mom who has forgot her lipstick? A dog collar." The Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi describes Palin as "a puffed-up dimwit with primative religious beliefs,adding: "Not only is she a fraud, but she's the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable." He then goes on to explain (helpfully, for those of us who don't get Palin): "But most Americans like politicans who hate books and see Jesus in every tree stump."
What I take from this: You can write what you like about Palin, as long as you're not some foreigner who might be supported by a foreign government. Yes indeed, as long as Fox is on the watch, "You cannot, in Canada..."
My Gal:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/09/22/080922sh_shouts_saunders?currentPage=all
Ah, yes, another windy metaphysical debate on the prevalence of bias ....OK, yawn, let's admit that everyone in this business who's not wet behind the ears acknowledges it exists.
I will indeed defend the CBC as not "lefty biased." Its obscure website commentary may have been narrow in scope and the criticism of the Mallick piece well-aimed. It's not fair to tarnish CBC news reporting with the same charge. I've spent nearly 30 years covering stories alongside CBC types, and I've watched them go to extreme and sometimes amusing lengths to avoid bias, both as perceived by their audience and unconsciously injected by individuals. Their efforts make efforts at objectivity by most other organizations pale by comparison.
As for finding worthy of compliment a "right wing" or a "left wing" bias in a news organization... I'll favour evidence-based, factual reporting over blatantly biased "news" any day. Take the Wall Street Journal as an exampe: it's unapologetically ideologically "right" in its opinion pages, and rigidly, rigorously factual in its "news" reporting. And in the past (before it was purchased by News Corp. -- all bets about the WSJ are now off) it was an example of the best in journalism.
Without such journalism, just how else are we to be informed, and to make smart decisions, in a democracy? Not, I'd say, by reading rants from the left or the right.
"CBC critics are howling that Mallick's column confirms their charges of the public broadcaster's lefty bias."
The implication of this line and a subtext of this story is that the CBC is NOT lefty biased. Surely, no one would try to claim that. The bias of the CBC is obvious to anyone who watches or listens. Some like it, some don't, but to pretend the CBC is an objective purveyor of information is as silly as suggesting the Post is not biased toward the right.
There is no media on this planet that is unbiased. I know it from first hand experience as a magazine editor. When I assemble my magazine, my views necessarily define the content I include. When I include the views of the other side it remains, by definition, the "other side."
I have friends who work at the CBC and without exception, their views come from the deep, deep left. Their views are religiously held and violently defended. No "righty's" allowed.
Interestingly, one of the characteristics of left wing thinking is to co-opt the centre and imagine itself to be objective. At least the Post does not delude itself that way, and for that, it deserves respect.
And I love this:
"the Post('s owners, CanWest)...can arguably be slammed for their own right-wing bias."
It wouldn't be a "slam," it's would be a compliment.