Stephen Taylor - a blog on Canadian politics » Blog Archive » Cruikshank apologizes for Mallick column, recognizes CBC’s left-wing editorial bias (http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/09/cruikshank-apologizes-for-mallick-column-recognizes-cbcs-left-wing-editorial-bias/)

More than 300 people have taken the trouble this month to complain to the CBC ombudsman about a column we ran on CBCNews.ca about Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Sept. 5.

The column, by award-winning freelance writer Heather Mallick, was also pilloried by the National Post in Canada and by Fox News in the U.S. Despite its age — it is three weeks old, several lifetimes in web years — this posting remains a subject of fascination in the blogosphere.

Vince Carlin, the CBC ombudsman, has now issued his assessment of the Mallick column. He doesn’t fault her for riling readers by either the caustic nature of her tone or the polarizing nature of her opinion.

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.

They do not deserve public funding in any way, shape or form:

Last Thursday The National aired a report on the Conservative candidate who had said, in reference to certain incidents in a particular constituency in Calgary, "we've got people that have grown up in a different culture, and they...don't have the same respect for authority." Peter Mansbridge, introducing Paul Hunter's report, paraphrased the candidate as having said "crime in (Calgary) is mostly carried out by immigrants."

Hunter's report opened with a lingering, full-screen shot of the words "Regrettable remarks," in large red letters. Various sources were shown voicing their ample outrage. Dion: "This kind of intolerance, and we cannot tolerate that (sic)." Former cop: "It's just disgusting that anyone would say that...It's just a very racist, prejudicial and xenophobic comment." Hunter opined in closing, "Richardson's comments are particularly thorny for Stephen Harper, who's been courting the immigrant vote hard for months. The questions for Conservatives is whether, come voting day, new Canadians remember Harper's overtures, or Richardson's remarks. Paul Hunter, CBC news, Edmonton."

Now, compare that with The National's coverage of Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes, who had merely suggested that Israeli Jews had foreknowledge of the upcoming attacks on the World Trade Center, and that they alerted other Jews who promptly scuttled off without bothering to, erm, alert the goyim:
"Dumped! Controversial comments get a Liberal candidate fired -- and wait 'til you hear how she got the news!" said anchor Diana Swain, priming the story at the top of the hour. Later, introducing the report: "The Liberals fired one of their candidates today. The problem is, no one from the party TOLD Lesley Hughes she was dropped! At issue, comments Hughes once wrote about 9/11 that some interpreted as anti-Semitic."

Overtop of an opening shot of a stricken Hughes on the street reading the bad news, Bonner began, in that peculiarly resentful tone of hers suggestive of an aggrieved divorcee arriving at her ex's front door to pick up her stuff, "Here's how Lesley Hughes found out she'd been dumped as a Liberal candidate in Manitoba." Hughes: "It's stunning." Unidentified, sympathetic woman with microphone: "Did anyone CALL?" Hughes: "No. I've been working all morning..."

After dispensing with the obligatory background -- "Hughes' trouble began when an old internet posting of hers about 9/11 surfaced. She wrote that Israelis were warned to get out of the twin towers before the attack. Hughes denied the comments were in any way anti-semitic, and apologized if they left that impression" -- Bonner got back to the real story: it's all so unfair. Hughes again, on the street: "So...incredibly unjust. Incredibly unjust..."

Harper, Bonner noted, "stands by (Richardson)," whereas "..on the Liberal campaign it was Lesley Hughes' political prospects that were blowing up, with Dion explaining he only stalled so he could consult with the Canadian Jewish Congress." She concluded, "So, one candidate is fired, and one is not. The two campaigns made their own calculations about what needed to be done to avoid more political damage. Susan Bonner, CBC News, Belmont Ontario."

So, just to recap: A Conservative's remarks are restated, with unflattering inaccuracy, in the CBC's own words. Various sources are shown expressing disgust with his disgusting remarks, and the report concludes with reporterly speculation that his remarks might well harm the Conservatives' reputation with immigrant voters. The Liberal's remarks, in stark contrast, are a sidebar to the real story, that the woman who made the remarks is the real victim; there's no hint of a suggestion by the reporter that the remarks were inappropriate; no full-screen, "regrettable remarks"-type graphic; no statements of disgust from spokespersons, Jewish or otherwise; no speculation on how her remarks might hurt the Liberals. Yes, the candidate who'd suggested a Zionist conspiracy of some sort is an object of sympathy, someone who has been treated unfairly by her leader after he'd consulted with you-know-who.

It really doesn't matter anymore whether the CBC is simply institutionally incapable of covering the other parties the same way they cover the Liberals, or if they're just unwilling. It's getting late, and if the plug gets pulled -- and it should -- the blame will have to fall squarely on the shoulders of CBC News' producers and political reporters in Ottawa and Toronto.

keep ye the faith Sinc.

After running so close to deficits, when the economy sags further, they're going to have to find -something- to cut soon...

Stephen Taylor - a blog on Canadian politics » Blog Archive » Cruikshank apologizes for Mallick column, recognizes CBC’s left-wing editorial bias (http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/09/cruikshank-apologizes-for-mallick-column-recognizes-cbcs-left-wing-editorial-bias/)



They do not deserve public funding in any way, shape or form:

:clap: :clap: :clap:

And that bias is certainly not limited to politics.

Their bias, the often questionable "facts" they often rely on and the general quality of their programming should be unleashed to compete on an even keel with the open market.

Let the viewers fund-or not fund-the CBC with their remote controls...not taxpayer money.

I enjoyed the piece by Mallick. Guess the truth hurts huh? It's the essence of her piece that counts.

I haven't read the column in question, but surely Ms. Mallick is an OPINION columnist? So the point of her column would be to say what's on her mind, not regurgitate the news?

EDIT: I have now actually read the column in question. Harsh? You betcha! Name-calling? Yep! Should it have run on the CBC's website? It probably went too far and was too brash for that sort of institutional website. It would have been much more at home on a newspaper or magazine editorial page.

But is it untrue, inaccurate, misleading or overly broad in its portraits of McCain, Palin, Republican men and George Bush? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Evidently -- as said above -- the truth hurts.

As for Richardson's comment:
A Conservative's remarks are restated, with unflattering inaccuracy, in the CBC's own words.

Unflattering, yes. Inaccurate, NO. I saw the report, and it was quite clear Richardson was talking "in code" and meant EXACTLY what Mansbridge paraphrased. He knew it too, which is why he apologised quickly.

And as for the Lesley Hughes story: I completely agree with you that the CBC handled the story very, very badly. The focus of the story should not have been about how she was dumped. But you (and your source) both seem to be unaware of Hughes' actual words (as does Dion!). Here's what she actually wrote:

Many official sources are claiming to have warned the American intelligence community, which spends $30 billion a year gathering information, about the attacks on the twin towers on that heartbreaking day.

German Intelligence (BND) claims to have warned the U.S. last June, the Israeli Mossad and Russian Intelligence in August. Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3000 Americans working there were not so lucky.

I emphasised the use of the terms "claiming" and "claims"; while in context she does not question the claims (until later in the article), she never "reported" them as fact. Her actual point was that the American government was warned about the attacks beforehand, by several foreign intelligence agencies (which culminated in a memo George Bush neither read nor acted upon a month prior to the attacks that was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack In United States" that detailed how he wanted to use hijacking airplanes as a terrorism tool. This part -- her point -- isn't in dispute.

The idea that Jews were spared being killed in the 9/11 attacks via foreknowledge, THAT part has been debunked (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.asp#add).

She went on to say in that same column:
If the work of Internet journalists is correct, then the war is neither a holy war, not a grand clash of civilizations between East and West, and our soldiers were lost to us and to their families to keep drugs and oil profits flowing in the U.S.

Until we know the truth, we should refuse to add one more Canadian body to the pile of dead in Afghanistan. Not one. Canada should get the truth or get out.

Now, how is this anti-Semitic? Particularly when you add in the fact that she wrote a biography of a Jewish community leader and taught Holocaust classes at the University of Winnipeg for more than a decade?

Nice try, but no dice. I'm not saying the CBC doesn't have a lefty bias ... by American standards, this whole country (including you, SINC) has a lefty bias ... what I am saying is that this second-hand distortion by a blogger of how the CBC reported something doesn't provide solid evidence of that bias.

Mallick can be a very spot on columnist and sometimes she misfires. She's made me laugh and she's made me wince. Sometimes I just scratch my head, but most of the time I enjoy her rather acid take on current events. She does not suffer fools gladly.

However, as has been noted in this thread already, she's paid to voice her opinion, and the media barons of all stripes pay for strong opinions, not watered-down pap. No one would read her otherwise.

Using this incident as an excuse to clamour for the end of the CBC is just a tad over the top.

I want my taxes to pay for something that tells me what I agree with.

I want my taxes to pay for something that tells me what I agree with.

When we want your opinion we will give it to you.;)

Complaints from Faux News... That's rich.

I am not bothered by columnists expressing an opinion, such as that by Mallick. What I don't like is the Liberal bias in their news presentations. It's not right that the public funds a Liberal Party mouthpiece.

I watched George Stom put Dion in a frying pan. George looked like he was going to smack Dion.

Maybe that was just show though.

If the Harperites eventually prove successful at realizing their long-term goal of eliminating the CBC altogether, I look forward to their invention of a new taxpayer-paid propaganda network that will parrot their talking points and tell the public what to think. I'm guessing it will be run by the Ministry of Fear. They'll have ordinary citizens foot the bill while letting their pals in Big Corp suck up government largesse through the usual channels. Everybody will win! Death to the CBC! Long live the CPC!

It's always amusing when people get offended by an opinion column, and then vow to defend to the death their own right to write their own opinions no matter how slanted and artificial.

But it's ripe and stinky when people get offended by opinion columns they just happen to disagree with. What a shocker that is.

Opinion columns are by nature required to begin from a position of bias. If you want news, don't read opinion columns. If you want opinions, it shouldn't be in the news. Did the CBC somehow mis-label Mallick's piece?

In any case, the fact is that Sarah Palin is massively out of her depth. The few times that the Republicans have allowed her to be interviewed, she spews very low-level dialogue that displays incomprehension with even very basic political ideas. What is the Bush Doctrine? She pretended to know--she lied--and couldn't explain the concept or the lie. What foreign policy experience does she have? She can see Russia from where she lives--and she was serious.

Calling her political white trash does a disservice to trash everywhere.

Blaming crime on "immigrants" is a fairly simple racist strategy. It's wrong of course; that crime must be the fault of the east. Apology accepted, though.

And stating that Jewish people were warned about 9/11--but went to work and died anyways---does a disservice to conspiracy theories everywhere. Apology accepted, nearly.

We don't usually get a string of idiot references like this.

But does Mallick's one article mean that the CBC is full of bias and pinkos? Absolutely. One lonely opinion piece means the whole place must be rotten. Anybody buying this?

'Tube: I saw Strombolopolous interviewing Chretien with a pretty even hand as well.

So when Peter Mansbridge paraphrases a reporters bias, it becomes the truth even though the original words were never uttered by the politician?

Sounds a bit wrong but then it's joke amongst journalists to ask "have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions which cannot garner a positive answer in any case.

So when Peter Mansbridge paraphrases a reporters bias, it becomes the truth even though the original words were never uttered by the politician?

No, but when Mansbridge ACCURATELY paraphrases what the politician in question was CLEARLY saying, it's a rephrasing of the original truth as uttered.

I've lived in the Deep South for too long not to know code words when I hear 'em. Mansbridge's paraphrasing, regardless of his personal views, was 100% spot on and the hack in question deserved to get called on it.

I read it as an opinion piece. If there were no opinion pieces, the news would be so boring.

It made Fox news because it came from Canada. When a conservative columnist bashes Palin as was done here - Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com :: The Palin Problem (http://townhall.com/Columnists/KathleenParker/2008/09/26/the_palin_problem) - it doesn't make Fox news, but every other news agency in the states.

Fox News bias? Yes, MSNBC bias? Yes. CNN bias - hard to say. CBC bias? Who cares when it comes to US politics. CBC bias when it comes to Canadian politics? Who knows, although the party colours have little meaning here compared to the USA.

The truth hurts. But, it depends on your own bias.

'Tube: I saw Strombolopolous interviewing Chretien with a pretty even hand as well.

MF I saw both interviews, and they were completely different interviews. George seemed to like Cretien.

Not so with Dion. So I'm not sure what you're talking about 'as well'.

Newcomers to a neighbourhood aren't necessarily immigrants. They could be Newfies that moved to Alberta.

Mansbridge incorrectly chose the word 'immigrant'.

MF I saw both interviews, and they were completely different interviews. George seemed to like Cretien.

There was no party bias. It was based on the relationship with the individual he was interviewing.

There was no party bias. It was based on the relationship with the individual he was interviewing.

ok MF the sky is green. I give.

What? You're so stunned I agree with you on something that you've gone into shock?

I want my taxes to pay for something that tells me what I agree with.

Being on the left, you're getting that now. I can understand why you'd be a fan.

Cheers
MacGuiver

Being on the left, you're getting that now. I can understand why you'd be a fan.

Cheers
MacGuiver
hook line and sinker.

sorry MF if I misunderstood you then great we agree.

I am not bothered by columnists expressing an opinion, such as that by Mallick. What I don't like is the Liberal bias in their news presentations. It's not right that the public funds a Liberal Party mouthpiece.

Given that the Cons wish to put them all out on the street what else can you expect?

BTW in this part of the world CBC Radio is the only over the air programming we can get day in and day out other than a local 5h!t kicking station. My wife uses CBC as a treatment for insomnia.:D

I am a huge fan of the CBC but it may be largely a perseveration of feelings about the CBC of old. My early adulthood was spent is workplaces that allowed radio and I listened to (the then) Morningside to keep in touch with Canada at large. Not necessarily in order, Don Harron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Harron), Bruno Gerussi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Gerussi) and the late, much loved and sorely missed Peter Gzowski (http://www.cbc.ca/news/obit/gzowski_peter/) managed to talk to, as opposed to interview, Canadians of virtually ever stripe from fish plant workers, artists, professors and ordinary folk to the glitteratti, socially, financially, politically of their day. Peter G ('Mister Canada') had it right when he let Sheila Rogers (http://www.cbc.ca/soundslikecanada/) read postcards - it was/is about all she is up to - and then it all began to go downhill when she got Sounds Like Canada.

Suddenly we had a "presenter" instead of a jounalist and it all went to hell-in-a-handcart. Info-tainment became the rule and inFORMation went to the place where the Dodos live.

Now this morning, we have <fingers down throat> Gian Ghomeshi and Q (http://www.cbc.ca/q/) </fingers down throat> - an unabashedly infotainment based placeholder - a radio ripoff of the People magazine pap for the terminally mindless.

It is a sad day that I must finally admit that the CBC has inflicted mortal damage unto itself.

What is desperately needed is a Canadian NPR (http://www.npr.org/) style network!!

I didn['t even think that the CBC even really needed a case - they are Carpetbaggers for the Fiberals and always have been. They hate the Conservatives altogether, and are quite leary of "radicals" like Layton. Everything they do, they do to promote the Fiberal cause.

As for funding, it's a simple case: a national broadcaster is needed, and many quality people do work for the CBC. But the entire place is a warren of nepotism and incest, where people get jobs and are promoted based on their contacts and the high degree of brown nosing. Regular people who want to work hard and do something positive need not apply. What else would one expect from a corporation that regularly fires people by e-mail, and in many cases - they resort to CCing all of the people to be fired. The whole structure is riddled with clueless morons that have no backbone and no tact.

This comes out in what they peddle as "news". They pander to the Fiberals, they hate pretty much everyone else. They are pro-separatist, and nothing gives them a warmer feeling that a government in crisis. The few top notch people they have had are no longer with us, people like Barbara Frum and Peter Gzowski, who were fearless in the pursuit of the truth.

The problem is not with funding - but the funding that is funnelled to the immoral people who run the joint, people that have no respect for the people, or really, even to their mandate as a national broadcaster who should have a neutral and balanced view of events.

.

Say anything, it's all blather.

If you have something specific to write about go ahead and share it. Otherwise it's just mildly confessional ramblings about nothing in particular. At least the OP went to the trouble of waiting a few years for something to share and making a minor point about it.

Since when did ehMac discourage directionless reflection? :confused:

.

.

I regret if I gave that impression. Directionless reflection is the mainstay, not the bane, of existence here.

Don't regret it. What an interesting observation, especially given the subject of this thread.

Fact is, one's opinions about entertainment value notwithstanding, if they're paid for by taxpayers, then their job is to be objective.

And they're not. Which makes'em criminals, AFAIC.

Wait a sec. Are you serious? Opinion columns are supposed to be objective? .


Don't regret it. What an interesting observation, especially given the subject of this thread.

Fact is, one's opinions about entertainment value notwithstanding, if they're paid for by taxpayers, then their job is to be objective.

And they're not. Which makes'em criminals, AFAIC.

Columnists criminals because they're not objective?

Oh my.

You probably think there's a place called utopia, right?


Yeah well, ya gotta try for it...

Columnists criminals because they're not objective?

Oh my.

Oh, here we go.

Opinions are not facts. 'Truthiness' is not a good thing.

And I wasn't referring to 'columnists'. Other than you, who brought them up, anyway?

People need facts, especially at election time.

Don't know about anyone else, but I don't want columnists running the country. I don't vote for them.

Yeah well, ya gotta try for it...

Please look up the meaning of the word "utopia."

You're confused about the columnist references also.

Please look up the meaning of the word "utopia."

You're confused about the columnist references also.

<sigh>

You're wasting time.

From Wikipedia:
_____________________________________________
It is worth noting that the homophone Eutopia, derived from the Greek εὖ, "good" or "well", and τόπος, "place", signifies a double meaning that was almost certainly intended. Despite this, most modern usage of the term "Utopia" assumes the latter meaning, that of a place of perfection rather than nonexistence.
_____________________________________________

>plonk<

What's wrong with bashing Sarah Palin? (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080930.COWENT30/TPStory/National)

Vitriolic drivel is all the rage these days. The blogosphere is full of it. But this drivel was bought and paid for by the CBC.

Nice they realized the folly of their ways...

.