PTBC banner       ProudToBeCanadian

It's a question.

The latest from our COLUMNIST SECTION:

Click here to see more of our columns or use the drop-down menu atop this stack)



PTBC PUSH-BACK

Free-Market Capitalist Consumer Information:
These companies choose to advertise on the
socialism-reliant CBC:
(Links lead to mailing addresses)
• AIG (insur)
• Air Canada
• AOL Travel
• Bank of Montreal ("BMO")
• Best Western
• Canada Protection Plan
• Canada Revenue Agency (!)
• Canadian Tire Fin Serv
• Chip Home Income Plan
• CIBC
• Cold FX
• Desjardins (insurance)
• Directbuy, Inc
• Edward Jones
• General Motors
• Grand and Toy
• Grey Power (insurance)
• H&R Block
• Hilton Hotels
• iContact email marketing
• Infinity (cars)
• Koodoo mobile
• Lens Crafters
• Monster.ca
• National Post
• Neutrogena
• Nutrisystem
• Quicktax
• RBC (Royal bank)
• Rogers Cable
• ScotiaBank
• Shaw Cable
• Texas Travel
• The Co-operators (ins)
• Tim Hortons
• Travelodge
• Vonage
• WeightWatchers
• Westjet
• Working.com
• Zip.ca

Please read more here.


PTBC J-Log

A conservative OPINION blog --with bite. OPINION by Joel Johannesen.

Friday, September 26, 2008

CBC admits they and their columnist Heather Mallick’s anti-Palin tirade were wrong on several levels

Written by Joel Johannesen on Friday September 26 2008 at 04:32 PM

Thanks to George and Bruce and other emailers for this CBC “Ombudsman” response to the numerous complaints lodged against the CBC and its hateful columnist Heather Mallick. 

As usual, the CBC and more than just a few folks on our side miss the point.  The point is that Mallick was writing for a state-owned media.  There shouldn’t be a state-owned media, much less one which competes against citizens in the forum of ideas—particularly politics.  And particularly when they are far-left in the extreme, and totally biased as such. 

Here’s an excerpt (as any government bureaucratic Soviet-style document, it goes on and on at tiresome length):

...For the Ombudsman, the main issue has to be whether the item met CBC’s standards and whether the service that carried it is meeting its obligations.

Policy calls for opinions to be based on fact. Ms. Mallick’s item generally stays in the opinion column but she does offer some flat statements that appear to offer “facts” without any backup. For instance, there is no factual basis for a broad scale conclusion about the sexual adequacy of Republican men. In fact, that type of comment, applied to any other group, would easily be seen as, at best, puerile. Similarly, the characterization of Palin supporters as white trash lacks a factual basis. I asked Ms. Mallick to explain the basis for these characterizations. In a note she explained her opinions of Ms. Palin, but did not provide a factual justification for the statements.

Ms. Mallick is free to draw her own conclusions about Ms. Palin’s appearance, as irrelevant as that might be to her worth as a public official, but a similar sortie against one of her children is, at best, in poor taste. Had Ms. Mallick’s article been labeled “satire,” there might have been scope for such descriptions and conclusions—they have a certain cartoonish tinge—but 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 is entitled to her opinions, and those opinions should not be censored, but those opinions must also be expressed in a manner that meets our Journalistic Standards and Practices. Liberty is not the same as license.

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. Interestingly, had Ms. Mallick’s column been written in the spirit of her note to me, it would still have been pointed and provocative but, with a broader context, would probably not have failed to meet editorial standards.

But there is another significant aspect to our policy. As mentioned, it calls on CBC outlets to touch on the widest range of views possible. On CBCNews.ca, there does not appear to be a wide range of “pointy” views. For instance, many of those who complained claimed that there is no one of an opposite ideological viewpoint readily apparent on the service. Unfortunately, this appears to be true. As I observed in an earlier review concerning CBC Newsworld programming, the CBC should not necessarily avoid having people of strong views on the air, but we must ensure that people of differing views are given a fair opportunity.

It has been argued by some who have supported Ms. Mallick that the comments that have been carried in the Comments section provide balance on the subject. I disagree. The prominent space and highlighting of columnists implies a different status compared to users who comment on the various stories. Appropriate space should be given to a wider range of views.

It is a truism in legal circles that bad cases make bad law. It would be easy to surrender to an impulse to suppress opinions that cause upset, or to issue a blanket defense of freedom of opinion. However, our policies call for me to be clear and precise about policy matters.

CONCLUSION:

Portions of Ms. Mallick’s column do not meet the standards set out in policy for a point-of-view piece since some of her “facts” are unsupportable. She may, of course, resubmit her column taking account of our editorial standards. The editors are free to, in fact obliged to, exercise appropriate editing standards.

It is not my job to agree or disagree with Ms. Mallick’s opinions or the tone in which they are expressed. She is free to craft them as she chooses.

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.

CBCNews.ca should have appropriate resources to ensure that a wide range of opinion and analysis is available.

Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman



SAY IT WITH ME:

State-owned and state-run media should be BANNED in this country, and that notion enshrined in our constitution.


.

Know The Enemy




Also see PTBC blog entries and columns about this here:

• THICK SKULL CHECK: HEATHER MALLICK WRITES **POLITICAL OPINIONS** FOR THE STATE-OWNED MEDIA (CBC)

•  Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren about to hit on CBC-Heather Mallick story

• “Heather Mallick, CBC columnist, paid by you, exhibits her weekly hatred of conservatives”
—J-log

• “Why I’ll defend writers who represent everything I hate”
—David Warren column

Related “NEWS” reporting from CBC “NEWS”:
• “CBC’s “reporter” Neil Macdonald on Sarah Palin: Best at “talking about hunting moose”
—J-Log


• Also this, by National Post editor Jonathon Kay: “Another week, another disgrace at the CBC”; and his followup—a reader complaint to the CBC:  “Wouldn’t it be great if the CBC were as professionally run and politically impartial as NBC?”.  (And please forgive the slightly misguided Mr. Kay for thinking NBC is “impartial” rather than “in the tank” for liberals and particularly Obama—even after their recent firings of Olbermann and Matthews from their anchor desks—read comments here.)

• And this by a blogger at Michelle Malkin’s HotAir.com:  “Hatred in Canada alive and well”.

• More J-Log:  I’ve exposed her repeatedly for her anti-conservative hate-fests before, numerous times.   Yes here’s but just one more. 

Posted by Joel Johannesen on   Fri, September 26, 2008 at 4:32:42 PM
• If you think this site is of no value, then don't pay anything for it, and it will fade into the sunset. That's capitalism at work.
• Email this article to a Friend Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: CBC +
ASK Favicon Blogosphere News Favicon del.icio.us Favicon Digg Favicon Facebook Favicon Fark Favicon Google Favicon LinkedIn Favicon Live Favicon Netscape Favicon NewsVine Favicon Reddit Favicon Slashdot Favicon StumbleUpon Favicon Technorati Favicon TwitThis Favicon Upnews Favicon Wikio Favicon YahooMyWeb Favicon

COMMENTS

Comments do not necessarily reflect or in any way represent the opinion of the main blog entry writer or owner of this site, and claims to the contrary are spurious. Distasteful, abusive, hateful, or annoying remarks will likely be deleted; but since this is a relatively open forum, bad comments may accidentally remain on this site. The fact that a comment remains does not indicate an endorsement of the views.
  1. Doowleb's avatar Doowleb says:

    Sorry to post an unrelated.
    Just watched the debate. He did get a bit shakey, and he did seem older.
    But I think McCain did great.

    Posted by Doowleb  from   on  Fri, September 26, 2008 at 7:39:24 PM
  2. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:

    On topic!  I say again that Malik doesn’t even realize how radical her thinking is.  She is in an environment (CBC) where the train of thought (thought?), and assumptions are coincident with her stated opinions.  This is brainwashing through association.  She stated in her first article that she is not a racist and upon review of her words, I think that that statement may be believable.  Her opinions however prove beyond a doubbt that she is a bigot.

    Now, what is a bigot?  A bigot is merely an equal opportunity racist.  Unfocused!  She hates Conservatives.  All of them.  They seem to be sub-human in her eyes - Neanderthals or something. 

    I personally couldn’t care less about Malick’s views and her hatreds (I’m sure she has many.)  What I do care about is my tax money being wasted providing her with the necessities of life.

    If she wants to continue with her idiotis tirades, I want her to sell them on the street!  In the marketplace of ideas wherever that may be.  I want my tax moneys to go to where they can help those that dearly require help.

    Oh yeah.  Greta was right.  Mallick is a pig.

    CB

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  from  Edmonton  on  Fri, September 26, 2008 at 8:21:38 PM
  3. conservativegal's avatar conservativegal says:

    Like the Conservative juggernaut rolling on to a majority government, the evidence grows daily that the CBC must be abolished once and for all.

    Posted by conservativegal  from  Vancouver Island  on  Fri, September 26, 2008 at 9:08:10 PM
    — conservativegal's   s i g n a t u r e:

    “I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and for all mankind.”

    The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, House of Commons Debates on the Cdn. Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960

  4. Doowleb's avatar Doowleb says:

    As one of original complainants, I have not received a promised reply from the Ombudsman yet.

    Posted by Doowleb  from   on  Fri, September 26, 2008 at 9:31:16 PM
  5. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:

    Vince Carlin is not an ombudsman he is a rationalizer and as such does his best to lie and obfuscate.  I’ve read both the rulings by him on McDonald and Mallick and he makes me sick.
    He talks about the CBC acquiring points of opinion from extreme lengths of the spectrum which is a flagrant lie.  When have you ever seen any fair and balanced opinion on CBC or anything from the right end of the spectrum. Never.  Like I said he is nothing but a liar, obfuscater and rationalizer for the CBC and can’t be taken seriously.
    FIRE THEM ALL.  GET RID OF THE CBC.
    CPC majority.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  from  Toronto  on  Fri, September 26, 2008 at 10:45:50 PM
  6. Doowleb's avatar Doowleb says:

    His letter rebukes CBC and states what they should do.

    That’s it?

    Whose heads will roll at CBC for not following their mandates?
    Where is the timetable for the changes he requests?
    What is the Ombudsman going to DO about the egregious bias at CBC?
    His last statement seems to ask for more money for the CBC.
    The Ombudsman sends a letter of rebuke, and that’s it?
    Has CBC even reported this scolding?

    Posted by Doowleb  from   on  Sat, September 27, 2008 at 5:24:07 AM
  7. conservativegal's avatar conservativegal says:

    Other privately run networks and media outlets have to abide by the Canadian Broadcast Standards and are publicly rebuked for any infractions, while CBC does not-instead, they have their own Ombusdman.

    Where’s the fairness in that? Sorry, you can’t give a slap on the wrist to one of your own and to be state run and owned is an even bigger joke. Our complaints are not addressed, just laughed at by the powers that be, while we are sucked dry year after year to fund their very liberal agenda.

    No matter how the Conservatives end up on election day-minority or majority, pressure has to be put on them to pay more than lip service to Canadians who are sick and tired of funding political views that are not their own. There’s ample evidence not just with its so called journalists and what they say, but by allowing some of the downright hateful comments on their website.

    The CBC has to be disbanded and left to fend for themselves in the dog eat dog world of today’s media.

    Posted by conservativegal  from  Vancouver Island  on  Sat, September 27, 2008 at 5:49:39 AM
    — conservativegal's   s i g n a t u r e:

    “I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and for all mankind.”

    The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, House of Commons Debates on the Cdn. Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960

    8. Page 1 of 1 comment pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.