CBC columnist Heather Mallick has incited a firestorm with her recent internet piece on US vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. To call it the most nasty and vindictive item I’ve ever read in over 20 years of journalism would not be excessive. Since the CBC has taken that article off their site, I present here just a portion of what Mallick said:
“Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look…[daughter] Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi ‘I’m a f***in’ redneck’ Johnson prodding his daughter? “She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn’t already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America’s name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.
“It’s possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. They’re unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night?
“White trash… is rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like Bush himself)… The semiotics are pure Palin: a sturdy body, clothes that are clinging yet boxy and a voice that could peel the plastic seal off your new microwave.”
Interestingly enough, in all of this, Mallick makes the common left/liberal error of calling Bush uneducated when in fact he has a better education than do most of his critics. Check it out – President Bush has two degrees. And if you want ‘trashy’, then Mallick’s more vulgar comments certainly qualify her: “prodding his daughter” being a case in point.
But I digress. Not only has Mallick not addressed valid political issues in her hate filled rant, she’s attacked Palin’s husband, daughter and daughter’s boyfriend. She even manages a shot at the libidos of Republican men for good measure.
If it were only Governor Palin being dissed here, it might – just very barely might – be acceptable, but Mallick has gone beyond the bounds of propriety with her diatribe and there is no justification for it. It is purely and simply Mallick being hateful. If only Governor Palin were Jewish or gay or a member of some other protected minority group, the Canadian Human Rights Commission could take up her cause on the issue of hate speech. The consensus in various blogs, articles and comments that I’ve seen online is largely against Mallick – even many left-of-center types are appalled at what she said. Kudos to them for showing better taste, not to mention judgment, than Mallick. In an online interview, Mallick stated that she has received numerous really nasty emails over her article. She cites these as ‘proof’ of her opinion of the small mindedness of many Republicans. I think we all realize that if a Republican author were to make this sort of vicious attack against Joe Biden, who is a widower, there would be a lot of upset Democrats demonstrating their own ’small-mindedness’. Mallick is being entirely and knowingly disingenuous with her remarks.
In her senseless rush to self-expression, Mallick has forgotten that in the US public’s mind, she is someone seen as representative of this country. However, I don’t only hold Mallick responsible for this. No, the CBC shares a large portion of blame here and, in a letter from their president, John Cruickshank, they not only accept that blame, they promise to deal with what many feel is the underlying cause of it: to wit, the relentless socialist attitudes that have been a hallmark of the CBC.
Cruickshank’s online apology was prompted by the findings of CBC ombudsman Vince Carlin, who clearly stated that Mallick’s poison pen piece didn’t meet CBC standards: “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,’ and “CBCNews.ca should address its editing standards”. The reaction to Cruickshank’s apology makes for amazing reading. Left wing posters largely excoriate the CBC for its apology, claiming Cruickshank ‘wimped’ out. Some even encourage more of the same drivel be published. Sadly, many of them feel that Mallick’s piece was good journalism. For the record, let me state that it was not and – I’m grinning as I write this – I have no less than the CBC agreeing with me on that.
The right wing on the other hand, has largely been grateful for the CBC’s apology, while pointing out that had a similar ‘character assassination’ been done on, say, Michelle Obama, the left would have formed a lynch mob.
The good news out of all this is that the CBC now plans to hire columnists who will present a more diversified viewpoint than has been the case in the past. I spoke with one of CBC’s editors, who told me that this has been a project they have wanted to do for years, but for which there was no budget. Now there is: they are reviewing a list of some twenty-five or so writers, myself included I believe, and intend to bring several of those on board.
So – despite Mallick’s small and mean spirit – she has single-handedly done for the right what we’ve been unable to accomplish ourselves: dragged the CBC towards some semblance of fairness and balance.
In the spirit of collegiality, I hope that self-inflicted gunshot wound to Mallick’s foot heals well and the bite marks on her ankle don’t bother her too much.
Public date: October 6th, 2008
October 6, 2008
I’ve known one evangelical Christian who worked for the CBC, and he was politically astute, and yet candid about just how difficult that context is to work inside.
The day that the CBC follows the Obudsman’s advice, and intentionally seeks to establish balance in its reporting will be a miraculous one, indeed. This is, after all, the same network that banned “Power to Change” evangelistic commercials in Vancouver not too many years ago, even as it allowed Mormon ones.
It’s nothing short of bizarre the anti-Christian, Christo-phobic, anti-social-conservative, and anti-right-wing-of-any-kind (not to mention Anti-American), bias that has perpetuated itself inside that supposedly “public” broadcasting company.
It’s actually quite lame, and nationally embarrassing…
October 7, 2008
The CBC has the distinction – along with the Ontario Public Service – of having hired as “director of communications” individuals who could neither read nor write. I am serious. I met and worked with such a person in the Ontario public service. Once the person was “outed” as an illiterate among senior management ranks (that took a mere three years!) and left the OPS, the individual went on to be hired as a director of communications at the CBC.
(Doesn’t say much for the CBC’s Human resources department, does it?)
I mean, let’s face it. It takes some SERIOUS STUPIDS to hire an illiterate as director of communications. That the CBC and the Ontario Public Service share this distinction rather fits the bill in my experience.
October 7, 2008
That’s hilarious, that a media organization would hire an illiterate, being that the purpose of media is communication. What’s frightening is that this individual could last any length of time without being discovered.
Of course, not to have hired this individual might well have been ‘discriminatory’ and, in Canada anyway, led to some sort of legal action.
In my recent discussions prior to this article with both the Ombudsman and a senior editor at the CBC, they sounded sincere in their desire to hire writers with other viewpoints. Of course, Mallick at one time worked for the Toronto Sun and her viewpoint wasn’t nearly so radical.
I would be quite interested in seeing just who the Mother Corp is considering as ‘right wing’ to write for them. Then of course there are the other neglected constituencies: Christians, non-feminist women, middle aged men – ok, ok, I’ll behave here, but the point is obvious.