A mea culpa from CBC News publisher John Cruikshank concerning this column by Heather Mallick published on the CBC website.
In the column, Mallick calls American voters “white trash”, Republican men “sexual inadequates” and Sarah Palin a “hillbilly” among other slurs.
Here is Cruikshank’s letter (emphasis mine):
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.
Healthy restraint
On the whole, the CBC News policy handbook takes a very anxious view of any mixing of opinion in with the news business. It sees the two as nitro and glycerin, innocuous on their own but explosive together. This is a very healthy restraint for a public broadcaster.But every news organization needs to have an opinion dimension. Access to different viewpoints helps readers, listeners and viewers make reasoned choices, especially during an election campaign.
As a public broadcaster we have an added responsibility to provide an array of opinions and voices to complement our journalism. But we must do so carefully. And you should be able to trust us to provide you with work that’s based on solid reporting and free from the passionate excesses of partisanship.
We failed you in this case. And as a result we have put new editing procedures in place to ensure 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.
We erred in our editorial judgment. You told us in no uncertain terms. And we have learned from it.
Here was CBC ombudsman Vince Carlin’s assessment of the complaints that followed Mallick’s column,
Stephen Taylor is a scientist, political analyst and a blogger. Taylor writes here regularly and is the founder of bloggingtories.ca. Taylor has contributed to Macleans, CTV, talk radio and has been a featured speaker on new media at numerous events including the Western Standard Cruise and the Forum for Public Policy. In December 2008, Taylor organized Rally for Canada, a series of rallies held coast-to-coast to protest the proposed coalition government.
September 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
What's an apology worth coming from someone else? It has to come from the person who wrote the offensive, malicious rant. It went international so Cruikshank can extend his apologies to the US if that's the best we can do.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Her freelance career at the CBC should be over.
In fact her career should be over.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
That was a mouthful. I probly need to read it over more carefully, and from a distance. But right now I still feel the way I have for years. The CBC as it is now doesn't deserve my tax dollars.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
The CBC as it is now doesn't deserve my tax dollars.
And churches don't deserve mine.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
You have the choice not to give churches money. I am forced to give the CBC money. heather Mallick should be fired.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Since she is freelance there should be no problem with permanently dispensing with her services and reprimanding her enablers and those who gave her screed the ok to go live.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Hey anon, churches don't get your tax dollars. They keep theirs.
What leftwing nutters can't seem to figure out is that there is a difference.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
A deathbed repentance. Good-bye CBC. We will eliminate you. No way my taxes should be going to fund this pseudo-urban-intellectual tripe for so many years. Good-bye, so long, farewell. You will all no doubt get good severances. Then you will have to prove you are smart/have talent/are employable by people who have to answer to their customers, suppliers, advertisers and fellow employees. So long, it has been good to know you.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Where is this posted? I can't find it, and as one of the 300 complainers I sure haven't recieved a personal copy. I want to frame the darn thing.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
done!
September 28th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
post has been updated with a link to the letter
September 28th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
check the post again for a link
September 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Wow, because you know THAT'S not a generalization. Since when does a political party affiliation have any relation to sexual ability? That is, of course, outside of the minds of liberal feministas.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
And when you say churches of course, you mean Christian ones. Its not just Christian churches that get the tax break, but them all, Muslim, Hindu, Scientology, etc.
So, here I ask the one question thats the silver bullet to a liberal: Are you anti muslim because you don't want their mosques to get a tax break?
(Tounge in cheek….)
September 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Practically, I don't think they should have tax exempt status if they breach the church/state barrier; i.e., restricting same-sex sex education in catholic schools, or restricting condom education in same. In the same vein, Emmanuel should not get tax exempt status preaching Conservative talking points from his pulpit. If Muslims do it, they shouldn't get it either.
But I wasn't commenting on that, I was comparing them to the CBC in terms of taxpayer subsidy, and asking why we want to remove CBC funding for political bias, but we never bat an eyelash when it comes to churches, schools, or church groups.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Little-known fact: Cruikshank is also a graduate of Richview High School in Etobicoke, but several years before Harper. He also had the same history teacher. I know – he was in my class. He went on to take English at Trinity College, Toronto.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Way to go Greta! Just think ,Mallick will have more time for shopping,maybe she could buy a book on manners,ethics , self improvement or a bible to share with annon!
September 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Why not? For example, why doesn't the outstanding charitable work of the Salvation Army (which is a church in case you didn't know) deserve your money?
Whereas the Salvation Army genuinely help the poor, people like Heather Mallick lowers the diversity, tone, and tenor, of public discourse.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
So, sir, how many Republican men have you known to be so well-versed on their sexual abilities? Do you have research results to back up your claim? Seriously, I'm interested in the results of your research. I would estimate, sir, that there are easily 20 million Republican men and perhaps 5 million Canadian Conservative men. Please provide some factual information to back up your claim.
Respectfully, East of Eden
September 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I'm a guy bonehead – but good on you for the implicit disrespect to women. I'd expect nothing less, I suppose. May have something to do with the problem we are discussing…
I'm relaying information that I've gathered from women that are tired of dealing with boring sex partners. Typically they're loaded with money, but as boring as the bible when it comes to making things happen. I've heard the complaint time and time again, so I started an impromptu social study over the last 8 years.
I suspect the reason is, simply, that conservatives are so reliant on tradition and so reflexively afraid of change and new experiences (facts that have been shown to be true in many studies of political personality) that – when combined with their typical religious fear of sex, or their undying worship of presumed social mores – results in an incapability or unwillingness to try anything slightly abnormal (i.e., fun).
But, there is a saving grace, I guess. When conservatives finally let lose and commit themselves to wild sexual romps, they excel. The problem is that they are usually hidden affairs, and they are usually gay (e.g., Larry Craig, congressional pages, Ted Haggard). Looks like queer Conservatives know how to have fun – they just have to hide it out of shame. Heteros are doomed for life.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Anon could very easily be a male of the species.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
You are not giving to churches or synagogues or mosques or any other house of worship. We, as over-taxed Canadians unwillingly give to the CBC. And, for me, it's doubly vexing because I do not watch TV. I cancelled my cable in 1996 and have never regretted that decision.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Gasp. Anti-anything but Christian. Whoa, we have a bigot here. Can we make a hate case out of this? Calling HRC, calling HRC.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
All of this presumes Sarah Palin is not an idiot on her way out of the VP run. Problem is, she's an abject moron and she's sure to take 'family time' soon.
So Mallick's assessment is closer to the truth than you guys like.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Okay, now that I've replied to a couple of commenters, here's my take on it. The article was downright vulgar and highly offensive. What have we become that we have a publicly funded organization publishing that sort of dirt. Good Lord – I am familiar with the words 'vagina' and 'sperm' but I sure don't want to read them on a public forum. Thank God that I don't have little children who could accidentally see this sort of trash. Sheesh – a death watch on Lisa Raitt and now this. I sure hope Harper wins a majority and deletes the CBC.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Problems with reading comprehension? Religions are all the variations on the same theme, and deserve the same amount of ridicule and derision.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
So you think that we technically don't subsidize them? What are tax exemptions, then, if not subsidies? We don't give them the money directly, we just don't take it from them like we do to everyone else, and this is different how exactly?
September 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Oh please. I just said I was making a personal observation based on what I've heard my ENTIRE life from women who've wanted more excitement in sex and haven't found it in vanilla-sex, conservative types. It's anecdotal evidence, but that kind of crap is good enough for people claiming the existence of a divine being, so it should be acceptable here, where the claim is far less outlandish, no?
I also gave my reasons why I believe this to be so. Why do conservatives run away from their statistical association with attachment to tradition? Isn't this supposed to the be the backbone of their beliefs? I'm sorry if this affects their ability to push their sexual boundaries, in general.
As an example of what I'm talking about: Are you seriously advocating that the proportion of conservative men that perform anal sex is greater than (or about the same as) the proportion of liberal men that do the same? How about threesomes?
If you're looking for some research into this, the only indication that I've seen about this is in the NOW Toronto magazine's annual sex surveys. Look them up. Or don't, because you deem them to be liberally biased.
September 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
How does being critical of feministas translate into being disrespectful of women in general? There are many women who are not feminists – at least not in the modern understanding of the term.
Also, if these loaded rich men are “as boring as the Bible”, then they must be incredibly interesting and revolutionary men.
Just so you know… your sort of small-minded, anti-Christian bigotry, and how it permeates much of the Canadian left, is the principle reason why I'll be voting Conservative in this election.
I had voted Liberal in the past, but it will likely be a long time until I do so again.
Hateful bile such as yours is a discredit to a left-leaning movement in Canada that was once honorable and truly inclusive, and interestingly enough originate a great deal from Christian leaders (such as the man who founded our form of Health Care here in Canada).
September 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
If it has religious proselytizing attached to it, forget it.
Isn't the Salvation Army just like any other charitable organization? Don't other charities get tax breaks? If so, fine, as long as they don't proselytize and they don't politicize. I'm talking about churches, not charitable organizations. Does the Salvation Army give sermons, hold church groups, etc?
September 28th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Thanks anon; I think you've pointed the way to a solution that we can all agree on. It appears that the CBC is the closest thing to church in anon's world. CBC should no longer be funded by taxpayers, but by tax exempt donations from its adherents. Of course the CBC's adherents will maintain their assbackwards interpretation of “separation of church and state” and demand that their “church” not comment on anything in the spheres of politics and education.
September 28th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
The Salvation Army is a Christian denomination that is also a charitable organization.
Yes – the Salvation Army holds sermons, and holds 'church groups', as you put it.
I can see that your closed-minded bigotry towards Christianity blinds you to holding any sort of reasonable view on these matters. If the Salvation Army provides outstanding charitable work, and doesn't promote views that endanger public safety (which it doesn't), then that should be enough to warrant it receiving tax breaks from the government.
September 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
anon:
I find your comments on conservative males both humourous and juvenile…does your so called founded hypothesis hold true with the sexual abilities of conservative minded women as well?
Perhaps the women who reported their experiences to you were not instilling enough into the equation …or per haps all parties were lacking in creativity for whatever reason…perhaps you hang out with dull people…who knows and who really cares.
According to you; its all the TRUTH…but whose truth I ask? and whose methodology approved by which group of experts …I believe Masters & Johnson to be dead for years…if not themselves then probably most of their conclusions from 50 years ago.
anon…you're a bit of a lazy bas**rd aren't you…what with sweeping generalizations purported to be facts because you say so.
Hah… in the words of that famous stud rooster Leghorn, “Go Away Son, Yuh Bother Me.
September 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
It's an absolutely horrific station – nobody watches the Canadian shows and they have brought on Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy to try to make it look like someone watches.
I say shut it down – let Anon watch Vison TV..
September 28th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I'm anti-religion. Get it straight. They're all ridiculous, and are absolutely acceptable personal coping mechanisms for those who require them, but entirely unsuitable for secular society.
Just because I'm personally anti-religion, doesn't mean that I would stamp out it's existence. As I said above, feel free to worship Russell's tea pot in space, if you wish, in your own private time. That is the essence of tolerance. But don't expect me not to think it's ridiculous, or not to make that fact known. Religion is laughable, and doesn't deserve a pass from criticism.
Don't try to make me out to be on a par with, for example, the homophobic waste that religion produces. They wish to oppress that segment of society, and restrict them from having the same rights as others, even though it doesn't affect them in the least. Same with the anti-abortion crowd. All I'm arguing for is that they not be allowed to speak for everyone on matters that don't concern them, or that they don't receive FUNDING (i.e., tax exemption) to do the same.
Sorry you feel like you have to hitch your wagons to fairy tales.
September 28th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Let them provide charity work and have a tax deduction there as all charities do. How hard is that?
Read above. I think all religions get a free pass and they shouldn't. Separate them into secular charities with tax breaks, and religious magic schools on their own dime.
Or maybe we accept that we all fund things that we don't like, and shut up about it.
September 28th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Why should Mallick apologize to anyone? Does freedom of expression, opinion, or of the press mean nothing to you? Mallick was writing her opinion and not a “reporting” piece. If she had written about Muslims in the same way, I bet you would have been among so many others who would have championed the freedoms our writers have. Shame on you and all the others who believe in freedom of expression only when when it suits you.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
anon. I don't want my money going to churches either. So what. Like I have a choice.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
simon, you hit several nails on their heads, very quickly and accurately. As for the CBC, it has outlived it's purpose and has become an embarrassment to the country. I would love to see it sold to Fox News, but I doubt that they would take on the headache.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
But she was writing about a political candidate. Is criticism of people off-limits now?
Look, what she said was rude, but don't make it out to be more than that. She should try to not use rudely worded language, but there is nothing wrong with pointing out the hypocrisy of white privilege and the treatment of her by the right, the kookiness of her religion, the stupidity of her interview answers, the lack of experience and the moronic excuse she gives to counter that, or the intention of McCain in picking someone with an obvious look and targeted at an obvious demographic.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Hey, I'd trade the CBC subsidies for getting rid of tax exempt status for churches any day. Let's make a deal.
One of my points was exactly that, though: we pay for crap all the time that we don't agree with or don't like. That's because we rely on society in order to function and live, and part of that reliance means that we have to suck it up when we pay for things that we don't really use and don't agree with.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Let me guess, you must be 14-15? If you are any older than that you are quite frankly the most immature twit I have seen in quite some time.
This is the most moronic juvenile attempt to manufacture a fight. “Oh conservative men suck in bed”……Wow. Can we say junior high school or what?
Grow up.
As to the actual content of the story, I am sorry but the writer who actually wrote this does not qualify as a journalist. This is not something written by someone who is trying to expand the debate by pushing the envelope, this is written by nothing more than a child displaying the true depth of their intellectual capacity. As for the editors that agreed to post this, I must question what they are thinking? I would hazard a guess that these are the same editors who are crying about the civility in politic or lack thereof when they are the guilty party who brings down the level of debate to complete absurdity.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Hey, I almost forgot CBC radio. To me, it's the best part of the package (Quirks and Quarks, Ideas, and Wiretap alone are worth whatever my donation works out to annually).
September 28th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I'll believe it when I see it. Does this admission mean that the cbc will be publishing an apology to the Palins in the near future? And maybe even to the people of canada who have been paying for their “passionate expressions of partisanship' and it's 'narrow range of opinions'.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I want Heather to have a forum to express her views. And I don't care if it's on the CBC.
I want her views out there. I don't agree with them, but I expect we can all take in her comments without having our feelings hurt, or even if our fellings are hurt, that Heather doesn't become like Mark Steyn and attacked be section 13.1 of the CHRA.
Just as we have the right to examine our support for the hosts, like MacLeans who hosted Mark Steyn, or the CBC who hosted Heather, we should be able to affect the hosts success, by either being willing or not willing to spend the money, in order to support the host.
Or, are you willing to cut a cheque to MacLeans Magazize, in order to support them and contribute to their bootom line?
Now, with the CBC, we have no choice but to send them 1 billion dollars of taxpayers money every year.
This is the clear difference.
I don't think it's fair for any Canadian to be put in the spot having to make this choice.
It's crazy that there should even be such a choice.
I would be happy to read Heather's postings anywhere. The Huffington Post, The Dailey Kos, Moveon.org, NBC, ABC, whatever, but we have to cancel the CBC.
If not cancel totally, reduce the role they play in news and political comment.
No more Peter Mansbridge and his gang of At Issues panel.
As much as I enjoy it, it's got to go.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
OH PLEEZE.
As a veteran CBC watchdog (over 30 years) all I can say is that Mr. Cruikshanks' mea culpa is way too little, way too late. This kind of partisan hackery has been going on for years, it's been frequently pointed out to the CBC, and until now, it's barely been acknowledged.
Mr. Carlin will throw a few crumbs to the disenchanted but that's about it. You watch, listen, or read comments at the CBC a week after he's acknowledged, begrudgingly, a problem in the CBC's not having met their “journalistic standards” and you come up against the same problem: partisan hackery passed off as news or opinion. There's only so much time in a week that one can be firing letters off to Mr. Carlin. Most of us have better things to do.
Another beef of mine: Mr. Carlin seems to be a very articulate person, HOWEVER, he is a former employee of the CBC and a former professor of journalism at Ryerson, neither position of which would tend to make him an objective observer of CBC content or CBC employees. How easy is it to be dispassionate when judging former colleagues' professional behaviour? It just doesn't seem like a workable formula to me, to hire as your ombudsman a former employee of the institution in question. Surely that individual should be as arm's length from the CBC as possible?
Vis a vis firing Heather Mallick: She is a freelance writer and was a “guest columnist” at CBC Online. The most we can hope for is that she won't be asked to provide a column again.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
… but not my donation, and not the donations of all the people here who are obviously opposed to CBC. If you had made the “Canadian Culture” arguement we could at least deride you as a Trudeauista, but otherwise you seem to be a dull-normal troll.
I think perhaps you are attributing your failings in bed to something else. A tad narcissistic don't you think? You are the only constant in all your failed relationships, remember that.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Grow up
I made an observation based on the cries against Mallick's 'sexual inadequacy' comments. I claimed that in my experience, it was true. It was part of the letter and it was a component of the blog writeup, so I commented and gave my opinion on it. Please spare me the dismissive 'junior high school' crap directed at an opinion that related to the topic. Why would it have anything to do with junior high school anyway – just because it is of a sexual nature? Does sex conversation always make you think of immaturity? Is it always juvenile to talk about it?
I will say this, though: Although I said the comment as an opinion on Mallick's piece, and although it's a ridiculous generalization, it is still mildly amusing to point out that that is my experience. After all, it was just a strange coincidence that I noticed and started to actively question women on. I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen a girl with a guy that bores them sexually, and they don't want to hurt his feelings, so they get excitement elsewhere. I wasn't saying anything about the fact that conservatives can't be happy sexually – there's someone out there boring enough for everyone.
Why would conservatives even WANT to be associated with a sexually progressive lifestyle? What is insulting about making the observation that they aren't?
September 28th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I think the Conservatives should purge the CBC of its leftist elements given that they operate as an arm of the Liberal party.
Also, I think the CBC has an antiChristian bias as well as a leftist bias.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
anon is internet pollution – is there a tax for that?
September 28th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I am glad that the CBC has been finally fingered as a left wing propaganda machine. It became so unbearable during the 1990s when Jean Chretien was running this country under consecutive mandates. He could do no wrong with the CBC reporting his glorious tenure as our Prime Minister. It made me physically ill to watch CBC Newsworld because all they reported on was subjective left wing drizzle. There was never an objective view from the CBC from someone outside the left wing propaganda. Yes it is fine to have a left wing view, but if that is all you got, then your are biased in that concept of thought. That's why I do not watch CBC Newsworld anymore. The Global National with Kevin Newman offers a way more objective and fair view of news events than any CBC news broadcast ever would. As well, I do not know why some Canadians continue to bash Americans on a constant basis. I happen to have some American friends down south and they would give the shirt off their backs to help you out. I do not recall hearing Americans calling our Prime Minister a red neck and sexually inadequate!
September 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Thanks Dr. Phil, but when did I complain about failings in bed? If it didn't work for me at one time, I moved on…and not that it's important, but I'm married now to the best woman on the planet, with a ~1yr old daughter. I couldn't ASK for a better situation. There really is someone to meet everyone's level of sexual craziness.
C'mon guys…when I gave this observation I expected at least one person to mention that I was speaking on matters of taste, and that boredom couldn't be objectively determined. That's an argument that at least has interesting discussion. I can fully accept that some people get bored with non-'progressive' sex, for lack of a better term, while others find excitement in different ways.
No one has told me why conservatives are so up in arms about not being sexually progressive anyway. The attitude seems a bit defensive from my point of view.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
And you base this assertion on the fact that you have slept with them all? Come on – you are repeating the same error that Heather Mallick made. You are giving an opinion without facts to back it up… or perhaps you would like to share more……
September 28th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Anon pretends to speak knowledgeably about things in which he likely has no personal knowledge whatsoever. That's called bias.
For example, every church I have ever attended in this land has respected the 'division' of church and state. No pastor in my long history has EVER discussed politics before the congregation – even during election campaigns. I think most pastors respect the independance and intelligence of their congregants and have no wish to influence others.
Yes, pastors and priests may sermonize about abortion, fidelity, abstinence or any of a number of topics which Anon would be diametrically at odds with – but that's the nature of their job. If a political party walks the opposite side of the street from Christian beliefs, that's their political/moral choice. Yet I don't know a single pastor who would either name nor 'campaign' from the pulpit against said party.
As for tax-subsidies…. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Churches aren't selling a product, nor are they charging for one. Members voluntarily choose to contribute after tax dollars in support of something they personally feel is worthwhile. If the church no longer meets their needs, they simply withold their support.
There is no comparison whatsoever with the CBC which takes our money as direct taxation and then distributes it to others who's merit is not subject to the choice of the payee. If you like the CBC, send your money directly to them: call it the Church of the CBC in order to show that you're a true socialist believer.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I'm hoping that the CBC's days are numbered. I'd like it tobe privatized. Money from it's sale and operation costs could be put to better use.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Nice slap on the wrist. No feel free to do it again.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Well, any of the Conservatives in Ottawa might want to let Lowell Green warn his sister she'll be out of a job. She's with the CBC on the west coast, and she might resent being unemployed.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
What unbelievable idiocy. Based upon conversations you've had with women you are able to assert as “truth” that conservative men are boring in bed. If you consider that proof you obviously are deficient in reasoning skills. Anecdotal evidence is as far from proof as it gets.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
The CBC is funded by taxpayers. The CBC should be held accountable, and thus be required to present a NEUTRAL or BALANCED political view. But they have proven incapable of doing so – so long being in the pocket of Left leaning government and political parties. It is time to restructure the CBC, and purge it of its left wing bias. If this is not achievable, then put it on the auction block, and let whoever buys it spew all the left-wing crap they want, if they think they can survive financially by doing so, in a world that is rejecting left-wing idealism, and is returning to conservatism.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
of course there is nothing wrong with expressing your opinion …. INTELLIGENTLY.
What sounds worse – “I disagree with liberal positions as I feel most are elitist socialist/communist programs designed to transfer wealth from those who work hard to those who don't” or “the DNA of a liberal is so damaged that one can only hope that a cure is found for this disease someday before those parasitical maggots suck the life out of all those who want to actually contribute to society”? Pretty much the same thing said politely in a non-inflammatory way and another in a confrontational attack designed to attract negative attention and a fight. Mallik is as ignorant as she is classless, but she writes for CBC so say no more …..
September 28th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
sell it for a few thousand and put the proceeds toward the head of the liberal party's english lessons
September 29th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Someone at CBC let their left-wing bias get the better of common sense. Someone at CBC deliberately let this vitriolic nonesense seep into our collective Canadian knowledge to inform us about Senator Sara Palin.That someone knew exactly what they were doing and is as guilty as the author of the piec in question. Someone's head should roll and NOW !!!
September 29th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Yes, one can imagine the response from our friends of public broadcasting. “CBC Truckles to Tory Tyrants!” Let's wait and see how those “new editing procedures” pan out before we get too excited about all that fresh air blowing through Station C.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:22 am
If this does not conclusively spell the demise of CBC, I don't know what does. If they had any sense of professionalism left, they would fall on a sword. But, alas, I fear we will continue to endure this embarrassment until the conservatives fix it once and for all. And the CBC fears that most of all!
September 29th, 2008 at 4:51 am
“means that we have to suck it up when we pay for things that we don't really use and don't agree with”
Great – let's fund churches from the public coffers. Hey, you may not agree with it but, hey, it means that you have to suck it up – your own words, buddy.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Buddy, I think you have some really deep-seated issues with the world. Why, in God's name, are you so obsessed with Conservative sex? Your obsession with this sex thing borders is disturbing.
“I'm relaying information that I've gathered from women that are tired of dealing with boring sex partners. Typically they're loaded with money, but as boring as the bible when it comes to making things happen. I've heard the complaint time and time again, so I started an impromptu social study over the last 8 years.”
Uh, boring sex partners? Perhaps these women are uninspiring and are not capable of turning on their partners. Ever think of that? And, if these women find Conservatives to be boring, why are they offering themselves to them? Perhaps these women of whom you speak don't get to know the partner before jumping into bed with them. Oh, and did these women find you to be exciting in the sack?
And, what is your problem with religion? If you don't like it, then don't go to church, mosque, temple, or what have you. Now, get this straight – our government is secular. Our society is not secular – it is a democracy in which people of faith and people of no faith can live together in harmony and be treated equally by our laws and our government. Many regimes have tried to stamp out religion and it just doesn't work. For example, the Russian Orthodox church was there before communism and it was still there when the Soviet Union broke apart.
Now, go do something about that sex problem of yours.
September 29th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Just wondering who 'us' is in your reply Anon? I though the CBC was supposed to represent all Canadians and a wide range of viewpoints?
Are you suggesting that you are from a special interest group and that actually the CBC represents a narrow scope of special interest groups rather than all Canadians?
Who would have thought!?
September 29th, 2008 at 6:29 am
“anon” has clearly tried to derail this thread. I'm disappointed that commenters took her/him on. This has nothing to do with “the Church.” (No one posting as “anon” should be taken seriously or be responded to, IMO.)
This thread is about the misappropriation of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to advance one side of the political spectrum's agenda, the lib-left side, and, even worse, to excoriate the other side of the political spectrum–c/Conservatives and their leader. It's about one-sided political propaganda being pumped out on a daily basis on the part of a state-funded news broadcaster.
And, it's about questioning the timing of said news broadcaster's admission of partisan hackery. How come it's taken so long? What, exactly, does it mean in terms of concrete steps being taken to redress the imbalance? Just who will the CBC be asking to express their opinions in order to “expand the diversity of voices and opinions…[to] better reflect the depth and texture of this country”?
I, like many others, am waiting. Please forgive me for being cynical. I've been waiting for over 30 years…
September 29th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Zig…you are absolutely right. Most people can stomach freedom of expression only when the views being expressed fall in line with their own. But of course, that's not how it works. Or at least it shouldn't. I was incredibly disappointed to read that CBC had buckled to those upset with this piece. Heather is a columnist….that means her writing is based on opinion – and the very nature of a column is that it is there to add to a debate, if not foster one. The ombud takes issue with mixing opinion with news???? Perhaps he needs to give his head a shake. This is why columnists exist. They should be passionate.
And this: “As a public broadcaster we have an added responsibility to provide an array of opinions and voices to complement our journalism.”
Again, this must mean opinions that don't ruffle anyone's feathers.
Yet another sad, sad day for journalism. I was hoping CBC would have the gonads to stand up and by a columnist in the face of those calling for it to do otherwise – like Fox News.
I expected more from my public broadcaster.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Cleaning up the CBC will require a majority Conservative government. That's not the only reason we need a majority government as written by Gwyn Morgan in the Globe & Mail today titled “Global economic crisis no time to bring in minority government”. Let's add to that we have in Stephen Harper the benefit of his professional expertise as an Economist.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Your comment is all too telling, Holly. You take it for granted that news (reporting of fact) would be mixed with opinion.
You missed the main point of the discussion. Right now there is freedom of speech for the CBC and it is taxpayer funded. Other media organizations do not have freedom of speech and are not publicly funded.
CBC has to be cut from its taxpayer funding, otherwise its views are implicitly considered to represent all Canadians.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Uh, no, Anon. You are being facetious or you are just trying to be a smart-alec. The Catholic church, as with all houses of worship, is non-governmental and can choose who may or may not celebrate Communion. The politician who is refused Communion can easily go to another church to celebrate Communion. But you already knew that. So, Anon, if you wish to make arguments against the chruch (and I think you have a real problem of your own, here), make it one which is intelligent and rational. Your arguments, throughout this blog, are full of holes. If you wish to come on to a Conservative blog and participate, at least have something logical to say. What you have shown to us is that you have some real issues with which you have not dealt. You should deal with your sex and religion issues – as a Christian man, I will pray for you and, if I knew you personally, would be there to help guide you through this difficult and confusing period of your life. That is what people of Faith do, we lend a hand to those who are troubled or who lack the ability to handle life in a functional and regular manner. Go in peace, my good man, and seek help. I promise that once you take care of this sex thing, you'll be better for it. God bless you, my brother.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Speaking of Nanos, Pollsters should quit daily polling and should be banned from polling the last week before the election. They're getting far too much air time. All the “experts” are coming out talking about what strategies are needed for the Liberals and NDP, they're constantly fixated around the polls and how to prevent a Conservative Majority, never a mention of what is best for the country at this time. It's certainly not best to have a Minority and return to the bickering, threats to bring down the government and playing gotcha games.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:54 am
A preacher preaches to a small audience within four walls and a specific faith community. The CBC is broadcast from coast to coast and is financed by people like myself. But you knew that. Anon, you are just trying to stir up trouble. As I said, you have some deeply-seated issues with sex and religion. This blog is not the place for you to deal with those issues.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
His arguments are extremely juvenile. His ENTIRE life, women have discussed their boring sex lives with him, he actively questioned women about their sex lives…I wonder how many harassments suits have been filed against him. What kind of a guy goes actively pursuing answers from women about their sex lives? Oh boy, we are either dealing with a pubescent or we are dealing with a very sick adult male. This is just too sick for me to even contemplate.
As for talking about sex – doesn't embarrass me at all. However, I would never, in a million years, actively pursue answers from other people (no matter the gender) about their sexual experiences. Oh, and about all these women who are too sympathetic to tell their partners that they are sexually boring – what in God's name is that? Actually, this sounds like a pubescent girl writing this.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
I am person who listens to CBC radio at least 3 hours daily. I can't watch CBC TV because I don't own one. I will believe that the CBC will and can be anything but a lft biased organization when I see it.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
I read the whole conversation and I am laughing so hard with the, this entry was a fire starter and it seems like comments has boomeranged and broaden the conversation.. anyway I really enjoyed this..
hey Stephen you really had a great post over here LOL >.<
regards
janice
April 5th, 2009 at 4:33 am
I read the whole conversation and I am laughing so hard with the, this entry was a fire starter and it seems like comments has boomeranged and broaden the conversation.. anyway I really enjoyed this..
hey Stephen you really had a great post over here LOL >.<
regards
janice