Keywords: politics
While providing links to ugly statements about Palin from the left in comments yesterday, I had this entry:

YouTube: Fox News: CBC's Heather Mallick: (actual column has been removed, so transcript from this blog, one of many that saw the original): Palin was not a sure choice, not even for the stolidly Republican ladies branch of Citizens for a Tackier America. No, she isn't even female really. She's a type, and she comes in male form too.

Turns out the reason I couldn't find the article is that the CBC was too embarrassed to leave it up:

More than 300 people have taken the trouble this month to complain to the CBC ombudsman about a column we ran on 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.

CBC Publisher John Cruickshank. (Rich Hein/Associated Press)
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 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 insure 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, displays a very narrow range on its pages.

In this, Carlin is also correct.

This, too, is being immediately addressed. 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.

My sincere appreciation to them for recognizing that they, like so much of the media right now, had slipped into a disreputable sewer, and I truly respect that they, unlike the others, decided they don't want to be there, and even more so that they publicly acknowledged the situation.

I have no problem with a paper printing ugly and even untrue things about politicians, and I see no reason a paper has to have diversity of thought -- if they want to flat out say "This is what we believe and how we approach things", that's legitimate (many papers in Britain are this way, I understand).

However it's not acceptable to pretend to be a neutral journal and to then engage in this sort of behavior.

My only quibble is that I don't believe they should have removed the offending article -- that's trying to change history. It should be left in place for archival and historical purposes (with an appropriate note attached).
Its not okay to mock/detract from palin's womanhood, but it is okay to call Obama:

a Halfrican
a Terrorist
a Muslim
a Liar
an Elitist (While running against somebody who counts his income in tens of millions)
an america-hater
a racist
While I agree that there is LOADS of hypocrisy from the Republicans on this one, Deadron's point addresses media bias. Here, an outlet went beyond arguable neutrality into op/ed without labeling it as such. They acknowledged the error. He applauds this but contends that the rest of the Media (;-P) is still culpable.
Personally, I find it much more humorous of how the Republican media puppets called Hillary Clinton all sorts of blatantly sexist things("stepping into a man's world of politics" is a favorite quote of mine) but get all cry-baby about actual arguments being made against Palin.
Venom Development wrote:
Its not okay to mock/detract from palin's womanhood, but it is okay to call Obama:

For whom? Not me certainly (perhaps you missed all my posts decrying such things being used against anyone, and debunking various myths propogated about Obama).

Not anyone else on this blog...not anyone in responsible media that I'm aware of (except for innocuous stuff like "elitist" and some who question his feelings about the country based on who he has hung out with).

I've backed up my claims of the Democratic leadership and mainstream media saying various things about Palin; if you can back up Republican leadership or mainstream media saying most of those things about Obama, I entirely agree it's reprehensible. (I don't agree that "elitist" is reprehensible, or "liar" if it can be backed up).

I am skeptical that you can back it up -- but go for it and prove me wrong!

A difference between us is that, in that case, I will agree with you, not then change my argument to say those things are okay.

I don't understand, though, why you don't want to debate what people actually say and believe in these discussions. You keep making up stuff that none of us said and then criticizing us (or, specifically, me) for the thing you made up.

I guess that's fun for a while, on your end -- but what's the point? Why not debate what I or someone else here actually says?
For the record I'll call him an elitist. But as his own words back me up on that, I think I'm in the right to say so. The rest of that list of epithets I don't see any basis for.

Though you did leave out Chicagocrat. And noob.
I've backed up my claims of the Democratic leadership and mainstream media saying various things about Palin; if you can back up Republican leadership or mainstream media saying most of those things about Obama, I entirely agree it's reprehensible. (I don't agree that "elitist" is reprehensible, or "liar" if it can be backed up).

Some of your sources are really sketchy (Using stuff like National Review would be like me linking a socialist newspaper to prove my point), and I believe that you believe in what you post, and I don't think you are a bad person, but the fact of the matter is that you can't really say that you have been having a hard stance against it happening on either side, when you make post after post on why McCain's campaign is being treated unfairly, and don't make any mention on them doing the same to Obama.

Do I think Obama is perfect? Far from it.

Do I think McCain is the antichrist? Nope.

Do I think Obama would be much better for America than McCain? Very much so.

Do I think Palin is out of her league? Certainly.

Anyway, here are some links to the afformentioned accusations. its-not-race-its-arugula/ cnn-fact-checks-mccain-ad-not-always-black-white,2933,299578,00.html the_whoppers_of_2008.html

Note that the rapist/mentally deficient comments was actually from a random wing-nut blogger, not a mainstream source, so I'll get rid of those, since we have our share of random idiots on the left too.

Note: Also, can't find the original accusation that Obama burned the flag, but I remember the article had to do with Ayers and the weatherman
Venom Development wrote:
I don't think you are a bad person ...[.]

We are not bad people. Horses are terrible people. index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=35078946
Murder! MURDER!
I say eff the government. If the U.S.A was to go down from being the best place to live, it would best be the governments fault. I believe they don't care about U.S. citizens, just that paycheck they are going to get in 3 days.