CBC News publisher John Cruikshank, via Stephen Taylor;
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.
[…]
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.
Previous – Unfair. Unbalanced.
I would be all for keeping CBC and limited funding… if they adopted the PBS style of public broadcasting. You know, public, private and corporate donations, no commercials, This Old House, Nova, Mystery and those British comedies.
I am still perplexed that CBC has as many or more commercials than Global or CTV and yet they need a billion of taxpayer’s money to survive. Where’s the money going?
ok4ua, you do realize, don’t you, that a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals is contingent on one of those parties having a plurality of seats in Parliament? It’s not just a matter of one of their media buddies writing a fictional story about it.
These people, and you, apparently, live in La-La Land. To use your own words, “only a complete fool” would think that NDP policies would benefit Canada. In fact, they’d be the last nails in the coffin of a once great country.
In effect, in opposition, the NDP and Liberals had many opportunities to work as a coalition to defeat the Conservative government. Just how successful were they at that? What bobbleheads! If they couldn’t manage that agenda, just think of the mess they’d make if they had more power. One shudders to think . . . but it is sort of fun to watch their and their media cronies’ obvious distress at seeing the power and privilege they were used to (plundering for their own, selfish purposes) slipping further and further away. Of course, this misfortune couldn’t happen to a more deserving lot!
Go, Conservatives!
I think CBC is actually trying to represent Canada, some of the Elitism ( Our Opinion is the only Canadian Opinion worthy of Broadcast) has changed, but perhaps they just see DION and his nonsense as unworthy.. and they will go off chasing some other elitist fad that makes a good Toronto Cocktail subject…
Speedy: “I heard Enright this morning. Sneer, sneer…”
Michael Enright is one of the WORST lib-left toadies at the MotherCorpse.
Just for you ok4ua vis a vis your support of Jack Laydown and the Dippers, cross-posted in Reader Tips (September 29, 2008):
LAYTON ALERT!
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=846352&p=2
“What is most worrying is that [Layton’s] intellectual incoherence does not appear to be just political theatre.”
After having admitted that Jack Layton is a “buffoon,” John Ivison in the National Post this morning goes on to catalogue the reasons why a vote for Jack Layton is a vote for an incoherent—and dangerous—platform.
Jack demonizes the corporate sector and seems to think, contra received international economist wisdom, that raising corporate taxes, while heaping financial benefits upon “working families,” is the way for Canada to go. Within a few years, Canada would become the North American Zimbabwe.
Ivison concludes: “But Jack clearly knows jack about competitiveness and, given he’s now too popular to ignore, it means he’s no longer harmless. Canadians should take note.”
It was not without a small degree of pleasure that I pointed this out to my CBC listening better half. Ahem, dear. Did you see this?
mr cruickshank should review his copy of strunk and white’s the elements of style
he could then “ensure” that his word choice was appropriate; unless he’s planning on taking out a life “insurance” policy against the cbc; one wishes this were true
of course, strunk and white are an american concept
Ummm…
So is the answer, according to the ombudsman and publisher…to hire MORE people?
They are setting up to improve the diversity…that sounds like doublespeak for hiring a whole new team to deal with things from a “right wing” perspective.
Then they will need to set up a group to represent the “9/11 truthers”, gay cowboys, and billionaire trust fund heiresses. No?
Personally, I think they could balance their viewpoint by firing Mallick and the bonehead editor who approved that.
At least that would save the taxpayers a few bucks.
Pardon me, should have said, “I think they could BETTER balance their viewpoint…”. I certainly don’t think that one item would fix it.
I find that CBC generally has a leftist angle, but they were really taking it to Jack Layton last night about his claims that he’d keep corporate tax rates steady (the CBC said that if Harper was going to cut them, and Layton was going to keep them the same, wouldn’t that be an _increase_ in taxes, since if left to his own devices, Harper would cut taxes no matter what). On top of that, the hour had an interview with Dion that was quite critical of him as well.
Of course SDA never makes a post regarding CBC when they make pro-right comments…thats not news for people who already hate the CBC correct?
bar_jebus:
As the title of this post says ….
If the CBC just blows the way of the party in charge, then it is a propoganda arm of the government, not an impartial and objective observer.
If you listen to FOX, for example, many of the commentator trash both political parties.
In that sense, Canada need a media outlet whose primary function is taxpayer advocacy, since nobody is filling that niche right now.
Much of the political commentary in the MSM starts from the premise that the state is more qualified to spend a taxpayers’ money than the hard-working taxpayer knows how to spend his own money.
I trust only one person with my money … and that’s me.
Any questions?
Reading the stunted, idiotic comments by Mos or New makes me wonder: what on earth possessed them to move here in the first place? Wouldn’t they be much happier if they had just stayed where they were?
And who were the geniuses in the immigration department who let them in??
Frightening.
Can anyone give one good reason why the government needs to be involved with the CBC anyway? Other than the fact that it wouldn’t last a day without taxpayers’ participation, why must we continue to subsidize it? Give it away… lock, stock and barrel. The billions saved annually could be put to far better use. It is far too crowded at the public trough and shooing the largest pig away would be a damned good start.
Richardson also said: “Talk to the police. Look at who’s committing these crimes. They’re not the kid that grew up next door.”
The points are obvious:
1. the Liberals and the Conservatives and the NDP and the Greens all have poor vetting processes.
2. The Liberals can their bigots, the Conservatives applaud theirs.
Joe and look out are simple of scary frightening most racist people was seen alot in old generation of Canada in age 50 plus year old mostly.
Unfortunatly most of Muslim are here as result of force of Nonmuslim abuse of bomb come here not for they have option to take ornot have fun seating with you bone head here too
you only slander each time I see or read your comments is nothing not comment not the direction only slander by sick heart of you.
keep your opionon for yourself since you said 100 times then stop repeat your opion every day again
—
CBC need to cut all advertise if they want to stay in fairness of politic of country view to say the truthand not get bribe from big cooperation for say or not say
if CBC like to open the donation they can open the donation whoevery like to pay them they cna but not cut from their tax notes of that person
it means if X big copperation pay CBC donation nt get recied of tax decution since all matter of CBC to get money from tax not cut the tax for their give news.
CBC reporter are not have any freind ship with any party and not conflict of interst
and hire more lawyer in their journalis who their laws of find the truth
most of document must get have refenrce to it
if made mistake do amendment to fix it
they ahve to have daily free web page for all Cnadain to if not able to listen news live can read in web pages
– since CBC is got money from all tax payer should stay in not middle of any party or favor or con only say the best trusted source of information
they msut strong l awyer behind if some thing wrong msut say it and not scare if they say the problme sin sep 11 may Isreali or BUSH get mad
must say the truth and leave it to people and govement to made deicion
CBC need one major reporter
I) Main reporter to say the facts and opion oNLY
in link with different group of people
1)government view
2) non government view from public
II) analysis reporters
this person should link with 4 to 5 more smaller reporter who have more fofucs in each side of story and con and pro and explain of matter
and what opion is may look good and check the real news refernce is true or false of it who made lied in first part I in above and so on
—
Details:
I)Main reporters: has ONE job to ask question with not refernece of his or her opion but SOULY TO the point to ask each paty what is your opion that reporte has not right to support any party
1)
now government view can be said from Main reporter ask opion of PM, liberal NDP and conservative and Green and etc over same ISSUES
2) nongoervnement view
can be divided
a) cooperation view
b) public opion
c) environment view
d) education lecture and PHD views
e) etc…
since each group has diff view of waht may hapend here in country
farmer or rich and mid class and low income has diffenret view of what may happend to country
educated and noneducated but pratical daily worker or truck driver such as example see the news and challnge for change differnet than otehr group in country
they say the emotion and but in certian extenc
if tehy need to war zone they need to have 6 month training like army soldure that news reporter go to war zone or may they loose their life easy with not enough training
they msut link with otehr reporter in world as well in challnge
the finaly reporte msut choose in ethic as smart group and rseach group with minimum of master degree for anlyais report
main reporter can be regular jorunalst but anlusiser msut have minimum Master degree know hwo to research the date is right or wrong
—
finaly CBC can be get fix or some get fired or some hired you do not need to hit them bad all and you can not sell tehm free just upgrad them
YES you can but need good leader to fix them too
—
if you plan to get majority to chalnge your power with bit otehr party that is wrong bully approach if you have power you have more responsiblity for peopel too
Oh please Ted. Which part of Richardson’s statement was bigoted, especially in regards to gang violence in Calgary?
Kaga: “Which part of Richardson’s statement was bigoted”
Saying that immigrants are responsible for rising crime without any data to back it up.
More to the point: the CBC is saying it was stupid to say that when you are trying to go after the immigrants vote. Clearly that is true.
Richardson said, “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.”
Ted, you’re a proven liar again.
Irwin:
Richardson also said: “Talk to the police. Look at who’s committing these crimes. They’re not the kid that grew up next door.”
That’s the line Mansbridge was paraphrasing.
Irwin, you’re a proven blind partisan liar again.
Did I hear anyone say Trooper Gate??
No Ted. He was talking about ethnic gangs. Particularly Caribbean, South Asian, and Vietnamese gangs. Nowhere in his statement is he blaming ALL immigrants. His statement is based on that observation and the reports and investigations by the police. Just because his observation involves skin color, or different cultures, does not make it racist or bigoted. So again, please tell me how his statement is bigoted?
All you that seem worried about mos and new, and how they were allowed into our Country etc, as a former English Teacher who used to translate letters from Middle east countries, for his students, and by translation I mean from their relatives try to write English, not the native language, that out two freinds are probably from eastern Canada. Humor them and dont reply. They will either quit or become acceptable posters.
“They will either quit or become acceptable posters”
The former is the more preferable route. The latter is probably impossible.
I’ve already written them, insisting that I would be a perfect choice as one of their more “diversified” bloggers. You should too.
Of course, this is all a big fraud, but it’s important to call their bluff. Who I expect will get the jobs will be left-of-centre journalists who actually think it’s maybe not so bad to have a balanced budget. And that will be the CBC’s answer to diversity.