CBC News publisher John Cruickshank has the following headline over his letter about the Sept. 5 Heather Mallick column about Sarah Palin: "We erred in our judgment." It doesn't get better for Mallick from there.
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.
And now it doesn't. The column has been disappeared from CBC.ca. But it can be found at Mallick's website.
I encourage you to read Cruickshank's full letter (along with Carlin's assessment), but here's some changes he promises:
- New editing procedures to prevent inappropriate content from reaching CBC platforms. "We are open to contentious reasoned argument but not to partisan attack."*
* Note: CBC.ca doesn't seem to currently have anyone with the job title of viewpoints producer. So handles columnists over there and who vets the freelancers' stuff before it goes up under under the CBC.ca name?
- CBC.ca's range of voices is too narrow, and this will change. "CBCNews.ca will soon expand the diversity of voices and opinions and be home to a diverse group of writers with many perspectives."
Some earlier posts of mine on this topic:
- 'Heather Mallick needs your help!'
- Like shooting fish in a barrel
Addenda
Cruickshank's letter wasn't published to the moribund CBC editors blog. And no place for comments to be attached to his letter. So much for joining the conversation.
Adam Radwanski at globeandmail.com took this shot at CBC.ca -- along with news and political websites in general:
.. You get the impression on the radio, and especially on TV, that the network is consistently aware of the need to give the appearance of balance - and, more broadly, professionalism. On the website there seems to have been a lower standard, which unfortunately isn't all that unusual.
Major media outlets, much like the parties, sometimes seem to be under the impression that their websites are a dumping ground where they can stick whatever they like, and to push the boundaries of taste more than they'd dare elsewhere. If it finds an audience, great. If not...hey, it's the Internet. No harm done; you can always just take it down.
Thankfully, audiences are less and less likely to make the distinction. If the Tories have an inappropriately nasty ad on their site, it's not just some over-eager web editor who threw it up there; it's the party. If the CBC runs an offensive, invective-spewing online article, it's not just the great uncensored blogosphere; it's the country's public broadcaster.
Jonathan Kay, editorial page editor at the National Post, had this to say in a Sept. 28 blog post entitled An astonishing mea culpa from the CBC:
For those of us who've been trying to hold the CBC to account for years, this is an important and proud day. And we owe it all to none other than Heather Mallick herself. As I wrote in the lead to that very same column earlier this month, "Canadians have a friend in CBC columnist Heather Mallick — even if they don’t know it: Her latest column for the Ceeb’s web site is so appalling that it might finally convince whoever is elected on October 14 to clean house at 25 John Street …"
Good on the CBC for getting on the job first. And thank you, Heather: Without your over-the-top left-wing venom shocking the CBC into corrective action, this moment never would have been possible. On behalf of "white trash" Republican "sexual inadequates" and "porn stars" everywhere, I extend to you my deepest appreciation.
I would idly note that the CBC originally stuck up for Mallick. Why did it do so before the ombudsman weighed in? Had reaction not been as frenzied, would CBC News have come to the same conclusion and course of action?
Further to that question, Kay had included this form letter from CBCNews.ca chief producer Mary Sheppard in a Sept. 19 posting:
>From: "Audience Relations" <Audience.Relations@CBC.CA>
>CC: "CBC Ombudsman" <Ombudsman@CBC.CA>
>Subject: Heather Mallick column on CBC.CA
>
>Mary Sheppard, executive producer of CBC NEWS.CA, asked that we forward the
>following. We hope it is helpful.
>
>Denis Andrychuk
>Communications Officer
>CBC Audience Relations
>
>
>
>Thank you for your e-mail of September 9 addressed to Vince Carlin, CBC
>Ombudsman. As you know, Mr. Carlin asked me to reply.
>
>You wrote to draw our attention to a column by Heather Mallick in CBC
>NEWS.CA's Analysis & Viewpoint section posted on September 5 under the
>headline, "A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention." It is a
>"hate-filled personal attack," you wrote.
>
>I should be clear right away that CBC NEWS.CA — like the National Post or
>The Globe and Mail — contains stories about the news of the day as well
>as columnists who express an opinion about some of those events. Perhaps
>needless to say the two are quite different. We take great pride in the
>excellence of our journalism and you are right to expect that news stories
>on CBC NEWS.CA will be accurate, fair, unbiased and in all respects meet
>the rigorous criteria set out in the CBC's Journalistic Standards and
>Practices.
>
>But as the section heading "Analysis & Viewpoint" suggests our pages
>also contain clearly identified viewpoint and opinion. We invite some of
>the best and, yes, controversial writers in the country, Ms. Mallick among
>them, to offer their views on the events of the day. That is as it should
>be. It is CBC's mandate, part of its obligation under the federal
>Broadcasting Act, to offer a range of views on matters of public interest
>and concern. And I believe we are doing that.
>
>Ms. Mallick, a veteran Canadian journalist, columnist and editor, has won
>awards for her reviews and feature writing. She is widely recognized as an
>insightful, witty — and controversial — observer of the political and
>cultural scenes. But although we encourage commentators to express
>different points of view, I should be clear that the opinions they express
>are their own. We do not expect all our readers will share them. Certainly,
>they are not the opinions of CBC NEWS.CA.
>
>I should also point out that while columnists are entitled to express their
>opinions, their critics are also free to disagree with them. As you will
>have noticed, the section encourages readers' comments — quite a number
>of which, I see, have taken issue with Ms. Mallick — and prominently
>posts them at the bottom of the column.
>
>Thank you again for your e-mail.
>
>It is also my responsibility to inform you that if you are not satisfied
>with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the CBC
>Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body
>reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program
>compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be
>reached by mail at the address shown below, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or
>by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Mary Sheppard
>Executive Producer
>CBC NEWS.CA
>
>Box 500, Station “A�,
>Toronto, Ontario
>M5W 1E6