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. She may, of course, resubmit her column taking account of our editorial standards. The editors are free to, in fact obliged to, exercise appropriate editing standards.
I used to be a fact checker. Yes, magazines usually have a department dedicated to driving ambitious, young journalists to insanity, by having them confirm the facts as written by others.
There could have been no fact check that would have caused this column not to run.
Fact checker: “Having perused many pornographic web sites, I conclude that Palin does not look like a porn star.”
Fact checker: “Having called some male Republican’s wives… it would seem sexual satisfaction is, er, high.”
This apology from the CBC is grand, except it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. They entirely fail, consistently, to note there is another set of views out there and they monopolize the media with their views using my tax dollars.
On that note, if you want more bias…check this most recent “news” report on “women’s rights” and Bill C-484. How’s about interviewing those victims groups that support Bill C-484 instead of claiming there were none? How’s about challenging the opinion that abortion is a “woman’s right”? Yes, I know, it would have required research. And a fact check.
Or maybe the CBC has an official policy–something that goes a little like this: Slander now, apologize later.by