CBC Apologizes, Heather Mallick Does Not

It's fair to say that Heather Mallick is not a supporter of Sarah Palin.

I think it's also fair to say that Mallick should not be writing columns for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or The Guardian, unless of course these media outlets want to be equated with Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.

Shortly after the Republican National Convention, Mallick expressed her views about Sarah Palin.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is reviewing complaints from both Americans and Canadians about a Web site columnist who recently described Sarah Palin's supporters as "white trash," compared the vice presidential candidate to a "porn actress" and called her daughter's boyfriend a "redneck" and "ratboy."

The incendiary column by Toronto-based writer Heather Mallick appeared on the CBC News site on Sept. 5, after the close of the Republican National Convention. On the same day, Britain's Guardian newspaper published another column by Mallick in which she trashed Palin's home state of Alaska as a "frontier state full of drunks and crazy people."

The column on the CBC website has been removed. However, Mallick's column for The Guardian is right here. That column isn't nearly as offensive as the one posted by the CBC, but she does make some extreme statements, like calling Alaska "a frontier state full of drunks and crazy people." That's a bit out there.

In the CBC story, Mallick wrote that John McCain's running mate "added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote."

She proceeded to write that the Alaska governor "has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favored by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression."

She also questioned why the Palins were allowing Levi Johnston -- 17-year-old Bristol Palin's boyfriend and father of her unborn baby -- into the family.

"What normal father would want Levi ‘I'm a f----n' redneck' Johnson prodding his daughter?" Mallick asked.

"I know that I have an attachment to children that verges on the irrational, but why don't the Palins? I'm not the one preaching homespun values but I'd destroy that ratboy before I'd let him get within scenting range of my daughter again, and so would you. ... Turn your guns on Levi, ma'am."

CBC Ombudsman Vince Carlin told FOXNews.com that he has gotten "quite a few complaints about [the column], both from Canada and the U.S," and said he's reviewing its contents to see if it meets CBC's journalistic standards and practices.

But he noted that Mallick is a "columnist not a journalist."

CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said Mallick's column does not reflect the views of CBC or the Canadian government, which owns but does not directly control CBC.

"She's an opinion columnist. I think by definition they can be expected to occasionally use provocative language," he said. But in this case, Keay said the column "could be perceived as excessive or offensive to some people."

Mallick is entitled to her opinion and she's entitled to express it.

Still, her column wasn't "provocative." It was terribly vulgar and offensive.

How much reviewing of the column's contents does Carlin need to do to see if it meets CBC's journalistic standards and practices?

Is this a tough call?

If Mallick's column would meet the CBC's standards and practices, then the CBC has set the bar as low as possible.

FINALLY, weeks later, the CBC did decide that an apology was in order.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has decided a racially-tinged attack by one of its commentators on Sarah Palin was not such a good idea after all. Heather Mallick said in a September 5 column that Republican men were sexual inadequates and that Palin was a toned-down version of a porn actress. She then said Palin "added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote."

The CBC initially stood by Mallick, but after more than 300 reader complaints — and criticism from both Canadian and U.S. media — the CBC is now apologizing. The corporation's ombudsman said Mallick's assertions were not fact-based, and CBC's publisher John Cruickshank says "we erred in our judgment... Mallick's column is a classic piece of political invective. It is viciously personal, grossly hyperbolic and intensely partisan."

Meanwhile, Mallick has never apologized for her column and lauded the CBC for its initial support.

Why did it take so long for the CBC to apologize?

That's inexcusable.

Worse yet, no apologies are coming from Mallick. Actually, her column says much more about her than it does about Sarah Palin.

I can't imagine attaching my name to something so vicious.