What is Hot?

Heather Mallick (born 1959) is a Toronto Toronto -based columnist and author who, until December, 2005, wrote for the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail The Globe and Mail. She now writes a bi-weekly column for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s website http://www.cbc.ca/, as well as a monthly column for Chatelaine magazine.

Here’s something really scary: Heather Mallick is MARRIED. I would not begin to try to analyze their relationship, but it certainly must be interesting. I read with great curiosity the article (term used loosely) by the journalist (term usd VERY loosely,) Heather Mallick.

I looked for her motivation in writing such a malicious, vicious, untrue article about a woman she obviously doesn’t know. Then I saw her picture and read a few biographical paragraphs about her. Some female Canadian journalist Heather Mallick waxes elephant about the plebe Sarah Palin. I read this at Rachel Lucas first. Her response is full of “picque”. Heather Mallick does not use any journalistic terms when describing Sarah Palin. Her rant shows that she probably is incapable of writing anything factual.

She published a collection of new essays for Knopf Canada in April, 2007 entitled Cake or Death: The Excruciating Choices of Everyday Life. Mallick is married to Stephen Petherbridge, a senior Canadian journalist. She published a new collection of essays for Knopf Canada in April, 2007 entitled Cake or Death: The Excruciating Choices of Everyday Life.

I mostly read your news through RSS feed and well, from now on I’ll probably read them only through RSS, since the flash-ads you’re using are just way too big and distracting to be able to concentrate on the news story.

Quite frankly they just look horrible. It’s like a slap in the face. I have just read Steve’s blog entry regarding the advent of ads, and although understanding the reasons, I would say to the rather hopeful appeal that they “do not jar with you, or get in the way” - get real mate. They get in the way, that’s the whole point of them isn’t it?

Cascading down the side of BBC Business as I write, are lumps of food being thrown by British Airways as a way of enticing me into its new club world class premium thingy. Being a BBC tax payer until i moved to America, i am dismayed that the BBC has dropped to advertising lows! Please just do not turn into a site where you have to fight your way through the adverts to find the news, as is such the way on our American news websites.

I just read your blog regarding advertisng on the “international sites”. What a bunch of bull! It costs the BBC no more to have it’s content sent around the world on the internet, than it does to have it available in the UK. This is just purely a cash cow for Aunty Beeb and a poor justification. Regardless of what you say, it’s a retrograde step.

Just wait for the day the you publish bad news about the USA, the the U.S. companies pull their adverts. The adverts are annoying there is no denying it but if that is the price to view the site abroad so be it. However does this mean we can now have access to previously denied content? ie I tried to watch news of the GB v New Zealand Rugby League match and that was denied??

I view the BBC site in France and am a licence payer in the UK so its now particularly galling that Brits abroad are still denied some content.
[...]
As a Brit living in New York I really despair at the commercialization of the BBC News web site. I can block these ads on my PC but I constantly check the web site from my phone which does not have that option and is now having to cope with this capitalist graffiti. I must admit that I’ve blocked banners for the first time ever.

I am prepared to tolereate some kind of ads on the BBC News website, but these animated banners have unfortunately gone way overboard. I’m an avid reader (several times a day) of the BBC News website - where I’ve always been able to get a European view of world events. (I’m an American living in Chicago.)

I understand the world service is subsidised by the Foreign Office as the provision of its programming is seen as a public good, reflecting well on the UK throughout the world. I’ve always seen the BBC News website as an extenstion of this. As a Brit working in the U.S. for a UK company paying UK taxes, I see every day that U.S. news, apart from a few bright spots such as the washington post, is in complete free-fall - with CNN et al following Fox News into an abyss of trivia and bias.

There is very little “real” news available in the U.S. (unless you are listening to NPR radio at a time when they have news broadcasts and not music or interview shows). In the U.S. it is very difficult to find news outlets that have not been “corporatized.”

Which is a bit of a shame since you were one of the few foreign news sites I read daily. Hail progress and greed. At least you could insist they are non moving blinking or flashing so one can actually read the news. I cannot concentrate on news with pop-ups and bright graphics. These graphics will send me - and others like me - away. I deeply resent the new banner advertisement which now causes the news itself to open up lower on my monitor. It is both seriously annoying and ugly (no matter how nice the particular add). I’ve appreciated the years during which the world’s best news website (IMHO) has managed to keep itself flimmer-free, but always knew that the end would come one day. No difference now between the BBC and other news sites - except of course that I will no longer be browsing the BBC. Designed to be as obtrusive as possible. This now puts the BBC down in muck with Yahoo and many other News Sites. Google seems to be the only one that hasn’t descended to these depths. As another commentor remarked, the BBC should have spent more effort protecting its budget from Murdoch and such.

In September 2008, two National Post writers sharply critcized Mallick for comments she made in her column “A mighty wind blows through Republican convention” about Sarah Palin, who had just been selected as the Republican party’s Vice-Presidential candidate. Barbara Kay, another writer for the National Post, wrote that Mallick’s article “Is so beyond the ethical pale that it comes close to hate speech.”

Jonathan Kay accused Mallick”s of making derogatory comments about Palin’s family, specifically citing Mallick statement that”Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” In October 2007, Mallick gave the 2nd annual Mel Hurtig Lecture on the Future of Canada, at the University of Alberta.

Starting October 6th. Seriously, those of you who think Mallick deserves to go to hell, take it from me: teaching retirees with $569 to blow will seem like hell for someone of her towering self-regard.

Kay was right in that Mallick’s screed against Sarah Palin said a lot more about Mallick’s private goblins than it did about the Governor of Alaska. In a perverse way, though, I enjoy reading Mallick, as she is a faithful barometer as to what is irking the angry left these days. “Mallick used to be somebody in this business”. Thanks for the feedback.

Let’s see how many phrases like “white trash” Mallick used that would be acceptable for use on a non-white candidate. That’s not fair JA! You are using logic and reason, the left are deprived of such higher brain function. While we’re dreamin we may as well ask for a pony. Mallicks idiocy in it’s full form is available at the CBC, where things have really heated up.