Matter of principle

Heather Mallick gave up her Saturday Focus column at the Globe and Mail today because of a dispute over last week's piece.

Note that, as the rumour mill will surely grind out, she did not quit over that mean-spirited Frank prank (sub. req'd) a few weeks ago that had her indiscreetly slagging co-worker Christie Blatchford. (And what's up with Frank pranking columnists when there are much bigger fish to fry, huh? Go after the pols, the Bay Street suits, the people with real power!)

As she emailed me this afternoon (I added the links for those who want to understand the full context of her resignation.):

My reason was that I had asked that a column be pulled last Friday and the Globe refused.

I had written a column on the Guardian's deplorable and grotesque libel of Noam Chomsky. The handling editor then said I had to repeat the libel. I said that it was libellous to repeat a libel, as any editor should know. I waited to see the final version (I had my editor's word that I always get to see a final version) and on Friday morning was horrified to find that the column had gone to the printer without my having seen it. I said pull it. The Globe refused.

My column runs Sundays on rabble.ca, a great website. I sent them my original version.

That's the dispute.

I am a great admirer of Prof. Chomsky. I think he is the modern Orwell and the moral point mattered a great deal to me, more than anything. Obviously.

In her column, Mallick excoriates Guardian writer Emma Brockes for her Valley Girl profile of Chomsky who had just been named the world's "Greatest Intellectual" in a U.K. magazine survey:

Ms. Brockes had not read Prof. Chomsky's work, clearly thought linguistics was a sex act, and knew nothing about the history of Cambodia on which she questioned him or even the journalistic sequence of events accompanying the Srebrenica massacre. She wrote a profile that manipulated his quotes in such a way that the libel must have glowed in red letters on the page for the editors, junior and senior, who let it through.

It's writing like that which I will miss on Saturday mornings.

If you want to know more about this messy Chomsky-Guardian business, Alexander Cockburn thoroughly frums Brockes here. The anti-Chomsky types are here and here, although the latter guy is mostly anti-Mallick. The original Chomsky profile is no longer on the Guardian's website. It's just too embarrassing.

You have to hand it to Mallick for standing on principle. I wonder if her critics would do the same.

Comments

[Bob Tarantino]

>> "You have to hand it to Mallick for standing on principle. I wonder if her critics would do the same."

I can barely sit still for money, so count me out.

Seriously, though, kudos to Mallick for resigning on principle. Couple of quick questions, none of which impact on or detract from what she did (I'm just curious): did the Globe editors add material to her column (i.e., the allegedly libelous language)? When a columnist asks for a column to be pulled and an editor complies, is there a quick way for the outside world to know? For example, it used to be that when a film director didn't want his or her name associated with a finished movie (e.g., because he or she disagreed with the editing), it would be credited to "Alan Smithee", so everyone knows there was a dispute (it's an interesting story - Google it) - does a similar thing happen when a column is pulled? Would it be normal practice for an editor to make changes to a column and publish it without having shown the changes to the columnist in question ('cause that would really suck)?

[Antonia Z.]

I guess but can't be sure.
No. There is no box that says "Columnist So-and-So'' pulled her column this week. It may say "Columnist So-and-So is on assignment'' or "will return'' or there may be no box at all.
No, it is not normal practice at all, at least not at the Star. I can't answer for other papers.

[Carol]

Good for Mallick. She is my absolute favourite female writer in the country. Bravo to her. I will follow her wherever she goes, and any smart paper will snatch her up immediately.

[Uku]

Hey

If Mallick goes, there's no reason to renew a 30year subscription.

Cheers

UK

[Dru]

Not to detract from Mallick's principled stand (the Guardian piece was shameful, and even the Guardian seems to have acknowledged that), but I would guess that this was the last straw as opposed to an issue worthy of resignation in and of itself.

I had a brief exchange with another progressive (former) Globe columnist over the summer, and got the impression that dealing with Globe editors was not fun, not always professional, and fraught with annoying exceptions for those not toeing the Globe's general editorial line. Just an impression, though.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear the full story from Mallick, though I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't want to go there.

That said, I'm curious if folks have thoughts on the merits/demerits of sticking it out vs. withdrawing support from a paper like the Globe? I find myself (in the rare opportunities that I get) encouraging people in that position to stick it out, at least until there's some better, large-circulation newspaper that can pay them to do good stuff.

[hey]

Ding Dong a witch is dead, which old witch, a commie witch.

Now only all the writer's for the star, 3/4 of the mop and flail's, and 1/4 of the post's to go.

Hopefully this site's proprietor will soon be begging on king street!

Ding dong a witch is dead!

[Sean Pelette]

When I first read Mallick's description of 'Gormless' I thought perhaps it was bit of ironic self parody. But then I remembered who's article it was I was reading and that any attempt at self-deprecating humour was impossible given the overbearing sense of self-importance that is a typical Mallick column.

Recently the South African Mail & Guardian weighed in on the matter (and still runs the interview);

"But it is far from clear that Brockes ascribed a flat denial to Chomsky -- elsewhere she cites him as believing the massacre “was probably overstated”. In a lengthy quotation which Chomsky nowhere denies, he attributes the overstatement to “a hysterical fanaticism about Bosnia in Western culture”.

In short, Chomsky does try to minimise the Srebrenica atrocity, contrary to the finding of The Guardian correspondent in the Bosnian town whom he concedes is “a good journalist”. Brockes cannot be accused of misrepresenting his essential position."
http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?articleid=258083&area=%2finsight%2finsight__comment_and_analysis%2f

As is usual with a Mallick rant she postures indignantly and thoughtlessly throughout accusing Brockes of knowing "nothing about the history of Cambodia on which she questioned him" (though in fact she never did question him about it). Earlier in the piece Brockes did summarize and not innaccurately, Chomsky's view (expressed fully in After the Cataclysm) that, "in the overall context of Cambodian history, the Khmer Rouge weren’t as bad as everyone makes out". see; http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

Sophistry, not truth is Chomsky's preferred method. He is an intellectual con artist of the highest order and is certainly more than capable of fooling alot of people, even editors at the Guardian and gormless Canadian columnists.

[Michael]

Good for Heather. I shall miss her - I always turned to Focus on Saturday, to read that I was not the only person who thinks the worls is going mad. What will Saturday morning be like now?

I too have principles: my subscription to the Globe will be cancelled unless they make up with her.

[Mark Collins]

Thank goodness Mallick is gone. Her "Focus" column was little more than endless screeching at the US and capitalism--while in the "Style" section her column extolled the joys of buying chic and expensive fruffery. Maudite hypocrite.

Mark
Ottawa

[greenmamba]

How Chomsky Treats Evidence.

On Nov. 29th 2005, Chomsky debated Alan Dershowitz at Harvard on ISRAEL and PALESTINE AFTER DISENGAGEMENT.
Movie here:
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/events_forum_archive.html

Chomsky's theme is that Israel is to blame for everything, especially for rejecting a peace deal at Taba. (That was where Clinton desperately tried a final time to get something going.)

Dershowitz states that both Clinton and Dennis Ross had told him personally that Arafat had been the one to walk away at Taba.

Now from an academic standpoint, this must be taken as an important bit of evidence. Chomsky spurns it anway asking something like: "What are you going to believe? The diplomatic record or what Dershowitz says someone told him."

This makes clear that ideology trumps intellect for Chomsky and it is entirely possible that Emma Brockes was onto something.

[fred]

rumour has it she got caught in an Web stng and made a fool of herself . if that was anymore possible than she already has

. . . . .

"Ms. Mallick and supporters of the ex-Globe diva are presenting this sad news as a resignation. However, informed Front Street sources tell me she got out of the building one step ahead of the lynch mob, after having been duped by eFrank in an artfully-designed e-mail scam.

It will not come as a surprise to regular readers of her Style column that she comes off as a vainglorious bitch in the correspondence with--so the send-up went--the New Yorker's estimable Daphne Merkin.

It's definitely worth the price of a subscription to see this work of art.

[don montgomery]

Heather - we will follow you wherever you go because so far it has taken us from 'Playin Possum' to Rachel Corrie and all points in between. Let us know where you are and we'll be there. We miss you!

[Robert Harper]

Heather Mallick never understood what Hemingway meant when he said "write only what you know." She just wrote and wrote and wrote and never did let accuracy get in her way. I do not remember the precise quote but a British parliamentarian once said about another's resignation that nothing behooved him more than his leaving. Now that she is gone I can renew my subscription to the Globe and Mail without feeling like a hypocrite.

[V. Spentzos]

Like most of the above, I feel a huge loss in the departure of Heather Mallick. Surely the whole point of a good national newspaper is that it contains a wide range of opinions, whether political, racial, religious or whatever. The Globe's breadth of vision is fast shrinking, and I for one will not be buying and/or reading it in future.

[Rick Patrick]

At least Heather's supporters know how to spell. Someone should tell the other weenies that "a lot" is not spelled "alot" and plurals are not made by adding an apostrophe before the "s". Your ignorance is showing, in more ways than one.