Mallick & Chomsky: slander and lies
By Nick Ragaz
Issue date: 2/2/06 Section: Opinions
You might know her only for the turquoise Ferragamo ribbon shoes that she cooed about purchasing in her weekly "Bought" Style column. But Heather Mallick also once wrote an acerbic and very popular political column in the Focus section of the Globe and Mail. She left the Globe at the beginning of December after a fight with her editor over a column that she wrote defending Noam Chomsky against the "vicious slander" of an interviewer from the British newspaper the Guardian. Last weekend, Mallick gave the keynote address at the Canadian University Press conference in Toronto, and she dwelt at length on the story of her resignation. She portrayed herself as an embattled champion of truth and journalistic integrity - not to mention of Chomsky himself. This was lame posturing, both false and hypocritical, but the incident offers a useful window into Mallick and her particular brand of uninformed but over-opinionated, faux-controversial and self-congratulatory writings.
The "slander" allegedly perpetrated by the Guardian article was to imply that Chomsky's defence of a writer, Diana Johnstone, who minimized the genocide committed by Serbian troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was a defence not only of her right to publish on the topic, but of the thrust of her arguments. The interview also took Chomsky to task for downplaying the genocide in Cambodia, and for other factual and moral fatuities that Chomsky has put forward or lent support to in his writings and statements.
Chomsky wrote to the Guardian, protesting that he had never said that he agreed with Johnstone's minimization of the casualties of the Bosnian genocide (she claimed that perhaps 200 men had been killed by the Serbs at Srebrenica; the actual figure is at least 8,000). Although it's true that Chomsky in part defended Johnstone's work on the grounds of her right to free speech, he also stated unambiguously that: "I have known her for many years, have read the book, and feel that it is quite serious and important... Johnstone argues - and, in fact, clearly demonstrates - that a good deal of what has been charged has no basis in fact, and much of it is pure fabrication."
The "slander" allegedly perpetrated by the Guardian article was to imply that Chomsky's defence of a writer, Diana Johnstone, who minimized the genocide committed by Serbian troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was a defence not only of her right to publish on the topic, but of the thrust of her arguments. The interview also took Chomsky to task for downplaying the genocide in Cambodia, and for other factual and moral fatuities that Chomsky has put forward or lent support to in his writings and statements.
Chomsky wrote to the Guardian, protesting that he had never said that he agreed with Johnstone's minimization of the casualties of the Bosnian genocide (she claimed that perhaps 200 men had been killed by the Serbs at Srebrenica; the actual figure is at least 8,000). Although it's true that Chomsky in part defended Johnstone's work on the grounds of her right to free speech, he also stated unambiguously that: "I have known her for many years, have read the book, and feel that it is quite serious and important... Johnstone argues - and, in fact, clearly demonstrates - that a good deal of what has been charged has no basis in fact, and much of it is pure fabrication."
