Saturday, February 4, 2012

Watchdog rules Krista Erickson’s Sun News Interview of Margie Gillis acceptable

The Krista Erickson’s Sun News’ June 1 interview of dancer Margie Gillis may not have broken any rules, but I believe it was a hatchet job and unacceptable because it lacked basic fairness. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council released its decision on Friday, ruling that there was no violation because Erickson was “entitled to be aggressive in her questioning and to reveal her personal biases.”

Erickson has become quite the CBC basher and champion of right-wing causes. She must have had her way-to-Damascus moment sometime around joining Sun News Network. Before that, she seemed quite happy to work for the CBC—for 11 years or so.

I wonder how many times she asked herself during that decade-plus of government-subsidized paycheques whether she deserved public funding—a question with which she badgered interpretive dancer Margie Gillis.

Moreover, notwithstanding the right-wing bias Erickson now wears like a badge of honour, when she was covering the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings, she fed questions to former Liberal Member of Parliament Pablo Rodriguez.

And, though an investigation by the CBC ombudsman cleared her of any charge of bias, many Tories were outraged at what they saw as unprofessional conduct for a journalist. She seems, however, to have redeemed herself in their eyes with her move to Sun News. 

Apparently, to us Tories, biases in journalism—not to mention base hypocrisy—are only negatives when the bias is to the left. 

© 2012 Russell G. Campbell


  1. Erickson's questions were tough but fair. She asked "what is it about sitting in a chair going like this (waves hands around) that is worth 'x' million?"

    Really, what is wrong wiith that question?

    Here is a woman, Gillis who is getting millions for "dance research" .... uhhhh ... DANCE RESEARCH!? WTF is DANCE RESEARCH?

    What the hell sort of peer reviewed papers do you do on dance research? If I sit on my ass & wave my hands like this how much money can I get?
    Is THAT the research she's referring to?

    You don't like Erickson's style of interviewing --- who cares?

    The ombudsman cleared her and apparently didn't see the need to ask YOUR permission (the nerve huh?)

    The lefty news/arts/government crowd have been controlling the message for decades now and they have never had a problem when a right winger was questiuoned in a similar manner.

    Now that THEY have to face some tough questions themselves wimps like you blubber your little eyes out about it.

    There is a cultural war going on and if a tough interview exposes an arts freeloader like Gillis then fine.

    1. Really, john? "wimps like you blubber your little eyes out" Is that the best you can do?

      I agree with your underlying sentiment; however, I've watched expert interviewers go hard at a guest withour badgering them like a hyped up schoolgirl.

      Thanks for your insults though.

  2. Not redeemed.

    Just another platform for a self righteous and self important media tool.

    As far as all that condemnation of her browbeating of Gillis goes ... I could care less .. the point of Gillis being in that interview was to answer criticism of her own self serving campaign against having to justify what is done with taxpayer money that goes to the so called "arts".

    In that veign ... Eriksen did her job.

    I am sure that when she ends up at Global or CTV ... she will be back to bashing everything conservative.

  3. Russ, you've made the mistake of criticizing an attractive right-wing personality. Like those on the Left,many of us on the Right have no tolerance for any criticism of our people,especially if they're pretty women.

    I had one old fellow swear at and threaten me over a remark I made about an attractive Republican female in the U.S. That said Republican was a complete twit was beside the point.

    People are often blind to the faults of those they admire. That's why we end up with so many attractive people with no conscience or ethics in politics. Look at Jack Layton's fan club,for instance.

    I saw the interview with Margie Gillis.I think it is a travesty she gets public funding for her crap, BUT I've never seen such a vindictive and spiteful interview,this side of Keith Olberman.

    AND,I think Christa Erickson is ultra-hot! She just wasn't very professional in the Gillis interview. SUN-TV should have let Michael Coren conduct the interview.

    Coren would have torn her to pieces without making her a sympathetic character.

    I wonder if Erickson is really that conservative or if she just goes where she thinks it's best for her career.

    1. My point was that Krista Erickson seemed quite happy as a Liberal helper taking a tax-subsidized paycheque. So what qualifies her for conservative protection? Empty words, or is it merely her looks?

    2. What qualifies her for prtection is the fact that she is playing for OUR team now.

      If she is attacking useless members of the self entitled liberal elite like Gillis they she is doing our dirty work.

      I don't care one damned bit about her reasons for doing it. If she is attacking liberals because she has had some sort of conservative change of ideology, - fine. If she is attacking liberals to further her career - still fine. I'm not interested in her motivation, only results.

      I don't believe for an instant that Gillis has been transformed into some sort of sympathetic martyr of the arts. Those who appreciate her moronic hand waving will still do so (and they will still hate conservatives).

      Those who thought Gillis was an empty headed trough slopper bfore have not changed their mind now.

      What HAS been accomplished is that Gillis is less likely to be slopping up any more government funds and those who aspire to be like her may have a more difficult time of it in the future.

      Yes, and Erickson is good looking. - great. So what? I love the fact that she attacked Gillis with questions I would have loved to ask. Her looks had nothing to do with it.

  4. Liberals who have reformed to be Conservative, are like former smokers.... You won't find a more rabid bunch against their former ways.

  5. So basically you holier than thous who are so upset at Erickson are upset because.... she was rude. RUDE!? Give me a break!

    Arts freeloaders like Gillis make ridiculous amounts of money because everyone is too polite to say that Empress Gillis hasn't any clothes (or talent). The professional arts snobs will applaud whatever she does no matter how awful because they are of the same group. However the average lay man art lover who wants merely to appreciate beautiful dance sees the garbage Gillis is producing and is too polite to say what many people WANT TO SAY. That is "WHAT THE F**K WAS THAT!?"

    Gillis was doing just fine taking advatage of the politness of people the erickson came along.

    And you guys have a problem with Erickson? --- wow.

  6. I watched the interview and I found it quite obnoxious. Certainly I sympathized with the sentiments of Erickson. The way she expressed them, belittled a person's entirely legitimate career and livelihood, and sounded like an argumentative, uneducated, little bratty kid. That interview was absolute tripe. It lacked any journalistic integrity or any semblance of intellectual flare on her part. Indeed, OMMAG's comment regarding media tool seems appropriate. It seems clear that Erickson is nothing but. Sun News deserves better. But she is attractive. I guess that's what counts, right? lol.

  7. I see, taxpayer money for a "dance" like Swan Hands is legitimate livelihood? The woman was too old and too comfortable to dance in any way that might impress anyone so she comes up with this bullshit sit-in-a-chair-&-wave-her-hands interpretive dance con job and hopes that everyone will give her a pass. Do you actually think anyone would pay for that if they weren't absolutely forced to by the tax man?

    What about her "Dance research" hmm? I guess we're out of line expecting her to explain that? How legitimate is THAT livlihood? Oh wait , Erickson was impolite so that makes Gilles' trough slopping ok.

    1. John:

      My comment policy says in part: "I do try, however, to reject comments that use … foul language." Words like "bullshit" are unacceptable here. Surely intelligent conversations can be held using one of the 171,000 plus other words in current use.

  8. Wow, this "john" fellow is an angry, bitter guy. I guess he likes his news that way, too!