CNN fires editor over Hezbollah comments

CNN Editor Fired for Saying She Has "Respect" for Hezbollah Cleric

See her foot enter her mouth here

Mediaite reports that CNN has fired senior editor of Middle East affairs Octavia Nasr. As Daniel Halper pointed out the other day, Nasr wrote on Twitter on July 4 that she was "sad" to hear of the death of Hezbollah's Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah--a man for whom she has "respect." Fadlallah had justified suicide bombings, is believed to be responsible for the Marine barracks bombing, and had said that "Zionism has inflated the number of victims in this Holocaust beyond imagination."

I don't believe she intended the comments to be interpereted as they were, but nonetheless it is classic foot in mouth. Bottom line, she works for a news agency, in the editorial capacity. Her judgement should be unbiased, in this case she stepped over that line...compromising her reputation. Her comments did leave a little to be desired, thus, I have no problem with the network doing what they felt they needed to do.

One can be unbiased at work and still have a personal opinion. Firing someone for misspeaking, particularly on Twitter where space is limited is pretty radical. But I guess it's a radical world. Soon people will be afraid to speak a thought at all for fear of severe repercussion.

"Bottom line, she works for a news agency, in the editorial capacity. Her judgement should be unbiased"

Do you know the definition of the word "editorial"?

dictionary.reference.com...

ed·i·to·ri·al
   /ˌɛdɪˈtɔriəl, -ˈtoʊr-/ Show Spelled[ed-i-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-] Show IPA
–noun

1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.

2. a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station or channel.

3. something regarded as resembling such an article or statement, as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.

–adjective

4. of or pertaining to an editor or to editing: editorial policies; editorial techniques.

5. of, pertaining to, or involved in the preparation of an editorial or editorials: editorial page; editorial writer.

6. of or pertaining to the literary and artistic activities or contents of a publication, broadcasting organization, or the like, as distinguished from its business activities, advertisements, etc.: an editorial employee; an editorial decision, not an advertising one.

Since when is an opinion unbiased? CNN is made up of a bunch of liars and whores - just like the rest of mainstream media. Since you do not have a clue as to what an editorial consists of, your misguided support for disreputable garbage media which sells their a** to the highest bidder is to be expected.


[edit on 7-7-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

reply to post by vimanarider


While I agree with your assessment that CNN has every right to fire this editor, and I also agree that her remark was less than prudent, I must take issue with your assertion that news should be unbiased. This is a canard that has created a cultural meme where people actually believe that the news is, or at least when it is recognized for not being so, unbiased. The news has never been unbiased, and before there were newspapers, there were pampleteers who used those pamphlets to advocate their position. This is why we have The Federalist Papers, as well as the far lesser known Anti-Federalist Papers.

The Anti-Federalist Papers is less known, in a large part due to a biased news media that has virtually ignored its existence. Not to mention the biased historians who contribute to ensuring the Anti-Federalist Papers remains obscure. As pamphleteering grew into newspapers political advocacy was the standard text of most newspapers, and indeed, remains so today. The Los Angeles Times, a paper that has always been left wing in its advocacy, has regular features such as Column One which is nothing more than an op-ed piece featured on the front page of the paper. The rest of the front page can, on certain days, be inundated with "news analysis" which is yet another euphemism for opinion. These euphemisms are used to create an appearance that the paper, on the whole is, unbiased, and when it is being biased it is being "honest" about this bias.

I had journalism classes back in college, and one of the things that was stressed ad nauseum was that our opinions were not allowed in the writing. Thus, if reporting on an automobile accident that resulted in several deaths, and if these deaths were particularly gruesome, the word gruesome was not allowed to be written since it constituted an opinion. However, the word gruesome is often used by newspapers and broadcasters and it is used because of the axiom, "if it bleeds it leads". Gruesome, horrible, tragic, horrific, monstrous, and terrifying are words that sell news. They are opinionated words, but they sell.

I am not advocating marketing of news, what I am suggesting is that we abandon this pretense that the news is any less yellow today, than it was when Hearst owned newspapers. The news was biased at the height of "yellow journalism" and it was still biased when "the most trusted man in America" Walter Conkrite cried when announcing the death of JFK, and when he announced the Tet Offensive as a defeat for the American military. That he openly wept when announcing the death of JFK may indeed be why he was the "most trusted man in America", ("Oh the humanity"), but it was still bias, and his assessment of the Vietnam conflict and certainly his assessment of the Tet Offensive, was wrong. The Tet Offensive was a complete failure for the Viet Cong in spite of the fact that this offensive took the American military by surprise.

I am not suggesting nor advocating the Vietnam conflict as a "good war", nor am suggesting that those who fought in that war were also "the greatest generation" as Tom Brokaw declared when describing the generation that grew up during the Great Depression, and certainly Brokaw was showing a distinct bias when making such a declaration, and this is all I am suggesting. I can not think of any time in the history of journalism when it was "unbiased", and I don't understand why people keep describing the profession as if it has such as standard, or even that it can be expected to live up this impossible standard.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Thanks for the vocabulary lesson...but yes I am familiar with the term and its definition. You unfairly quoted my text by leaving out the italics on the "should". She has a responsibility to CNN to be unbiased and unwavering from the network stance on any particular topic.

You are mistaking my take on a mutually exclusive situation for flag waving support of CNN and other media outlets, which I can assure you is not the case.

reply to post by vimanarider


Are you saying news agencies are no biased?

That is what I hear from you.

It is not bias to respect a man.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by vimanarider

 

While I agree with your assessment that CNN has every right to fire this editor, and I also agree that her remark was less than prudent, I must take issue with your assertion that news should be unbiased.

Hello friend.

As I mentioned above, I was not insinuating that news be unbiased...merely that as an editor for a media monster like CNN, her publically stated views should be unadulterated from the company line.

reply to post by LittleSecret


No I am not...refer to the previous two posts of mine. In hindsight, I see my wording was unclear. Sorry for any confusion.

Was her Twitter her business Twitter or her personal one. It makes a difference, I guess. And again I say, you can be (relatively, per canard) unbiased at work and still have personal opinions. Professionals do that.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Was her Twitter her business Twitter or her personal one. It makes a difference, I guess. And again I say, you can be (relatively, per canard) unbiased at work and still have personal opinions. Professionals do that.

What professionals are you referring to that have this uncanny ability to be unbiased? Even judges, who we hold a reasonable expectation of being unbiased, struggle with accomplishing such as task...some more than others, in that some judges don't even attempt to be unbiased and will allow their own personal bias to "interpret" laws in the way they see fit.

We are all biased, and as far as professionals go, it would be foolish to think a salesman is being unbiased on the job. My good friend vimanarider is a chef, and if his reputation is that of a great chef, I assure you it is because of his own personal bias regarding food and recipes. Writers of fiction write with their own personal bias, even when they are attempting to present characters that supposedly don't have that bias. Engineers, plumbers, contractors, architects, doctors, nurses, janitors, dishwashers, waiters and waitresses, shoemakers, and jewelers, all come with bias.

Did someone say CNN was "news"?
If they did, thats a biased opinion if there ever was one.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Look, I put your canard thing in quotes. As unbiased as possible, Okay? Does that make you happy?

It is possible to achieve to a large degree if you are a professional editor and/or journalist and trained that way. You simply keep reminding yourself that your job is to present and research the facts in as unbiased a manner possible.

If you're arguing corporately owned talking heads, that's a whole other issue.


[edit on 7/8/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You become biased when you don't think.

Brain is a muscle, the more you use it, the more potential it has.

You don't use it, you become dumbefied, that is bias.

I have no bias, I can say that.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


The scientific method demands that scientists be "unbiased", or as unbiased as possible when testing a theory, and all that method has accomplished is a modern age where the scientific method is largely derided by scientists. The IPCC is a prime example of a group of scientists wholly disinterested in embracing unbiased "training". The CDC and the WHO are more examples of how much an "unbaised" position is reviled.

However, when it comes to science, or a court of law, a degree of unbiased reasoning can be expected, but only in that opinions have no bearing on law. Outside of law, I don't even understand why this unbiased expectation would be necessary. A reporter must report what they have witnessed, and how is it that their own bias has nothing to do with what they witnessed? An editor will come into that story and use their own bias towards fact checking, grammar and sentence cohesion, to further shape the story. It is their bias towards this that makes them editors, not their unbiased character.

In this thread, I rely upon my bias to communicate my thoughts, and you certainly rely upon your bias to do the same. Neither one of us feel compelled to remain "unbiased" why should such expectations be placed upon other professionals?



[edit on 8-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

I have nothing to add. You're totally missing a very simple point. A person can be trained to be aware of bias and put it aside. Work is work and a personal opinion is a personal opinion, and the real relevance here is was her her work Twitter or not. Unless and until we know that and more about how the remark was made (in a professional capacity or not), the bias issue is moot.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


No I do not think I am missing the point, and the real point is not whether the Twitter remark was made on her personal Twitter account or otherwise. CNN has the right to fire that editor for whatever reasons they choose. She certainly has the right to express her views, but does not have the right to expect CNN to employ her regardless of how or where she expresses her views. CNN's concern, as a monstrosity, is advertising revenue, and if they believe this editor's remark hurt their opportunities for advertising then the bottom line is they must distance themselves from her if they hope to not suffer a loss of revenue based upon her remarks.

The point is not whether or not she used a personal Twitter account, and frankly the observation the O.P. made regarding bias doesn't even seem to be the point. The point seems to be that a news organization, small or large, has the right, and perhaps even the responsibility to distance themselves from any employee that forgoes being an asset and instead becomes a liability.



[edit on 8-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

CNN got rid of Lew Dobbs too didn't they?
move along nothing to see here nothing to see here move along nothing...

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Not to stoke the fires here, but what is the difference if it was her personal Twitter account? She holds a major position at a major network.

Just like any other corporation, CNN I am sure has a strictly spelled out code of conduct for its employess (especially those in the more glamorous positions) to adhere to outside of the work setting. One of those rules is likely "do not make public statements in direct oppositon to those of the network or you are subject to disciplinary action including but not limited to termination" or something to that effect.

Just had to say, if I was an editor for a paper or a news agency like CNN, the last thing I would be doing is twittering (is that a proper verb yet?) about some dude that committed atrocities in a good light.

Yes, the OP is correct. The ol foot in mouth disease.

As for the bias discussion, there is not one person that does not have bias, you cannot be one day old and not have bias.

I find the discussion of non biased or factual news source discussion to be quite hilarious. Sorry, even if there is video footage of an incident and 100 people watch it, there will be 100 different things seen on that video.

As for the firing, sorry as a professional myself if I would have opened my big mouth and stuck foot in it while on my own time, this is STILL a perfect excuse to get fired. If you are a professional in a position where your idiocy could hurt your company, they have EVERY right to can your big mouth, or in this instance your big texting finger.

reply to post by endisnighe

about some dude that committed atrocities in a good light.

That is your bias?

No>?

Prove it>