Thursday, July 8, 2010
News CNN suddenly cares about obnoxious Twitter posts?
Posted by Andisheh Nouraee on Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM
CNN fired Middle East news editor Octavia Nasr for posting the following to her Twitter page over the weekend:
"Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot. #Lebanon"
Nasr quickly apologized for the comment on CNN's web site.
It was an error of judgment for me to write such a simplistic comment and I'm sorry because it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah's life's work. That's not the case at all.Here's what I should have conveyed more fully:
I used the words "respect" and "sad" because to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman's rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of "honor killing." He called the practice primitive and non-productive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam.
Should CNN have fired Nasr? I don't have a strong opinion on the matter.
On the one hand, I don't watch CNN's foreign news coverage and therefore don't particularly care who's on their staff.
Also, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who expresses admiration for Grand Ayatollahs in general. It's a very personal bias. Ayatollahs (Grand, Venti and Tall) have caused my family nothing but heartache. Again, it's a personal bias, but since I'm expressing my opinion here I may as well put that out there.
On the other hand, who cares what I or any other opinionated American news viewer thinks about Hezbollah or Grand Ayatollahs? What's the point of TV news, or any news, if it's precisely calibrated to soothe my niggling biases? CNN's job is to provide a broad variety of information and perspectives. That means listening to people who may annoy me.
If a Christian female journalist (Nasr) from a religiously fractured country (Lebanon) finds something to admire in a prominent Shi'ite cleric from the same country, that's a little bit interesting. Not earth-shatteringly important, but considerably more insightful than the countless stupid stories that dismiss Fadlallah by erroneously implying or flat-out stating he was an executive member of Hezbollah.
Although I don't care one way or another if Nasr's employed at CNN, I do wish the network would clarify and codify its policy on perceived bias, as well as controversial off-air comments. Being associated with one "side" of a conflict in the Middle East isn't automatically a fireable offense at CNN. Wolf Blitzer used to work for AIPAC - an American lobbying group that attacks all public critics of Israel's military and settlement policies. If expressing nuanced admiration for Fadlallah "compromises" Nasr's "credibility" as a journalist, then Blitzer's credibility never existed. To be clear, I'm not trashing Wolf Blitzer. I'm simply noting he doesn't appear to be in compliance with CNN's Nasr Credibility Standard.
Additionally, it's not clear why Octavia Nasr was fired from CNN for one offensive off-air comment within a couple months of Erick "Too Many Vile Comments To List" Erickson being hired by CNN. CNN should codify and publicize its rules about off-air comments so viewers can better understand CNN's editorial vision and values. If Erickson's offensive comments are okay, but Nasr's single comment is not, then CNN needs to explain why.
Comments (21)
Showing 1-21 of 21
In an alternate universe, CNN could have used 15 minutes of its 72 hours of daily programming to educate people on who Fadallah was, why Nasr said what she said and have a conversation about how media is evolving and the struggles of old media models to adjust.
Instead they just showed her ass the door and returned to such people who "know what's being said on main street" - like Erick Erickson.
No one cares anymore about learning something new, discourse, discussion or nuance any more. Least of all the fucking media giants.
like
dislike
The author of this piece may indeed have complaints against Ayatollahs; however, to denigrate many learned scholars and brilliant thinkers is a short-sighted view of the world and certainly of the people who work their lives for the good of the people they honor and support.
Imagine what the situation in Iraq would be like without a leader like Ayatollah Al-Sistani. His achievements in Iraq are remarkable considering that he has avoided direct involvement in Iraqi politics and has helped form a new government through negotiation.
I did not even know CNN still mattered, but I would say it is more than a double standard, 1) she is Female, 2) She is speaking positively about an Islamic, they cannot allow that.
3) Ironic she respected him because he tired to change a culture where women had no rights, and got fired for speaking freely.
I have no Idea what Ted's people are doing I thank the Internet I no longer need cable TV.
CNN is scared!
Nasr was fired because CNN is scared about what Israel's government would say and the very many supporters who believe everything Israel does and says can't be discussed or questioned or contradicted. Which is why Israel after so many years is still at war with fanatics it has helped to create
Freedom of speech?!! This is utterly ridiculous. At the end of the day all CNN is doing is giving radical extremists more reasons to hate the west. You can't praise a cleric on Twitter and next thing you know you get the bullet.
Can't have your puppets express political views that aren't covered by the cookie cutter cheat-sheets they're given to rehearse....
Lebanon's Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah was staunchly anti-American and linked to bombings that killed more than 260 Americans. Killing human beings is wrong.
It is kind of Anti-Humane to support and praise people that kill Human Beings isn't it? Do we want to work along side such people? Guess it could liven up the day at times...
Thanks for pointing out AIPAC, a group many don't know, though they have a scary amount of influence by painting politicians who try to stand up to AIPAC as anti Semitic.
Sad but being against AIPAC is far from being against people of Jewish Faith. And opposing some of the current Israel actions is not being against Israel. Israel is not the same as Jewish one is a nation and one is a religion.
Sad but all this stuff gets mixed in together by the mush media.
AIPAC? - an American lobbying group that attacks all public critics of Israel's military and settlement policies.
Yeah - that group is sucking wind right now - I don't see a lot of attacks on critics of Israel. Not in the MSM anyway. I think more of the opposite is happening - Attacking Israel and Jewish people.
It's sad how CNN is turning its back to freedom of speech and democracy ... I don't know if it will survive this loss of credibility. I hope americans will soon understand that muslim extremism is a direct result of jewish extremism (the people who run Israel actually)
I agree iMoeeh it is sad....
When we cannot make fun of all religions equally it is sad. I long for the day when all religions can laugh at themselves at times - all over the world.
I think there is only one relegion left where making fun of a certan person of their relegion results in death and in death threats and in censorship...
Celebrate Diversity!
GentryFunk-
I didn't denigrate Ayatollahs. I don't like fundamentialism, Ayatollahs, Ayatollahism, or societies where people rely on the rulings of religious leaders to decide if they should fight a war or even masturbate?
"Masturbate? What the heck are you talking about, Andisheh?"
I'm talking about Grand Ayatollah Sistani - moderating influence in Iraq, and decider of masturbation:
http://clatl.com/atlanta/what-ever-happene…
"It is kind of Anti-Humane to support and praise people that kill Human Beings isn't it? Do we want to work along side such people? Guess it could liven up the day at times..."
Says someone who probably voted for Bush.
Last time I checked, our 1st Amendment, er, "privileges" have never extended into the workplace. Unless you're on the payroll as Court Jester. And even then...
What an oafish position to take that mass media is not rife with pro-Israel bias. The principle reporter for the NYT is married to a pilot in the IAF, David Brooks spends his summers in Israel, Krauthammer? Bill Crystal? David Gregory? What major columnist has written anything critical of Israel's annexation of the West Bank?
Look up your congressman's paymasters on www.opensecrets.org, which tracks campaign contributions, or better yet call or send an e-mail critical of U.S. policy (what a concept!) vis-a-vis Israel, e.g. the Illegal settlements the U.S. taxpayer bankrolls; or the use of white phosperous on Gazan Palestinians in 2009 or cluster bombs on Lebonon's civilians in 2006. Ask you senator about the quote by General Petreaus that the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (3rd holiest site in Islam) emboldens Al Queda and is a recruitment tool for terrorist organizations. Good on ya if you do.
Jason - I think War and the Killing of people has not improved and has gotten worse.
In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.
At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.
Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org.
Gotten worse? Half a million Iraqis were killed under Bush. You won't find a bigger critic of Obama's Afghanistan policy than me, but but the number of dead people under Bush was magnitudes larger. I'm not even sure what your point is though. You blame him for American soldiers getting killed then you blame him for basing his war strategy on the chants of the anti-war Moveon.org (which he's clearly not doing). Obama has always pissed off liberals with his Afghanistan policy. And of course if McCain had one we would probably be at war with Russian and Iran now too with the full, rabid support of teabaggers, which is why I'm still glad Obama won.
Jason - Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Even liberals pretended to support that war for three whole weeks.
I think that Iraq also was a state sponsor of terrorism; was attempting to build nuclear weapons (according to endless bipartisan investigations in this country and in Britain -- thanks, liberals!); nurtured and gave refuge to Islamic terrorists -- including the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; was led by a mass murderer who had used weapons of mass destruction; paid bonuses to the families of suicide bombers; had vast oil reserves; and is situated at the heart of a critical region.
The Iraquis killed early in the war were many because they were largely Saddam's Military.
My point is what is Obama doing now?
I can't keep up with his policies they seem to change and do not seem to mirror what he ran on. And I know the other side of the aisle is just as guilty.
I am on vacation next week - you going to miss me? LOL!
PistolPete? really you believe that? Bush lied about the reason for going to war and mislead America into thinking Iran was involved in 911 when in fact Sadam and Osama were enemies, Sadam is Secular and Osama plays his brand of religion to secure support.
Thank you!
Hey InAtl - I do not believe that Bush Lied about Iraq and WMD.
"If anything, it turns out the claim that Bush lied was a convenient way for the CIA to pass off its own failures before the Iraq war and for the Democrats to avoid taking a serious position on the war."
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/robb-silbe…
Leading Democrat after Leading Democrat including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, Dick Gebhardt, Henry Waxman, and others said Saddam had WMD. Their language was as serious and explicit as the words of Bush and in some instances tougher and more frantic.
On 10/11/02 the House and Senate voted bipartisanly on the use of force resolution with 110 Dems and 263 Repubs for it. 149 Dems and 7 Repubs against it. Of the 110 Dems for it 67 asserted in statements delivered before the vote that Saddam had WMD.
Saddam had a long history of using biological weapons, threatening with WMD, and a history of retaining scientists, money, and facilities for quickly making more.
UNSCOM findings are here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nation…
And Here
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscom.htm#…
The lesson of UNSCOM is that Saddam Hussein could not be trusted to disarm his own regime.
There was also the Duelfer Report which said among many things that Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare capabilities.
This would have been done within weeks of sanctions lifted as Saddam had everything and person in place to do so.
After UNSCOM, UNMOVIC took over headed by Hans Blix who said that Iraq's stocks of deadly anthrax were never proven destroyed, that Iraq produced more anthrax than admitted and that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of bacterial growth media enough to produce 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax and 6,500 chemical bombs that Iraq admitted to making.
Between 1991 and 1998 UN Weapons inspectors confiscated and destroyed 40,000 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical warfare agents, 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, 48 SCUD missiles, a Super Gun, and biological warfare related factories and equipment. More weapons that was captured during all of the Gulf War.
Saddam and his upstanding sons Uday and Qusay likely destroyed and hid and sent to a place like Syria as much WMD as they could.
Bill Clinton said in 1998 that Saddam was a threat to the well being of his own people, the peace of his region, and the security of the world.
Saddam provided safe haven for Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and many other terrorists of al-Qaeda
To everyone who thinks Bush lied please at least include all the Senators aforementioned who also said Saddam had WMD and agreed with Bush and who were for what Bush did.
We (I) need to stop living in the past.
What is Obama doing now? More of the same?
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Time and Place: Read between the lines
To me this photo is about doing your own thing and following your own path in life.
-
Vernon Jones wants to return to the Gold Dome and other interesting qualification tidbits 1
Qualifying period ends, dust settles, campaigns begin
-
Suspects in Pittsburgh gay bashing slated to go to trial Tuesday
The men accused of beating Brandon White in Southwest Atlanta already headed to court
- More »
Author Archives
-
What can we learn from the 9/11 anniversary? 37
Ten years later, a TV terrorpalooza rings hollow
- More »
