CNN Fires Editor after Expressing Sadness over Sayyed Fadlullah’s Death

[Revoltingest]

Fired for writing something in Facebook? Should employers play Big Brother and seek to control their employees’ life even outside the area of their employment? Maybe these things are the norm in North Korea. But in US of A?

When you take a job you agree to meet some conditions. People who don't like those conditions ought to take a different job. Particularly for
celebrities, they need to conduct themselves in a way which doesn't harm the company they represent. Suppose you hired Mel Gibson as a
mascot for your kosher pickles....with his extracurricular behavior of late, would you keep him now? N Korea differs in that there is no choice.
I don't say that CNN is right....in fact it seems wrong, but they run their show & it's their call.

 

[K.Venugopal]

I don't say that CNN is right....in fact it seems wrong, but they run their show & it's their call.

Are you saying because it is their show they have the right to do what is wrong?

 

[dust1n]

It's even better when journalists release stories that get them fired because the information is visibly harmful against the advertisers that support the news agency. Look.. you can't hurt your advertisers. That's an agreement that you come to when you take the job, not being able to report the 'truth'.

 

[croak]

Octavia Nasr's firing and what The Liberal Media allows - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

The reality, though, is completely different. Fadlallah was a revered figure to a large chunk of the world, and was quite mainstream even in parts of the West. As the AP put it today, Fadlallah was "one of Shiite Islam's highest and most revered religious authorities with a following that stretched beyond Lebanon's borders to Iraq, the Gulf and as far away as central Asia." Ironically, he was the religious guide for Iraq's Dawa Party: the party of our close ally, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who took the very unusual step of leaving Iraq to attend Fadlallah's funeral. As ThinkProgress' Matt Duss put it:

So here's the neocon logic: When a reporter acknowledges the passing of a revered, if controversial figure in a way that doesn't sufficiently convey what a completely evil terrorist neocons think that figure was -- that's unacceptable. But when the United States spends nearly a trillion dollars, loses over 4,000 of its own troops and over 100,000 Iraqis to establish a new government largely dominated by that same "terrorist's" avowed acolytes -- that's victory.
​

Writing in Foreign Policy -- not exactly a radical, Terrorist-loving outlet -- David Kenner described how even moderate, U.S.-friendly officials such as Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri praised Fadlallah as "a voice of moderation and an advocate of unity," and Kenner documents that even Fadlallah's alleged ties to Hezbollah are dubious at best.
Most striking, the British Ambassador to Lebanon, Frances Guy, heaped praise on Fadlallah far more gushing than anything Nasr said. In a piece she entitled "The Passing of Decent Men," Ambassador Guy wrote that he was one of the people whom she enjoyed meeting most and with whom she was most impressed; that he was "a true man of religion, leaving an impact on everyone he meets, no matter what their faith"; that "Lebanon is a lesser place the day after his absence"; and that "the world needs more men like him willing to reach out across faiths."

I'm not surprised that she was fired. Then again, she was a supporter of terrorism. Ah well.


I find it amusing CNN has yet to remove her page, though: CNN Programs - Anchors/Reporters - Octavia Nasr

And yet Hezbully's occupation of southern Lebanon is perfect OK. Nice reasoning you have going on there.

Hezbullah is made up of Lebanese. Occupying their own country... nice reasoning on your part.

 

[Caladan]

Hezbullah is made up of Lebanese. Occupying their own country... nice reasoning on your part.

Isn't it the job of the Lebanese army?

 

[croak]

Isn't it the job of the Lebanese army?

It's no one's job to 'occupy'. I was just taking issue with his choice of words; the fact that Hezbullah is hindering the Army from performing its job is a problem, of course.

 

[Caladan]

It's no one's job to 'occupy'. I was just taking issue with his choice of words; the fact that Hezbullah is hindering the Army from performing its job is a problem, of course.

I dont know, but in a nation which is ran in a healthy way, its the responsibility of the nation's army to secure its borders and territory and to maintain sovereignty. if a terror organization is preventing the nation's regular forces from maintaining that sovereignty, if Hezballah is maintaining control over Southern Lebanon against UN resolutions, it can be argued that its occupying Southern Lebanon.

 

[croak]

I dont know, but in a nation which is ran in a healthy way, its the responsibility of the nation's army to secure its borders and territory and to maintain sovereignty. if a terror organization is preventing the nation's regular forces from maintaining that sovereignty, if Hezballah is maintaining control over Southern Lebanon against UN resolutions, it can be argued that its occupying Southern Lebanon.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbullah surpasses the Lebanese Army in military strength. Not to mention there are still plenty of militias in the country with their own arms. Also, the Lebanese Army is in South Lebanon. I'm not sure what the situation is down there, really; I need to do some research. If I recall correctly, though, Hezbullah welcomed the Army.

Politics is always a delicate balance here; I think if the Army demonstrated it could do the job, Hezbullah wouldn't have as much support. Some members might even join the Army.

Ah, finally: Reframing the Debate About Disarming Hizbullah | The Middle East Channel Worded better than I could.

I don't know; I can agree with Hezbullah being in control, but occupying... can that be the case with the support of the people?

 

[K.Venugopal]

It's even better when journalists release stories that get them fired because the information is visibly harmful against the advertisers that support the news agency. Look.. you can't hurt your advertisers. That's an agreement that you come to when you take the job, not being able to report the 'truth'.

All publications have an editorial policy and a commercial policy and any publication of character would choose to retain the independence of its editorial policy. The day it decides to hypothecate its editorial policy to commercial interests is the day of sell out. America is respected by the best minds the world over because of the great institutions it has built based upon unstilted commitment to truth - its democracy and free press being among its greatest institutions. But if people at the helm of affairs in these great institutions consider commercial interests the primary interest, America would be reduced to a North Korea - only more sophisticated than the Kim II Sung dynasty.

 

[Kathryn]

Fired for writing something in Facebook? Should employers play Big Brother and seek to control their employees’ life even outside the area of their employment? Maybe these things are the norm in North Korea. But in US of A?

The bank I work for has a policy that our work, our customers, and our company are not discussed on the internet, or with the media, in any manner in which the company itself could be identified. On Facebook, since most of our friends there know where we work, we are not allowed to post negative comments and are in fact, strongly encouraged to simply refrain from discussing anything about work.

Personally, I don't find that difficult at all - Facebook is for entertainment and I have no problem separating work from entertainment.

People have been written up and also fired for posting information about work online. I don't see a problem with it.

I also worked for a large media company for awhile. That was a different experience. I was in sales and the first clue I had of the difference with the public is that all I had to do was say I was with ____ and I was immediately given an appointment. In sales, that's unusual. But so much credibility is given locally to that company and to what it stands for, that all I had to do was drop the call letters, and I was in, my calls were returned, my advice was taken, etc.

Those who work in the media, especially for twenty years, should know that their position and influence is unique and therefore, their freedom to express opinions is more limited.

 

[Caladan]

I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbullah surpasses the Lebanese Army in military strength. Not to mention there are still plenty of militias in the country with their own arms. Also, the Lebanese Army is in South Lebanon. I'm not sure what the situation is down there, really; I need to do some research. If I recall correctly, though, Hezbullah welcomed the Army.

Politics is always a delicate balance here; I think if the Army demonstrated it could do the job, Hezbullah wouldn't have as much support. Some members might even join the Army.

Ah, finally: Reframing the Debate About Disarming Hizbullah | The Middle East Channel Worded better than I could.

I don't know; I can agree with Hezbullah being in control, but occupying... can that be the case with the support of the people?

There are still very fragile tensions in Lebanon along the sectarian lines involving Hezballah and their Shiite crowd, in 2008 a year and a half political crisis in Lebanon broke into violence when the Lebanese government wanted to shut down Hezballah's telecommunication network and deal with Lebanese security personnel with links to Hezballah. Nasarllah, Hezballah's leader called the government decision a 'declaration of war', it resulted in more sectarian fighting inside Lebanon which was feared to result in another Lebanese civil war.
so while I realize, that there are Lebanese who view Hezballah as a more competent force than the Lebanese army, especially the Lebanese Shiites, I'm also aware of the political and sectarian tensions and the fragile environment and atmosphere. for years I have been discussing this with Lebanese people of the same generation as me and have obsereved the Islamist pull by groups such as Hezballah Vs. the Lebanese who strive to live in a more liberal reality and who wish to see Syrian and Iranian influence over Lebanon decreesed.

Also, thank you for the read by Randa Slim, I'm always opened to read relevant sources.

 

[croak]

There are still very fragile tensions in Lebanon along the sectarian lines involving Hezballah and their Shiite crowd, in 2008 a year and a half political crisis in Lebanon broke into violence when the Lebanese government wanted to shut down Hezballah's telecommunication network and deal with Lebanese security personnel with links to Hezballah. Nasarllah, Hezballah's leader called the government decision a 'declaration of war', it resulted in more sectarian fighting inside Lebanon which was feared to result in another Lebanese civil war.
so while I realize, that there are Lebanese who view Hezballah as a more competent force than the Lebanese army, especially the Lebanese Shiites, I'm also aware of the political and sectarian tensions and the fragile environment and atmosphere. for years I have been discussing this with Lebanese people of the same generation as me and have obsereved the Islamist pull by groups such as Hezballah Vs. the Lebanese who strive to live in a more liberal reality and who wish to see Syrian and Iranian influence over Lebanon decreesed.

You have the same politicians, the same militias, and basically the same people in power as in the Civil War. I don't see any major changes with the status quo. I would also say that it's not a simple Islamist pull vs liberal reality. You have people of all persuasions. I do believe, though, that those in power want to hold on to their power, and whether it's support from America or Iran, it isn't that big a difference. They're all corrupt.

Also, thank you for the read by Randa Slim, I'm always opened to read relevant sources.

Glad you found it interesting. I try to find sources without a strong bias, even if it's towards my side; the other sides might not take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Smoke]

Those who work in the media, especially for twenty years, should know that their position and influence is unique and therefore, their freedom to express opinions is more limited.

I agree. I don't think it's all surprising that she was fired.

If I had been her boss and it had been my decision, I wouldn't have fired her, but I would have required her to make an on-air clarification and explanation, and I'm sure that would have upset a lot of people, too.

From CNN's point of view, what she said wasn't nearly as important as the fact that it was a public relations problem. Firing her was certainly one way to address the problem, and one that shouldn't have surprised her or anybody else. But I do think it was unnecessarily harsh treatment of an employee of twenty years' standing.

 

[dust1n]

All publications have an editorial policy and a commercial policy and any publication of character would choose to retain the independence of its editorial policy. The day it decides to hypothecate its editorial policy to commercial interests is the day of sell out.

More on the Fox/Monsanto Coverup of rBGH

"After three judges, 27 months of pre-trial wrangling and five weeks of
courtroom testimony, the jury finally had its say. On August 28, 2000, it
awarded me $425,000 in damages for being fired by TV station WTVT
in Tampa, Florida. WTVT is a Fox station owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The verdict made me the first journalist ever to win a "whistleblower"
judgment in court against a news organization accused of illegally distorting
the news.

Notwithstanding being vindicated in court, I have yet to collect a dime of
that jury award. There is no telling how long Fox will drag out the appeals
process as it seeks to have the judgment overturned by a higher court.
Meanwhile, I am still out of work, as is my husband, Steve Wilson, who was
also fired on December 2, 1997, for refusing to falsify a news story to
appease the powerful Monsanto Corporation.

The story Fox tried to kill involved rBGH milk, which is produced using
Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone. We documented how
the hormone, which can harm cows, was approved by the government as
a veterinary drug without adequate testing of how it affected the children
and adults who drink rBGH milk.

You would think that our jury verdict, with its landmark significance for
journalists everywhere, would spark some interest from the news media
itself. Instead, the silence has been deafening. One of the biggest names in
investigative reporting -- Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes (made infamous by the
movie "The Insider") -- took a look at our case, and then decided not to do
a story. Why not? He deemed it "too inside baseball." Translation: There is
an unwritten rule that news organizations seldom turn their critical eyes on
themselves or even their competitors.

This rule is not absolute, of course. Some previous legal challenges
involving the media have received heavy news coverage, including the battle
between 60 Minutes and Vietnam-era Gen. William Westmoreland; the "food
disparagement" lawsuit that Texas cattlemen brought against talk-show host
Oprah Winfrey; and the multimillion-dollar lawsuit brought against ABC-TV by
the Food Lion grocery store chain.

All of those other lawsuits, however, involved conflicts between a news
organization and some outside group or individual. Our lawsuit involved a
conflict within the media, pitting labor (working journalists Steve and
myself) against broadcast managers, editors and their attorneys who hijacked
the editorial process in an effort to remove all risk of being sued or
losing an advertiser.

Prior to my firing at WTVT, I had worked for 19 years in broadcast
journalism, and Steve's career in front of the camera was even longer. He is
the recipient of four Emmy awards and a National Press Club citation. His
reporting achievements include an exposé of unsafe cars that led to the
biggest-ever auto recall in America."


foxBGHsuit

 

[xkatz]

I don't think the editor deserved to be fired. Yes, Fadlallah was a controversial figure, but she had the right as an American to express her opinions. Unfortunately, corporations like CNN have the money and power to control the people who work for them.

 

[Caladan]

You have the same politicians, the same militias, and basically the same people in power as in the Civil War. I don't see any major changes with the status quo.

And that status quo is still fragile with sectarian strife erupting, such as in 2008.

I would also say that it's not a simple Islamist pull vs liberal reality. You have people of all persuasions.

It isn't, it involves Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, a Druze minority and other divisions.
however it is obvious that there is a huge differecnce between the Lebanese crowds which came to commemorate Hariri's assassination anniversary in Martyrs’ Square, where women with head coverings would be few, young people would wear western clothes, and where the crowd would be moderate, while the crowds in a Hezballah rally in the anniversary of the assassination of senior commander Imad Mughniyeh would be completely different and would represent different ideals, where the women would be covered in black and would be separated from the men and where Islamist slogans against the Jews would be heard over and over.

I do believe, though, that those in power want to hold on to their power, and whether it's support from America or Iran, it isn't that big a difference. They're all corrupt.

So if everyone is corrupt one might as well refuse to take any part in politics.

 

[croak]

And that status quo is still fragile with sectarian strife erupting, such as in 2008.

My point is, if you look at who's in power, who they're with, who they're related to, it hasn't changed much. If you mean the status quo as there being calm, then yes, that is fragile. I mean the status quo in politics.

It isn't, it involves Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, a Druze minority and other divisions.
however it is obvious that there is a huge differecnce between the Lebanese crowds which came to commemorate Hariri's assassination anniversary in Martyrs’ Square, where women with head coverings would be few, young people would wear western clothes, and where the crowd would be moderate, while the crowds in a Hezballah rally in the anniversary of the assassination of senior commander Imad Mughniyeh would be completely different and would represent different ideals, where the women would be covered in black and would be separated from the men and where Islamist slogans against the Jews would be heard over and over.

In Fadlullah's case, I think it was a mix of both. But yes, you can see a stark contrast in some cases. As far as head coverings, I don't know; some women wear them, some women don't, and it tends not to be an issue. For women totally dressed in black, they tend to be closer to one extreme.

So if everyone is corrupt one might as well refuse to take any part in politics.

Perhaps identifying as an anarchist reflects that. Although sometimes you're forced to play the game to get results.

 

[Revoltingest]

So if everyone is corrupt one might as well refuse to take any part in politics.

No problem. I assume that many politicians are corrupt, so when I vote, I do so for candidates with a history of supporting an agenda I like.
I cannot see into their souls & judge their goodness, so I go by the results of their actions. It works well for me, except that my candidates always lose.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The 1st Amendment is about protecting speech from government. In her case, the company decided (rightly or wrongly) that
her speech had compromised her job. This is legal. When you go to work for the media, you voluntarily accept some restrictions.

True the 1st Amendment is a limit of power placed on the government not on private individuals or organizations.