russ_watters said:
Yes, it is my argument: I speak for no one but myself.
Then this discussion is pointless. You were responding to my objection to KM's argument. So it seemed like you were defending
his argument.
But you are misrepresenting it: I'm not saying that CNN knew she was a terrorist sympathizer when they hired her, I'm saying that it is unreasonable to believe CNN didn't know she was a terrorist sympathizer after she had worked there for a while.
That is not what you said, and I did not misrepresent what you said. It may not have been what you meant, but that's a different matter.
What you said:
"They made the mistake [hiring a terrorist sympathizer as a mid-east correspondent] and they are rightly damned for it when it becomes public, regardless of whether they would have tried to avoid firing her or not."
(bolding mine)
*blink* You're kidding, right? You honestly believe that the strenght of a person's bias has no bearing whatsoever on whether they act on that bias, and when they do act on the bias it has no bearing on how strongly they act on that bias? You can't possibly be serious about that. Did I misread? Care to explain?
I didn't assert that it has no bearing. I merely pointed out that postulating a direct rather than inverse relationship between strength of bias and likelihood of biased reporting is not to be accepted as self-evident without proof. While you have net yet provided a reason for the direct relationship (saying "it stands to reason" without providing one doesn't help), I can easily come up with a mechanism for an inverse relationship: people with stronger biases are more aware of how far away from the general audience their ideas lie, and are therefore more careful to not let it seep into their reporting, while weaker biases are much more likely to slip through unnoticed.
I'm saying that it should be one of the criteria, yes - as well as a criteria for keeping someone(or not) who shows bias. If nothing else, Gokul, you can't possibly deny that had known and they followed that criteria it could have prevented this very incident!
I don't deny that.
If they had known and hadn't hired her (or had fired her before this incident), quite obviously this incident would not have happened. Correct. The damnation is for CNN not doing something about her sooner.
I have not objected to this specifically, but do point out that as yet, it is being assumed without evidence (and might well be a reasonable assumption) that the higher ups at CNN were aware of her opinions on this matter.
*blink* Again, you're serious? News reporters do not work in a vacuum. They sit in meetings and discuss their stories with each other. They pass them around for critiques and edits. They talk to each other. It is simply not possible that she never shared her views with her colleagues and as such, the only way it could be overlooked is if she wasn't far enough from the mainstream of CNN to raise a red flag.
Speculation, but stated as fact. Besides, passing stories around for editing or critiquing is not the same as passing personal opinions around.
Gokul, you're being completely illogical.
Not sure if this is about the point made above it or the one made below it.
"There are" what? It's not clear to me what this is saying. If you are saying "there are" a pack of sexist liars, and conspiracy flinging nutjobs at Fox, that does not address the logic of their existence being more than incidental to the existence of one example of each kind, and, in fact, being implied by it.
That the existence of one XYZ in a group need not imply that the group itself (or any significant part of it) must be XYZ.
You're not claiming (again), that O-Reilly and Beck are reporters, are you?
No, this has nothing to do with their specific role. It is addressing the logic above.
], I don't see the point here. Based on her record, it seems that her reporting has been excellent. 
