News Octavia Nasr tweets her way out of CNN

  • Thread starter arildno
  • Start date

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
You won't catch the Wolfman or any other CNN anchor crying, or yelling at the camera, of showing graphs of the road to heaven.
Whenever was emotional anaemia the hallmark of rationality and objectivity??? :confused:

It can serve just as well as another rhetorical ploy, IMO..
 
761
15
She didn't follow the accepted "truth", and so got fired. Now probably unable to get future work in the US media. Typical response from pro-Israeli US media.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
That is one of the big differences between CNN, and tv tabloids like Fox: The anchors generally play a fairly neutral role. You won't catch the Wolfman or any other CNN anchor crying, or yelling at the camera, of showing graphs of the road to heaven.
Composition error. I assume you mean the unhinged Beck and Oreilly on Fox, but they are not news anchors. Of the little I've seen, I seriously doubt one will see the actual Fox news anchors engaging in hysterics: Shepard Smith, Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace, Baier (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589589,00.html").

While CNN has some solid news folks, on their pseudo-news side take your pick of the unhinged-likely-to-lose-it on the air weirdos: Larry King, Dobbs, soon to come Eliot http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38914.html" [Broken], and of course there's the vile yuck-yuck onair "hard to talk when you're tea-bagging" comment from A. Cooper. A Walter Cronkite moment that was not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
She didn't follow the accepted "truth", and so got fired. .
So it is only a "truth" rather than a truth, that Fadlallah was a mastermind of the 1983 bombings and supported suicide bombing?

Is that a "truth" or a truth?
 
422
1
This entire argument is bordering on the preposterous. Surely one can expect journalists to behave in an impartial manner in their jobs while at the same time accepting that journalists cannot be impartial any more than anyone can be impartial.

It appear clear to me that one can express admiration for a terrorist without in any way agreeing with terrorist actions they commit. For instance, by any reasonable definition Menachim Begin was a terrorist, at least during the period around Irgun's bombing of the King David Hotel. Yet would we expect a journalist to be fired for having expressed personal admiration for him?
 

KalamMekhar

"LoL Osama Bin Laden is rly kewl, he is liek the world hide and seek champion. I admre him"
 
761
15
So it is only a "truth" rather than a truth, that Fadlallah was a mastermind of the 1983 bombings and supported suicide bombing?

Is that a "truth" or a truth?
About as true as George Bush's support of the Iraq war.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
Fire her.

If that was the argument provided above, it may have been reasonable, but it wasn't. The argument was based on speculation about what CNN may have done had the tweets not been public (i.e., they were damned for a hypothetical).
To me, that's a cop out. 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.
But in any case, a defining characteristic of good journalism is the ability to not let your personal biases creep into your professional output. A good organization is not one that is staffed by people devoid of personal biases (i.e., with no value judgments), but one that hires people that can keep their personal opinions out of their articles/newscasts.
Since everyone has personal biases, that is uselessly self-evident. It stands to reason that someone with a stronger bias would be more likely to let that bias interfere with his/her reporting and/or when a bias does creep into reporting, it would be worse for a stronger bias to show its head than a weaker bias. As such, they should seek-out reporters with weaker biases.
2* (corollary). Nothing here directly relates to what ought to be the primarily relevant question: Whether Octavia Nasr herself (as opposed to say, people like her) allowed her personal biases to infringe upon her reporting.
I agree that the others weren't claimed, but this one is just an irrelevancy. It doesn't matter if her personal bias was detectable in her work. The possibility that it could and the appearance of a built-in bias is too much for a respectable news organization seeking to be unbiased to bear.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
This is just one person who made the mistake of showing her intentions. If there is one lion in the midst, there is bound to be a pack.
Agreed. It is just not reasonable to believe she *never* let her personal political ideas be known to her colleages. Heck, I'm an engineer and we sometimes talk about politics at work! I know the leaning of just about everyone within 20 feet of my cube!
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
Composition error. I assume you mean the unhinged Beck and Oreilly on Fox, but they are not news anchors. Of the little I've seen, I seriously doubt one will see the actual Fox news anchors engaging in hysterics: Shepard Smith, Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace, Baier (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589589,00.html").
I'm just going to quote this for emphasis. It is really annoying how many times we see the claim from the left that guys like Beck are "anchors" - much less reporters at all. They aren't. It is factually wrong to claim that they are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
To me, that's a cop out. 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.
Again (and again, and again) this is your own argument (and one based on the unsubstantiated assumption that CNN knew she was a terrorist sympathizer when they hired her), not KM's. KM has yet to make a meaningful argument based on facts.

Since everyone has personal biases, that is uselessly self-evident. It stands to reason that someone with a stronger bias would be more likely to let that bias interfere with his/her reporting and/or when a bias does creep into reporting, it would be worse for a stronger bias to show its head than a weaker bias.
No it does not.

As such, they should seek-out reporters with weaker biases.
Really? You are arguing that journalists should be hired, not on the basis of their experience or journalistic ability, but on where they stand relative to some reference set of people on a number of issues!

I agree that the others weren't claimed, but this one is just an irrelevancy. It doesn't matter if her personal bias was detectable in her work. The possibility that it could and the appearance of a built-in bias is too much for a respectable news organization seeking to be unbiased to bear.
That is the reason for the firing. That is not a reason for damnation.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
I can't see how you can possibly agree with such utter nonsense. The existence of one bad apple implies the existence of a bad bushel?

O-Reilly is a racist, sexist liar, so there must be a whole pack of racist, sexist liars at Fox.

Beck is an unstable, conspiracy promoting, fear mongering nutjob, so there has to be a pack of unstable, conspiracy promoting, fear-mongering nutjobs at Fox.

(likewise with Hannity, the morons on Fox & Friends, etc.)

It is just not reasonable to believe she *never* let her personal political ideas be known to her colleages. Heck, I'm an engineer and we sometimes talk about politics at work! I know the leaning of just about everyone within 20 feet of my cube!
That's not unreasonable, but that's a completely different assertion than the one you agreed to.
 

KalamMekhar

I can't see how you can possibly agree with such utter nonsense. The existence of one bad apple implies the existence of a bad bushel?

O-Reilly is a racist, sexist liar, so there must be a whole pack of racist, sexist liars at Fox.

Beck is an unstable, conspiracy promoting, fear mongering nutjob, so there has to be a pack of unstable, conspiracy promoting, fear-mongering nutjobs at Fox.

(likewise with Hannity, the morons on Fox & Friends, etc.)

That's not unreasonable, but that's a completely different assertion than the one you agreed to.

You have yet to make a meaningful argument based on facts.

So I don't get to say Octavia Nasr is a terrorist supporting A-hole, and that CNN is the same way. But you get to spew your brackish thoughts on Fox News, and it is truth?
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Those are not meant to be statements of fact about those people as they are meant to be a rebuttal of the logic. I could just as well have gone with:

O'Reilly is a ticklish octopus, so there must be a whole pack of ticklish octopuses at Fox.

And jeeze, where do you find the high ground to demand citations from others in a thread where you've been making several completely uncited crackpot claims? But in any case, those very characterizations have been specifically cited several times (and some of them even specifically in response to requests for citation by Russ) in previous threads.

O'Reilly = sexist + racist: O'Reilly = liar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbX-2X7_h-M&feature=related

Beck = unstable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10&feature=channel
More unstable Beck: Fear mongering, conspiracy theory, crackpot:
(ignore any commentary, text or music outside of the actual quotations)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
Again (and again, and again) this is your own argument (and one based on the unsubstantiated assumption that CNN knew she was a terrorist sympathizer when they hired her), not KM's.
Yes, it is my argument: I speak for no one but myself. 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.
No it does not. [follow that a stronger bias is more likely to shine through/shine through worse]
*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?
Really? You are arguing that journalists should be hired, not on the basis of their experience or journalistic ability, but on where they stand relative to some reference set of people on a number of issues!
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! If they had known and hadn't hired her (or had fired her before this incident), quite obviously this incident would not have happened.
That is the reason for the firing. That is not a reason for damnation.
Correct. The damnation is for CNN not doing something about her sooner.
I can't see how you can possibly agree with such utter nonsense. The existence of one bad apple implies the existence of a bad bushel?
*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.

Gokul, you're being completely illogical.
O-Reilly is a racist, sexist liar, so there must be a whole pack of racist, sexist liars at Fox.

Beck is...
And there are. What's your point? You're not claiming (again), that O-Reilly and Beck are reporters, are you?
 
12
9
Damned if they do or don't what? If they made a serious effort to be unbiased and pick quality people who could uphold that, they wouldn't have gotten into this mess! Sure, mistakes happen, but their mistake is their mistake: they're damned for making the mistake ant that's perfectly reasonable!
If you want a serious effort to be unbiased turn off all us cable news networks, including fox, and switch either to NPR or the BBC.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,849
5,040
NPR is not unbiased and the BBC is not American.
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Gokul:
She has been with CNN for 20 years, gaining the position of senior editor.

She has gone through the grades as a journalist at CNN, defeating competitors at many levels.

You do not get that level of trust unless your superiors not only recognize your professional ability (and NOONE doubts that she was a damn good reporter, able to make highly interesting and eloquent reports), but also that they recognize a sympathetic affinity with you.
 
Last edited:

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
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.

And there are.
"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.

What's your point?
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.
 
Last edited:

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Gokul:
She has been with CNN for 20 years, gaining the position of senior editor.

She has gone through the grades as a journalist at CNN, defeating competitors at many levels.

You do not get that level of trust unless your superiors not only recognize your professional ability (and NOONE doubts that she was a damn good reporter, able to make highly interesting and eloquent reports), but also that they recognize a sympathetic affinity with you.
You are asserting that the top brass of every media outlet recognize a sympathetic affinity with every employee that is at least at the level of trust as Nasr had reached. A corollary to this is that no organization can have at this level, two or more people with strongly differing sensibilities.
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
You are asserting that the top brass of every media outlet recognize a sympathetic affinity with every employee that is at least at the level of trust as Nasr had reached.
Yes.
A corollary to this is that no organization can have at this level, two or more people with strongly differing sensibilities.
No.
For example:
For geeky university milieux, that need not be true.

Neither for enterprises where the top echelons are largely recruited through positions of inheritance, rather than through meritocratic mechanisms.
 

Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,734
99
I think the essential claim that no person in charge of anything will promote executives with differing political views needs to be backed up with some evidence here
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Yes.

No.
For example:
For geeky university milieux, that need not be true.

Neither for enterprises where the top echelons are largely recruited through positions of inheritance, rather than through meritocratic mechanisms.
Sorry, I was not sufficiently clear in the second part. By "organization", I was referring to "media organizations" such as CNN or any such WXYZ. But additionally, I should have also stipulated the mechanism of meritocratic promotions to higher and higher levels of responsibility and reward within the organization.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
I think the essential claim that no person in charge of anything will promote executives with differing political views needs to be backed up with some evidence here
Or at least the slightly more specific claim that no person in the news media, in charge of ...
 
12
9
NPR is not unbiased and the BBC is not American.

NPR is far less biased than any other american news outlet, since their programming often has partnerships with the BBC. Just because they report things you dont want to hear doesn't mean they are biased. And of course the BBC isn't american, it's too good to be one of ours. :P
 

Related Threads for: Octavia Nasr tweets her way out of CNN

Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
6K
  • Posted
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top