News Octavia Nasr tweets her way out of CNN

  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the controversy surrounding CNN's senior Middle East correspondent Octavia Nasr, who faced backlash for her tweet expressing respect for Hezbollah leader Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah upon his death. Critics argue that her comments reveal a bias that undermines journalistic integrity, suggesting that CNN should have dismissed her sooner for her apparent admiration of a figure labeled as a terrorist by the U.S. State Department. Some participants contend that CNN's firing of Nasr was a necessary response to public outcry, while others criticize the network for hiring her in the first place, implying that it reflects a broader issue of bias within the organization. The conversation also touches on the challenges of maintaining objectivity in journalism, with participants debating whether personal biases can be effectively separated from professional reporting. Overall, the thread highlights tensions between perceived bias in media coverage and the expectations of impartiality in journalism.
  • #31
"LoL Osama Bin Laden is rly kewl, he is liek the world hide and seek champion. I admre him"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #33
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #34
KalamMekhar said:
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!
 
  • #35
mheslep said:
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:
  • #36
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #37
russ_watters said:
Agreed.
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.
 
  • #38
Gokul43201 said:
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?
 
  • #39
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:
  • #40
Gokul43201 said:
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?
 
  • #41
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #43
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:
  • #44
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.

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:
  • #45
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #46
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #47
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
 
  • #48
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #49
Office_Shredder said:
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 ...
 
  • #50
russ_watters said:
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 don't 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
 
  • #51
aquitaine said:
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 don't 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

So what we really conclude is that your bias for the BBC is stronger than any single media outlet's bias for anything. Seriously, your claim is that NPR is the least biased American news outlet, period, because it is affiliated with the BBC?
 
  • #52
aquitaine said:
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 don't 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

I like the BBC a lot. But your claim that NPR is less biased on account of their occasional partnerships with them is risible.
 
  • #54
Gokul43201 said:
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)
Clearly you misunderstand the difference between:
1. Hiring a terrorist sympathizer.
2. Knowing they hired a terrorist sympathizer.

You also apparently misunderstand the logic. The fact that they didn't know she was a terrorist sympathizer doesn't mean it wasn't still a mistake. This is similar to your cop-out in the compassionate release thread. Again, not knowing when they've made a mistake doesn't make it not be a mistake. The issue here is your worldview doesn't seem to allow you to follow the logic. And the problem with that worldview is that it is wrong. You may not like it, but it is the way the law and ethics really do work. For example, don't try that logic to get out of a speeding ticket: not knowing the speed limit doesn't excuse speeding.

Speculation, but stated as fact.
I am speculating, but I'm not stating it as fact. What I'm trying to do, Gokul, is get you to be reasonable. Your speculation that her colleagues at CNN didn't know of her beliefs is not reasonable. If you can't be reasonable, then there can't be a reasonable discussion. I'm out.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Office_Shredder said:
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
No one made that claim.

CNN is an organization who'se success depends on the appearance of impartiality (contrasted with Fox, which doesn't depend on the appearance of impartiality). As such, employing/promoting someone who has a strong bias carries considerable risk of damaging the company (and the higher in the company they get, the bigger the risk).

The claim is:

1. It is unreasonable to believe that in 20 years, she never revealed her feelings to her colleagues/superiors.

The logical conclusion folowing it is:

2. Her colleagues/superiors were not distressed enough by her extreme bias to do something about it (fire her).

The opinion is:

3. Not firing her sooner was a mistake that they consciously made.

And:

4. Hiring her in the first place was a mistake whether they knew of her bias then or not. And if they didn't, they probably didn't look hard enough or care enough about it.
 
  • #56
Gokul43201 said:
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.

I must also be sorry, because my "rather through meritocratic mechanisms"-option was unclear, in particular it would be natural for you to think that I regard media organizations as some sort of archetypical organization in which strict meritocracy reigns.
I do not; apart from milieux of university geeks, I think strict meritocracy is fairly rare, because for most jobs, above minimal requirements, there really aren't any objective merit standards (surgeons on hospitals constitute probably another highly meritocratic pecking order).

As for media organizations, remember that apart for professional political parties, you'll never come across a bunch of people as intensely, and devotedly attached to politics, questions of what good society is and so on.
If views are <i>extremely</i> divergent within a media organizations, (and those views WILL show themselves through endless discussions about what cases should be pursued, and which one not, which angle to have here, and which there, and who's going to get it, and how long should the reportage be within the news package), then the organization will blow apart from internal dissension and bickering.

Thus, an effective media organization cannot escape from becoming internally politicized, otherwise, it would spend too much time on what THEIR type of news ought to be.
Remember, they get thousands of potential news each day, they have to go for an extremely tough selection of "newsworthy" cases to fit into a consumer friendly product.

In particular, on the editorial level, this type of regime will be tight.
 
  • #57
russ_watters said:
No one made that claim.

CNN is an organization who'se success depends on the appearance of impartiality (contrasted with Fox, which doesn't depend on the appearance of impartiality). As such, employing/promoting someone who has a strong bias carries considerable risk of damaging the company (and the higher in the company they get, the bigger the risk).

The claim is:

1. It is unreasonable to believe that in 20 years, she never revealed her feelings to her colleagues/superiors.

The logical conclusion folowing it is:

2. Her colleagues/superiors were not distressed enough by her extreme bias to do something about it (fire her).

The opinion is:

3. Not firing her sooner was a mistake that they consciously made.

And:

4. Hiring her in the first place was a mistake whether they knew of her bias then or not. And if they didn't, they probably didn't look hard enough or care enough about it.
It's also entirely possible she concealed her views. That isn't without precedent, after all reverend haggard, who used to rail about how "evil" homosexuality was, turned out to have concealed that he actually was a homosexual for a great many years.
 
  • #58
aquitaine said:
It's also entirely possible she concealed her views. That isn't without precedent, after all reverend haggard, who used to rail about how "evil" homosexuality was, turned out to have concealed that he actually was a homosexual for a great many years.
Haggard didn't casually announce himself on the internet as did Nasr; he was brought out by the allegations of others. The latter indicates secrecy, the former not so much.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
aquitaine said:
It's also entirely possible she concealed her views.
Possible, not probable.
That isn't without precedent, after all reverend haggard, who used to rail about how "evil" homosexuality was, turned out to have concealed that he actually was a homosexual for a great many years.
Eeh?
Relevance??
 
  • #60
russ_watters said:
The issue here is your worldview doesn't seem to allow you to follow the logic. And the problem with that worldview is that it is wrong.
Thanks for the pop-psychology. When you are ready to discuss the facts here, let me know.

Your speculation that her colleagues at CNN didn't know of her beliefs is not reasonable.
I've made no such speculation. Quote the post where I do so.
 
Last edited: