Octavia Nasr tweets her way out of CNN

  • News
  • Thread starter arildno
  • Start date
In summary: Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.2. The Israeli bombing of a civilian convoy in 2006, which killed dozens of people, including Fadlallah and several of his top aides.3. The kidnapping and torture of two Israeli soldiers in 2008.4. The bomb attack on an Iranian Embassy in Beirut in 2012 which killed 17 people.5. The attempted assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.6. The ongoing civil war in Lebanon.In summary, Octavia Nasr took a great leap into obscurity by praising Hezbollah's leader Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah on occasion of his death. She is quoted as saying: "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayy
  • #1
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,123
137
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What else can you expect from CNN?
 
  • #3
What do you mean?
Other than dismissing at once an adulator of a terrorist in their midst?
 
  • #4
arildno said:
What do you mean?
Other than dismissing at once an adulator of a terrorist in their midst?

The only reason she is gone from CNN is because she f***** up, tweeted something she shouldn't have, and it got attention. If she wouldn't have tweeted this, do you think she would still be working for CNN with her blatantly bias view? Of course she would be. This is mere posturing by CNN to make itself seem fair and balanced.
 
  • #5
CNN - damned if they do, damned if they don't!
 
  • #6
Gokul43201 said:
CNN - damned if they do, damned if they don't!
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!
 
  • #7
russ said:
Damned if they do or don't what?
Fire her.

russ said:
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 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).

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
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
Well, and it is an objective truth, rather than a personal bias, that Fadlallah was an evil terrorist enabler.

Thus, that should have been the view dominating CNN reports from the Middle East. It does not, thanks to people like Octavia Nasr and her personal biases about "neutrality" and simplistic moral equivalence.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
arildno said:
Well, and it is an objective truth, rather than a personal bias, that Fadlallah was an evil terrorist enabler.
Granted (I'm not intimately familiar with the background).

Thus, that should have been the view dominating CNN reports from the Middle East. It does not, thanks to people like Octavia Nasr and her personal biases about "neutrality" and simplistic moral equivalence.
You are making two distinct claims here, that both need to be substantiated:

1. You are saying that the majority of CNN reports present a view that Fadlallah is not a terrorist enabler.

2. You claim that these reports are a direct result of people like Octavia Nasr allowing their personal biases to dominate their reporting.

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.

3. There is also an implicit assertion (not necessarily in your post arildno) that this creeping of personal bias into news reporting is more prevalent at CNN than most other news media outlets.
 
  • #10
As to 1, I am not a professional media watcher, and hence, cannot watch everything CNN produces.
I recognize that in order to make my claim valid in a well-researched sense, then that could only happen by vast, time-consuming research.
Thus, I should have been precise in saying this is my <i>impression</i>, but that I haven't seen anything counter-acting that.

2&2*
This is by sound psychological deduction:
A person like Nasr who regards Fadlallah as a hero is much less likely to present him as a terrorist than even somebody who couldn't care less about him. That would be to make your brain into a conscious contradiction, a condition most individuals shy away from.


Professed neutrality is only a mask to hide your own biases behind, letting them shape your reporting, while having immunized yourself from criticism of your biases by not revealing them in the first place.
 
  • #11
To get an idea of what vile slime Octavia Nasr thought of as a hero and a giant, Coughlin in the Telegraph has the following obituary:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/c...mastermind-behind-the-lebanon-hostage-crisis/

A few incidents adduced to Fadlallah:

1.
The U.S. State Department’s classifaction of Fadlallah as a terrorist was spot on, and when you look back at his track record you can see he was right up there with other infamous terror masterminds, such as Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal.

2.
One of Fadlallah’s last acts before he died was to issue a fatwa authorising the use of suicide bomb attacks.

3.
Fadlallah gave his personal approval to the massive suicide truck bomb attacks that levelled the American Embassy and Marine compound in Beirut in 1983, killing more than 300 people, including the then CIA station chief. Fadlallah gave his personal blessing to the suicide bombers before they left for their deadly mission


Good riddance to Ms. Nasr and her idol; ding dong a witch is dead (along with a Lebanese ogre)
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Gokul43201 said:
Fire her.
I don't see how CNN is damned for firing Nasr; instead they earned criticism for having her on staff for 20 years in the first place.
 
  • #13
mheslep said:
I don't see how CNN is damned for firing Nasr; instead they earned criticism for having her on staff for 20 years in the first place.
Not according to post #4 (which doesn't mention anything besides the firing). Also, while I didn't specifically say they were damned "for" firing her, if you read that post, it does look like they are, since the firing is interpreted as an act of posturing, and therefore a damnable offense.
 
  • #14
Reply or post 3??
 
  • #15
My "damned" post was in response to the post immediately preceding it - KM's second post in the thread.
 
  • #16
Well, I read KM's post as being an indicting CNN for doing a minimalist, cosmetic act, rather than condemning them for having dismissed her (being the absolute minimum reaction)

But, KM can probably answer for himself
 
  • #17
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.
 
  • #18
No, they are not proud enough of themselves to constitute a pride, KM...

A herd, perhaps, or a school??
(Surely not a murder..)
 
  • #19
arildno said:
Well, I read KM's post as being an indicting CNN for doing a minimalist, cosmetic act, rather than condemning them for having dismissed her (being the absolute minimum reaction)

But, KM can probably answer for himself

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.
I guess he has, and his answer clearly demonstrates that his previous assertion was not based on any fact, but instead on a fairly nonsensical (if you ask me) speculation.
 
  • #20
Gokul43201 said:
I guess he has, and his answer clearly demonstrates that his previous assertion was not based on any fact, but instead on a fairly nonsensical (if you ask me) speculation.

Because CNN covered the Gaza affairs truthfully, and said that Israel was enforcing its blockade lawfully. CNN is a cesspool of terrorist supporting scum.
 
  • #21
Along somewhat similar lines, can we expect to see Wolf Blitzer garbagecanned if he makes sympathetic remarks about Kissinger when the latter pops his clogs? Kissinger was, after all, rather more adept at the whole terrorism thing than Hezbollah could ever hope to be.
 
  • #22
Gokul43201 said:
I guess he has, and his answer clearly demonstrates that his previous assertion was not based on any fact, but instead on a fairly nonsensical (if you ask me) speculation.

As is his next answer. :rofl:

As for the discussion generally, I've never followed her reporting, so I can't comment on her personally. It seems that she has received quite a few awards over her career. So unless it is being suggested that CNN should put their jounalists on lie detectors and make they pass some kind of loyalty test [perhaps a job for Cheney :biggrin:], I don't see the point here. Based on her record, it seems that her reporting has been excellent.

I can say that I reeeeeeally don't like Kira Phillips [esp], Rick Sanchez [fluff], and many of CNNs anchors. I do like the Wolfman though. Given that CNN always has panelists from the right and the left, claiming extreme bias is not only false, it is just plain silly. Some anchors may biased, but I see plenty of right-wingers on CNN every day. In fact, I would say that a good percentage of the day is dedicated to righties and lefties duking it out, with the anchor acting as a moderator, not a commentator. 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.

IMO, the notion that CNN is highly biased, is just more brainwashing from the likes of Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. If their reporting was so highly biased, their own Republican pundits would be the first to object. Sometimes they do, but it is rare.

David Gergen is their chief political advisor. While he has served under four Presidents, I think two from each party, he is known as a conservative - a very smart and highly respected conservative.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Ed Rollins is a fixture around CNN. He's the guy who got Reagan elected.
 
  • #24
In fact, it just now occurred to me that the reason I don't like Kira Phillips, is that she can't keep her personal opinions to herself. I don't watch the news to hear what the journalist thinks. Far too often she has to sneak in her personal observations. I just want to know the facts and hear what the experts think. There are very few journalists whose opinion I would care to hear. This is esp true for political shock jocks, like Limbaugh. Why does anyone care what he thinks! Jeez.

As for Sanchez and Cooper, oh the drama! Sanchez actually tries to remain fairly neutral, but he is far too prone to hype the day's stories.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Ivan Seeking said:
There are very few journalists whose opinion I would care to hear. This is esp true for political shock jocks, like Limbaugh. Why does anyone care what he thinks! Jeez.

Keep in mind Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist though, he is an infotainer. His radio show is an opinion show. He is not a hard news reporter.

For regular journalists I agree, just report the news, no opinions. What I don't like are the ones who keep their opinions to themselves but basically slant their news to fit their opinion while making it appear to be "hard" news.
 
  • #26
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..
 
  • #27
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.
 
  • #28
Ivan Seeking said:
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" , 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:
  • #29
billiards said:
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?
 
  • #30
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?
 
  • #31
"LoL Osama Bin Laden is rly kewl, he is liek the world hide and seek champion. I admre him"
 
  • #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:

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top