Octavia Nasr tweets her way out of CNN

[Gokul43201]

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]

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.

 

[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]

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)

 

[russ_watters]

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?

 

[aquitaine]

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]

NPR is not unbiased and the BBC is not American.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ...

 

[aquitaine]

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

 

[Office_Shredder]

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?

 

[CRGreathouse]

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.

 

[mheslep]

NPR is far less biased than any other american news outlet,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2365453&postcount=11"

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[aquitaine]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

 

[arildno]

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??

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Eeh?
Relevance??

It's possible for someone to spend years talking about a subject without anyone knowing where they really stand on the issue

I can't make heads or tails of this sympathetic affinity thing anymore. We have russ pretending arildno's posts never happened, and arildno posting contradictory information

Arildno,

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

The way your post is worded, you were responding to us saying your claim boils down to all organizations having only one political affiliation at the top. You gave counterexamples; one was the university thing, another seems to be enterprises filled through inheritance as opposed to meritocracy. This means that in a meritocracy positions will be filled based on political affiliation according to you. I'm assuming that's not what you meant since by definition that's not how a meritocracy works.

Your explanation of internal politicization of a media group makes more sense, but relies on the assumption that people choose what stories are important based on political affiliation only.

 

[Gokul43201]

Possible, not probable.

1. What is the basis for that specific quantification?

2. While this is one of many issues here, this possibility has never (until now) been admitted by those who claim that the existence of one terrorist-sympathizer implies the existence of a pack of sympathizers at the top of CNN.

3. What is the likelihood that her sympathy is new-found? Impossible ... improbable ... likely ... who knows? Have those that asserted a 20-year terrorist fondness provided any evidence for such a claim? Not yet.

This is a burden-of-proof issue.

When anyone asserts that only one specific mechanism can explain a given observation, there is a huge burden of proof on the claimant, to either exhaustively and methodically reject all other conceivable mechanisms, or to otherwise demonstrate that the particular model proposed enjoys wide success in correctly explaining a large number of similar situations, with a negligible failure rate, and that it can account for all the characteristics observed in this particular case with no conflicts.

 

[arildno]

1. What is the basis for that specific quantification?

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.

But then again, you can go on believing the blank slate is a great model by which to understand human psychology.

 

[mheslep]

3. What is the likelihood that her sympathy is new-found? Impossible ... improbable ... likely ... who knows? Have those that asserted a 20-year terrorist fondness provided any evidence for such a claim? Not yet.

Can't be sure, but this sounds like a relatively long time familiarity:

Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot

 

[Office_Shredder]

Can't be sure, but this sounds like a relatively long time familiarity:

How many people were Michael Jackson supporters
1) Before he died
2) After he died

Obviously people can change their opinions about things quickly

 

[Gokul43201]

Can't be sure, but this sounds like a relatively long time familiarity:

The entirety of the proposition here has a string of these unstated "can't be sure" conjectures (whose error bars add up) that all have to be accepted first. Yet the conclusion, that "CNN is a cesspool of terrorist supporting scum" is presented as a virtual certainty.

 

[turbo]

It should be noted that the dead cleric was the most liberal leader of his sect. He issued bans on honor-killings and female circumcision as well as condemning physical beatings of women by their husbands. He espoused higher education for Muslim women and founded numerous schools and orphanages, as well as a learning center for women. As a Lebanese woman that grew up in Beirut, it is a no-brainer that Nasr should respect his socially-liberal actions in what can be a brutal and misogynistic society if religious fundamentalism is allowed to dominate.

Iraq offered unprecedented freedoms (and responsibilities) to women under Saddam, and allowed women to serve in all parts of society. The US's invasion and removal of Saddam took a lid off what has turned out to be a tinder-box of ethnic/religious conflicts. Christians remain refugees in neighboring states and will never return, Shiites and Sunnis are at each other's throats often, and Turkey feels threatened by a relatively stable Kurdish population on their southern border. The lot of women in Iraq has not improved since the invasion. Nothing in the ME is black-and-white. Nasr's crime was trying to express a rational opinion in 140 characters or less.

 

[KalamMekhar]

A horse is a horse, of course, of course. If he was so "liberal" and "just" why was he a member of a terrorist organization?

 

[Office_Shredder]

A horse is a horse, of course, of course. If he was so "liberal" and "just" why was he a member of a terrorist organization?

Everybody's a member of a terrorist organization in the middle east

 

[shoehorn]

A horse is a horse, of course, of course. If he was so "liberal" and "just" why was he a member of a terrorist organization?

The irony of you questioning someone's liberal credentials while having that as your avatar is apparently lost on you.

By the way, how that avatar has escaped the moderators' attention is baffling. Are those who knowingly conduct aggressive war on behalf of anti-Semitic despots not verboten?