Who would have thought that a two line tweet could end a 20 year career in journalism? It surely wasn't CNN's senior Middle East editor Octavia Nasr, who was quickly dismissed after posting an "outrageous" comment on twitter following the passing of Lebanon's Ayatollah Fadlallah: "Sad to hear about the passing of Seyyed Mohammad Fadlallah...one of Hezbollah's Giants I respect a lot."
Nasr, a Lebanese Christian who was amongst the first women to ever interview Fadlallah immediately clarified that she did not intend to praise the cleric's life and work in toto, but rather simply call attention to the fact that he was held a "contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman's rights."
Although she scrambled to justify her comments about the cleric -- which were much less flattering than those offered by US allies Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki, Lebanese PM Sa'ad Hariri, or British Ambassador to Lebanon -- it wasn't enough for the bosses.
Given that Nasr lasted about three days and Helen Thomas about a week, some would say that she hung on pretty long. But more disturbing than the breakneck speed at which Nasr's case was open and shut is the chilling reality that, despite the principles of freedom of speech and thought that provide the foundation of our society dangerous redlines still exist.
Every society has them, intellectual Berlin Walls that keep bad ideas out along with the people who carry them. These are the cerebral pressure points of public discourse that create blind spots and fruitlessly mask deep fears. Ultimately such lines tell us much more about what kind of society we think we are a part of than the content of the issues themselves.
For most outsiders Ayatollah Fadlallah was just another bearded Muslim priest warped in from the medieval period hell bent on destroying western civilization. For Middle East insiders and even the mildly educated, he was a moderating force in whirlwind of extremism. For the Iranian regime he was a stubbornly independent risky ally too powerful to ignore. For the Lebanese across society he was a curb against that government's imperialism. To his clerical peers he flirted with modernity -- occupying himself with subjects like medical ethics and domestic violence (he told women to hit back... hard).
Nasr made the mistake of assuming her nuance would be understood in tweet or a blog. She also made the mistake of assuming that CNN would defend intelligence. Instead, when the website Honest Reporting, which describes itself as "an organization dedicated to defending Israel against prejudice in the Media" triggered an online blitz insinuating that Nasr praised Fadlallah's alleged Holocaust denial, suicide bombing, or questionable role in the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks, CNN sought it fit to rid itself of the problem outright. Instead of raising the public's capacity to digest the complexities of the world we live in, the network cowered to what Juan Cole has rightly called the "privatization of McCarthyism." Today Honest Reporting is claiming Nasr's outing as one of its biggest triumphs.
Since 9/11 America's redline has conflated terrorism and Israel's security, flattening all difference and particularity. As Stephan Walt and John Mearsheimer pointed out, this has dangerous consequences for both the implementation of policy and the policing of public thought (they were called anti-Semites for this). I don't think like others, who have responded to Nasr's sacking, that the Israeli lobby is to blame or that there is a Zionist cabal at work in the editing rooms of all major media outlets.
But I do think that an intellectual barricade has been created in our society that prevents any critical reflection on the complexities of Middle East politics and the rise of religious extremism, be it Islamic, Christian or Jewish. It is the same barricade that threatens the tenure of professors and blocks the work of journalists in the highest rank. Looking back, Nasr's case falls perfectly in line with the precedent created in the last few years. I doubt it will be the last.
Octavia Nasr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Octavia Nasr (octavianasrCNN) on Twitter
Octavia Nasr's firing and what The Liberal Media allows
CNN Correspondent Regrets Pro-Hezbollah Tweet, But Doesn't Apologize
The media;s role is to correct misconceptions not reinforce them
In fact, as a news organisation CNN should be reporting current reality and the current reality is that the vast majority of those in the world who were walking around with an awareness of Fadlalah's existence (before his passing) would find nothing amiss with Nasr's tweet.
The fact is that Americans have a manufactured view, their consensus is steered and manipulated,
It is a failing of their flawed democratic system.of government.
here's a refresher:
news:
information about recent and important events, that is not previously known to the recipient; usually reported in a newspaper, news magazine or news program using interviews and commentary.
newsworthiness:
the quality of being sufficiently interesting or important to be reported and looked into in depth in news bulletins (newspapers, news magazines or news programs)
One could only lament the lack of proper disclosure on behalf of the author regarding his own family's personal connection to CNN and the Arab world.
I would also argue that objective reporting, when done right, does not have to hamstring reporters. Instead, objectivity hand-in-hand with the dedicated journalists digging below the surface, can create a journalism that is both ruthless and defendable. And while it isn’t perfect, at least its attempting to be.
But you can't fire someone in this country for a bad reason, and that is what CNN did.
Pro-Israli, pro-GOP groups can feign mountains of selective outrage with their vaunted and finely tuned media empire.
That doesn't mean what they say is so.
I am reminded of a time not long ago when the Washington DC city council was in session to discuss local matters. A white councilman used the word "niggardly" to describe how the council must be shrewd with scarce tax dollars.
The people demanded, and got, the resignation of the councilman for hurling a racial epithet.
As for reporters being unbiased, this a a great journalistic myth. All reporters in all media have bias. Fox is biased to the right; MSNBC to the left. But what a reporter MUST be is neutral.
If this woman reported in a way that ALWAYS bashed Israel and ALWAYS supported the Palestinians, then her employer has good reason to fire her for lack of objectivity.
Right now all the employer has, maybe, is a lawsuit.
I hope some one picks her up fast.
I won't comment on the second part, because I don't see how people mistaking "niggardly" as a racial epithet or the councilman's unwise decision to use the word, even if it isn't a racial epithet, relates to the other point and the topic of discussion.
Compare that to Wolf Blitzer on CNN constantly pushing for invading Iraq in 2002/2003, almost as bad as the hateful Fox channel.
He's done this on TV, he's given the blind support for right wing Israel for years, she made a tiny remark not on TV. She's one of the few moderates from the Mideast allowed on any station and they fire her, NUTS !
Begin and other Israeli leaders were TERRORISTS in 1948, yet they and their supporters can be on TV and praised all the time?!? I'll grant that he moved towards the middle [but not much...??...taking land still ok ?! ], so to we should not condemn Arabs who also have moderated.
During the onslaught of Palestinian families in Gaza by the IDF, several (not just one) local PBS stations were playing the out-dated, very biased "documentaries" about the survival of a tiny nation. Would you like to guess which one? Hint: the biggest bully in the region.
When I complained, one response I received was a list of "equal" coverage containing Egyptian mummy narratives, travel specials & the like. It would be hilarious if it were not such a travesty of justifying use of public funds for propaganda purposes. Any support my family donates goes to LinkTV. We have not donated to PBS for many yrs.
PBS can have on some more balanced Mideast programs, but even then who see's it, maybe 3-5% of the US at best ?
I donate only to a local leftist radio station. The biggies don't need my money - they get it from Israel's amen corner.
(if journalism has any remaining integrity and credibility ....)
That has resulted in so much death and destruction. A better Iraq over the next 10-20 years but at a cost that makes no sense at all. About 300-500,000 more dead than if Saddam had stayed in power !?!?
What does a journalist have to be paranoid about these days? Can they have a bumper sticker on their car, a yard sign, can they express their opinion at a private dinner ? If she had a clear history of supporting a terrorist I could understand, but she obviously does not.
i expect my post will also be flagged.
why do you think we, as journalist shouldn't display our opinions when we are NOT WORKING?
is the public too feeble-minded to reconcile the fact that we can have an opinion, but still do our jobs?
when i cover a klan rally, do you REALLY think there may be a chance that i'm in support of what's going on?
We need to contact CNN and demand they be consistent.
Fire Wolf Blitzer and about 5-10 others far too obviously pro-right wing Israel
asap if they really want to be fair, or hire her back.
Besides, what do they give these more balanced reporters in time on CNN,
maybe 10 minutes a month if lucky ?!
CNN is not sensitive about objectivity and bias (are you kidding me?).
CNN didn't have a "deal" like the one you mentioned with Saddam's regime.
And you really need to prove that the group you accuse of brainwashing young people to attack civilians did that.
Have some respect for the facts!