Octavia Nasr's firing and what the liberal media allows

[Jefferson23]

(updated below)

CNN yesterday ended the 20-year career of Octavia Nasr, its Atlanta-based Senior Middle East News Editor, because of a now-deleted tweet she wrote on Sunday upon learning of the death of one of the Shiite world's most beloved religious figures: "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah . . . . One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot." That message spawned an intense fit of protest from Far Right outlets, Thought Crime enforcers, and other neocon precincts, and CNN quickly (and characteristically) capitulated to that pressure by firing her. The network -- which has employed a former AIPAC official, Wolf Blitzer, as its primary news anchor for the last 15 years -- justified its actions by claiming that Nasr's "credibility" had been "compromised." Within this episode lies several important lessons about media "objectivity" and how the scope of permissible views is enforced.

First, consider which viewpoints cause someone to be fired from The Liberal Media. Last month, Helen Thomas' 60-year career as a journalist ended when she expressed the exact view about Jews which numerous public figures have expressed (with no consequence or even controversy) about Palestinians. Just weeks ago, The Washington Post accepted the "resignation" of Dave Weigel because of scorn he heaped on right-wing figures such as Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh. CNN's Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan, was previously forced to resign after he provoked a right-wing fit of fury over comments he made about the numerous -- and obviously disturbing -- incidents where the U.S. military had injured or killed journalists in war zones. NBC fired Peter Arnett for criticizing the U.S. war plan on Iraqi television, which prompted accusations of Treason from the Right. MSNBC demoted and then fired its rising star Ashleigh Banfield after she criticized American media war coverage for adhering to the Fox model of glorifying U.S. wars; the same network fired its top-rated host, Phil Donahue, due to its fear of being perceived as anti-war; and its former reporter, Jessica Yellin, confessed that journalists were "under enormous pressure from corporate executives" to present the news in a pro-war and pro-Bush manner.

What each of these firing offenses have in common is that they angered and offended the neocon Right. Isn't that a strange dynamic for the supposedly Liberal Media: the only viewpoint-based firings of journalists are ones where the journalist breaches neoconservative orthodoxy? Have there ever been any viewpoint-based firings of establishment journalists by The Liberal Media because of comments which offended liberals? None that I can recall. I foolishly thought that when George Bush's own Press Secretary mocked the American media for being "too deferential" to the Bush administration, that would at least put a dent in that most fictitious American myth: The Liberal Media. But it didn't; nothing does, not even the endless spate of journalist firings for deviating from right-wing dogma.


remainder in full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/08/media/index.html

[Jefferson23]

1. Juan Cole's observations on the issue too:

US Ally Maliki & Octavia Nasr Both Praised Fadlallah
Posted on July 8, 2010 by Juan


So help me understand this. Nuri al-Maliki, still the Iraqi prime minister for the moment, expressed his appreciation for the accomplishments of the late Grand Ayatollah Hussein Fadlallah:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki paid tribute for late Fadlallah, who provided the “Islamic library” with “tens of books in jurisprudence, interpretation and Islamic culture.” “He devoted his life for serving big Islamic causes in the front line during contemporary cultural and political struggle arenas,” said Maliki. While acknowledging the big loss in the Islamic world, Maliki said Fadlallah would remain a living example “that we all adthere to.”

The new Iraqi politics, which threw up and ensconced al-Maliki is fulsomely praised by the American right wing. David Frum, Bush’s speech writer who foisted on the US public that stupid and pernicious “axis of evil” phrase, asked after the March 7, parliamentary elections, “Will Iraq’s Democracy Vindicate Bush”?

But when Octavia Nasr of CNN tweets the same thing that al-Maliki said, , she is fired.


The whole conundrum only makes sense from an Israel Lobby point of view. It is better, the Israel lobbies in the US think, for al-Maliki to be in charge of Iraq than for Saddam Hussein to have been. Al-Maliki doesn’t actively funnel money to the Palestinians and is distracted by internal Iraq faction-fighting now that the Iraqi state and army have been destroyed. So that the new Shiite political elite in Baghdad reveres a figure like Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah is overlooked.


remainder: http://www.juancole.com/

[Jefferson23]

5. Hague censors Foreign Office blog praising dead Hezbollah mentor

Britain has moved to quash a row over its Middle East policy by taking down a controversial blog post by its ambassador in Beirut praising the late Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a staunchly anti-American cleric who was a mentor for Lebanon's militant Hezbollah movement.

Frances Guy had commented in her blog – on the Foreign Office website – that Fadlallah's death was sad news, calling the religious leader a decent man and saying "the world needs more men like him".

The ambassador's post came to light as the US broadcaster CNN announced that it had sacked its Middle East editor, Octavia Nasr, after she tweeted her regret at Fadlallah's death.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, ordered the offending item removed yesterday. The Guardian has learned that Britain also downgraded its diplomatic representation at Fadlallah's funeral in Beirut on Wednesday, sending just a second secretary. France and Italy were represented by their ambassadors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/09/foreign-office-blog-lebanon-hezbollah-fadlallah

[freebrew]

2. Not so strange...

when one considers that the media is fully owned by these right wing neo-con asshats.

[bemildred]

3. Thought crime. Political correctness at it's finest.

Losing your job for expressing an opinion.

[tom_paine]

4. Amazing, isn't it? A Double-Standrad the Soviets could be proud of

Our nation is in so many ways similar to the 1970s Soviet Union it isn't funny.

We can all be glad that the Gulags haven't been reinstituted or that Nasr isn't sent to a psychiatric facility to adjust her antisocial personality.

But that stuff would work in this country, because for so many years our nation inveighed against Soviet atrocities, that some of the Subject Populace actually remembers that was a SOVIET atrocity.

So it wouldn;t work here. But in the end, the result is the same whether or not brutality or Plausibly Deniable applications of Corporate Power are used.

A M$M that is as trustworthy as 1972 Soviet Pravda or Isvestia.

M$M has no credibility to anyone who is paying attention. Unfortunately, few are paying attention.