CNN Fires Producer Over Personal Blog

dangerz writes "CNN has fired one of its producers because of his personal blog. Chez Paziena, the ex-producer, has stated that he started the blog 'mostly to pass the time, hone my writing skills, resurrect my voice a little, and keep my mind sharp following the [brain tumor] surgery.' After a few months, CNN found out about it and ended up letting him go because his 'name was "attached to some, uh, 'opinionated' blog posts" circulating around the internet.'"

They don't like competition

[CRCulver (715279)]

Maybe CNN doesn't like the competition scattered independent bloggers are providing to its all-encompassing media empire, and are taking out their anger on one of their own who dared embrace new media?

Re:They don't like competition

[Midnight Thunder (17205)]

Maybe CNN doesn't like the competition scattered independent bloggers are providing to its all-encompassing media empire, and are taking out their anger on one of their own who dared embrace new media?

Are there any respectable news sources left on US TV? If it wasn't for the internet I would have been left believing that we are surrounded by terrorists and that our northern neighbour is hell bent on invading us. Heck, at what point did our news channels become 'based on a true event', instead of being 'about a real event'.

Re:They don't like competition

[Otter (3800)]

...our northern neighbour is hell bent on invading us.

Nice try there, Johnny Canuck, but watch the spelling next time.

Democracy Now!

[srobert (4099)]

"Are there any respectable news sources left on US TV?"

Yes. You could watch Democracy Now with Amy Goodman on Link TV or Freespeech TV. They come in on satellite at least. I think the local cable company where I live has blocked them out.

Re:Democracy Now!

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

You could watch Democracy Now with Amy Goodman

Let's try that again: are there any respectable news sources that aren't blatantly anti-conservative? I just looked at the web page for that show, and every story was about which Democrat will be nominated, and how Bush is trying to kill or take over the world. Literally. For example, here are the Monday headlines:

• In Tight Democratic Race, Could Campaign Donations and Personal Views Influence Potentially Decisive Superdelegate Vote?
• Analyst: On Africa Visit, Bush Pushes Agenda of Continent-Wide U.S. Military Expansion
• In Africa, Bush Touts Record AIDS Relief under his Administration, but Funding Restrictions Tell a Different Story on the Ground
• Seton Hall Law Students Discover U.S. Military Routinely Videotaping Gitmo Interrogations

I think I'll stick with The Daily Show, and maybe try BBC World News America. Those can't be any worse than the CNN or Fox jackasses.

Re:Democracy Now!

[AuMatar (183847)]

Sorry, but we can't help it if reality has a liberal bias.

Re:Democracy Now!

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

See, here's the thing: I'm an intelligent adult, and I like talking about issues with people I disagree with. I don't mind being told that I'm wrong as long as I also hear why I'm wrong. Who knows - I might even change my mind. It wouldn't be the first time.

However, I have little patience for people who just scream that I'm an idiot and that everyone I even halfway agree with is a mindless killer. As much as I can't stand Bush (because as I said earlier, I'm a conservative - I'm not sure what he is), I'm not that interested in reading about how he's stepping up for his role as the Antichrist.

Re:Democracy Now!

[by Anonymous Coward]

My, what a witty saying. Did you come up with that yourself?

Media has a liberal bias in the sense that it assumes the only axis on which people can have opinions is the "raging neocon" to "bleeding-heart liberal", and of the two, the latter is the better option.

Well, the premise is bullshit, so no wonder the output is no better. Even Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are evidence of the liberal bias: the only conservatives we hear about are the raving nutcases.

How about good old-fashioned "less government is better" conservatives? How about "lowering government spending and federal debt"? After all you've seen in the past 10 years, why does anybody still believe that it's reasonable to think "bigger government is great, as long as my candidate is in the White House"?

Why do we see "democrats want to give everybody healthcare" and "republicans oppose science", but never "democrats want to increase government spending even more" or "republicans want to protect the environment"? Sure, there are people on both sides who disbelieve each of these, but strangely the democrats always end up looking good, and the republicans always end up looking bad.

Reasonable republicans are virtually ignored by the media, in favor of covering neo-con republicans (who are in power today) and their feckless democratic opponents.

I don't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican, but the media does seem incredibly biased. Both parties have some really good ideas, and some really bad ideas. It does not help the public debate in this country to continuously display only the good ideas from one side, and only the bad ideas from the other.

Re:Democracy Now!

[Alsee (515537)]

My, what a witty saying. Did you come up with that yourself?

No, it's a famous line from the Colbert Report.

The Faith-Based idiots in the Whitehouse came up with some real winner lines dissing their critics in the "Reality Based Community". Colbert agreed with them with a lovely little quip: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". The "Reality Based Community" has joyously embraced the title they were been given.

Reasonable republicans are virtually ignored by the media, in favor of covering neo-con republicans (who are in power today)

Damn, ya got me there....
My mailman is a "reasonable republican", and he has no power whatsoever, but DAMNIT it is Liberal Bias when the Media doesn't give him Equal TV Coverage.

Even Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are evidence of the liberal bias: the only conservatives we hear about are the raving nutcases.

Excuse me, but citing Fox News of committing Liberal Bias.... wow... just wow. Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter were made into national media personalities BY conservatives FOR conservatives. Liberals did not pick Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, liberals did not make Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter national media personalities, liberals aren't the audience giving them ratings to stay on TV. The "the media has a liberal bias" people selected and eagerly consume Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.

How about good old-fashioned "less government is better" conservatives?

Who? Where? Anyone of any actual national importance and power?

I guess maybe there's Ron Paul, but he lies somewhere beween Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter on the radical raving nutcase scale. And aside from him and Kucinich providing comic relief in the presidential race, he has about as much power as my mailman.

The only "less government is better conservatives" I see in power, and the "less government is better conservatives" voting to PUT them in power, are the tax-cut-and-spend idiots. The worst sort of voters who INSIST on being lied to by politicians with fantasy lines and the politicians who will tell those lies to get elected. "Vote for me! I'll cut your taxes to ZERO! And I'll triple military spending making the US the biggest baddest mother on the block and I'll increase farm subsidies and give everyone their very own pet porkbarrel earmark and I'll give Flapjack Idaho the same billions in anti-terror money as NewYorkCity and I'll give a hundred trillion dollars more increasing teh DEA to arrest those damn liberal hippie potheads and I'll spend TWELVEHUNDREDZILLIONBILLION dollars building a 42-million-mile long border fence and I'll hire a guzillion border guards to hold hands from coast to coast keeping those damn brown people out! Taxes are all the Demoncrat's fault and if you elect me I'll spend more More MORE money giving you stuff and all those evil taxes will go away with those evil Demoncrats! NO NEW TAXES! NO TAXES AT ALL! NO TAXES EVER! Oh, and I'll give everyone a $1200 economic stimulus check too! FREE MONEY FOR EVERYONE! Woohoo! And no taxes! No Demoncrats, no taxes!"

Call me when elected conservatives in power - and the conservative voters who put them there - stop PANDERING to each other with "tax cut" chances AND spending increase promises AND living in magic-money fantasy-land.

Why do we see [in the media] "democrats want to give everybody healthcare"

Because that is the the position of the majority of important influential democrat politicians, and the position of the majorty of their voter supporters.

and "republicans oppose science"

Because that is the the position of the majority of important influential republican politicians, and the position of the majorty of their voter supporters.

but never "democrats want to increase government spending even more"

Because, conservative tax-and-spend-liberal fantasies notwithstanding, democrats are not notably any different from republicans on spending.

or "republicans wa

Re:Democracy Now!

[ystar (898731)]

I find PBS to be quite level-headed, but I'm speaking as someone quite opposed to the current administration. Bill Moyer's Journal is great, and probably free online, as are most PBS shows. Frontline has also continually improved their coverage of in-depth issues lately.

Re:Democracy Now!

[srobert (4099)]

"Let's try that again: are there any respectable news sources that aren't blatantly anti-conservative?"
Answer: No. Blatant anti-conservatism in today's political climate is necessary to be respectable.
By that I mean I can't tell you things that you really need to know (which is essential to being respectable) without conservatives ranting that I'm being biased.

Re:Democracy Now!

[TitusC3v5 (608284)]

Though it's not quite television, I've found NPR to cover both sides of the spectrum fairly evenly. Best of all, you can simply listen to it while using your eyes for more productive things.

Re:Democracy Now!

[Sgt. Joe (313778)]

The only new source I trust is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Re:Democracy Now!

[gnick (1211984)]

In any case, after reading that blog post, I'm never, ever watching one second of CNN again..

Sure, you talk big. But let's just see where you turn next time you want an update on Paris Hilton's brother's DUI, Britney Spears's sister's pregnancy, Britney's zany exploits and custody issues, or Lindsay Lohan's latest wreck (car or box-office - your pick)?

Re:Democracy Now!

[gnick (1211984)]

I feel like a traitor to mankind just for being able to list four celebrity "news" shows by name.

I understand - I think I need an extra shower tonight in order to cleanse myself of the feeling I got after realizing that I could name off four semi-current celebrity "news" stories...

Re:Democracy Now!

[iamhassi (659463)]

"In any case, after reading that blog post, I'm never, ever watching one second of CNN again.."

Say it with me now: never mix your real life with your internet life.

That's what this guy did, and he got fired for it and he'll probably never get a another news job unless it's for online news blog site. You can't go online and blog under your real name and be shocked when your bosses find out and may not like what you're writing about, especially when you're working for a big firm like CNN.

The idiot actually put on his blog that he's in the TV business, lists off all the places he's worked, that he has two emmys and a golden mic award, and that he lives in New York with his wife, and goes by "Chez", and on the link to his myspace he puts his age as 38. Gee, wouldn't take much to figure out who you are, and soon as the internet does and that you work for CNN every link to your page will read "CNN producer said this today". Think your boss would like that?

then he says:
"I'm an insufferable wise-ass who doesn't mind being an occasional nuisance to authority figures."
-- wow, I'm sure your bosses love that
"I wake up every morning baffled as to why America hasn't deported George Bush and Dick Cheney"
-- Sure CNN producer, bash the president, your bosses won't care.
--and I bet that's just the start, I'm sure if I bothered to read his blog their would be plenty of other BS opinions that CNN doesn't want to be associated with.

And he wonders why he doesn't have a job anymore??

I do not feel sorry for this guy and don't think anyone should, you can't be stupid and expect my sympathy. If he hasn't figured out how the world works at 38 he never will and if I was his wife I'd leave his stupid ass.

The only "job/school/etc fired me over blog/facebook/myspace" person I feel sorry for is this woman [mtv.com], who, at 25, was denied her college degree because she had a picture of herself in a pirate outfit drinking from a plastic cup and the title "drunken pirate" on her myspace page. If you can't have a picture of yourself taking a drink at 25 then when can you??

Re:Democracy Now!

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

I really can't blame you if you're from west africa or something, but try to track with me here:

There is such a thing as free speech, and americans, including this guy, expect it.

Re:Democracy Now!

[crdotson (224356)]

In the US, the first amendment only covers what the government does, not a nongovernmental entity like CNN. Of course, that does not mean that they aren't assholes for firing him, but it doesn't violate constitutional freedom of speech. Emphasis mine:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Democracy Now!

[unlametheweak (1102159)]

You argue that the Producer was being stupid for having a blog and that he should have realized the consequences. I disagree, I think this person probably did realize the consequences (he was in the news media after all), but may have under-estimated the banality of CNN executives and the more dubious nature of the Human Resource profession.

But; the idea behind the article is about what is fair and reasonable. I would argue that being fired for having a blog is not fair or reasonable, and in the end it merely damages CNN's reputation. For the average person that doesn't read Slashdot or doesn't read the referenced articles to Wikipedia entries (for example) then this will be a non-issue. So too, for the average person who watches CNN for their daily news fix; an employee's blog will hardly be relevant or noticeable unless it is specifically pointed out and made noticeable by CNN.

Re:Democracy Now!

[ktappe (747125)]

I do not feel sorry for this guy and don't think anyone should, you can't be stupid and expect my sympathy.

You and those who agree with you are the reason we are all losing our rights to free speech. He did absolutely nothing wrong. He exercised his First Amendment rights and you somehow defend the employer who revokes his living as punishment. You, sir, are an enjoyer (and abuser) of the rights gained by people who did exactly what this guy did--speak up against authority. How dare you decry his actions? If you hate freedom so much, how about you go to North Korea and then get back to us how nice it is to submit to immoral authority?

Re:They don't like competition

[Midnight Thunder (17205)]

BBC News America with Matt Frei. It's what journalism in this country used to be. It's excellent. Many others seem to be discovering this too, because it runs on at least four separate channels on my cable (DirecTV).

Its a sad state of affairs when the only respectable news source in a country is a foreign one.

Remember Peter Arnett

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

CNN and other organisations need to toe the line otherwise they get poor responsiveness from the Pentagon, Whitehouse etc. That's why people like Peter Arnett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Arnett) get fired for doing good investigation.

The media know that if they don't keep their reporters in line they will get screwed over. Instead of having their field staff embedded with frontline fighters to send back sexy footage they'll get embedded with the people washing trucks at the transport park. Instead of getting geed feedback from WHitehouse/Pentagon/whatever press officers they'll get delayed responses.

The media know they must keep their noses clean to stay in the game and that's why they'll repremand or fire anyone that looks like a loose cannon and will upset theri relationships with these organisations.

In the words of the Clash: "You have the right to free speach, unless you actually try it."

Re:They don't like competition

[susano_otter (123650)]

Maybe CNN doesn't like the competition

In fact, CNN doesn't like the competition so much that their employment contracts prohibit CNN employees from publishing material except through CNN.

A low-key blog on an uncontroversial topic like trainspotting probably would've gone unpunished. But a high-profile blog with extremist and offensive political content, under the name of a CNN producer?

The real tragedy is that CNN is will probably now have to crack down on innocuous little blogs about knitting tea cozies, just to avoid lawsuits from asshats like this Producer for showing favoritism.

On paper, this guy is getting fired for breach of contract. I think the real reason he's getting fired is for showing a profound lack of judgement and restraint while holding a position of responsibility at CNN. The political extremists and conspiracy theorists will no doubt assume that the whole thing is a sign of fundamental corruption and usurpation of civil liberties by the news media and their Illuminati overlords.

it's just him

[User 956 (568564)]

After a few months, CNN found out about it and ended up letting him go because his 'name was "attached to some, uh, 'opinionated' blog posts" circulating around the internet.'

MORBO DOES NOT FEAR CNN. MORBO WILL BLOG WHATEVER HE LIKES!

As for standards...

[troybob (1178331)]

Remember, this is the network that gives Nancy Grace a prime-time slot, proving they have the highest regard for journalistic professionalism.

You know, there was a name for this...

[cp.tar (871488)]

... in the Repressive Communist Regime(TM)[1] of Yugoslavia. Verbal delict anyone?

You may have freedom of speech, but it seems you are gradually losing freedom of opinion.

We've had our little wars and revolutions; when will you be coming along?

[1] Insert sarcasm tags where needed.

The dude violated a policy he admitted he read.

[jonnythan (79727)]

"they hammered home a single line in the CNN employee handbook which states that any writing done for a "non-CNN outlet" must be run through the network's standards and practices department. They asked if I had seen this decree. As a matter of fact I had... I had thought when I read the rule... that it was staggeringly vague and couldn't possibly apply to something as innocuous as a blog."

He violated a clear written policy. The guy is stupid for thinking work published on an internet blog doesn't count as writing.

Re:The dude violated a policy he admitted he read.

[richie2000 (159732)]

any writing done for a "non-CNN outlet" must be run through the network's standards and practices department

A clear written policy? Any writing? Really? Like "A loaf of bread and some milk"-writing? Oh? Not so clear written, then? It would not be far-fetched to assume that "any writing" in this context means "any professional writing that may constitute working for a competitor" as opposed to "any writing whatsoever, even if it's a shopping list or a personal blog".

Re:Published?

[ivan256 (17499)]

I think you've made a pretty arbitrary analogy.

I think posting to Slashdot, even in the comments section, would be considered writing "for an outlet". You've written something and made it public.

And of course it's about *what* he wrote. People's opinions of him will reflect on the company he writes for for a living, since they may rightfully assume that his bias has had an influence on their content.

Honestly I think this discussion is going in the direction it is in because we have a generation of people becoming adults after being raised by parents who couldn't say no to them. People have seriously unreasonable expectations of what is owed to them by others. If you think that your last sentence should have influenced a reasonable person to your side in this argument, and not away from it, you're in for a rude awakening when you realize how the real world works.

Re:The dude violated a policy he admitted he read.

[sd.fhasldff (833645)]

He violated a clear written policy. The guy is stupid for thinking work published on an internet blog doesn't count as writing.

He what now?

Clear? You call that policy CLEAR?!

If the part in quotes is actually a quote, "non-CNN outlet", then it is indeed very far from clear. If anything, I would argue that it's clearer that a blog *shouldn't* count, since a personal blog is not an "outlet" in the context used (CNN). If he had written the blog for the NY Times, then sure, by all means...

Re:The dude violated a policy he admitted he read.

[susano_otter (123650)]

I love how blogs are a revolutionary new form of news reporting and editorializing that will take on and bring down the increasingly-obsolete mainstream media in a perfect storm of individual private journalism... except when the mainstream media actually starts treating blogs like competitors, and then they're just irrelevant little things that can't possibly compare to the reporting and editorializing done by big news corporations.

Re:The dude violated a policy he admitted he read.

[RockClimbingFool (692426)]

Thats right, they aren't laws. He didn't go to jail, he got fired.

He is a producer for a media outlet. He decided to not give CNN the first option for publishing what he was writing. That is a huge no no.

The whole brain thing is pure BS to cloud a very clear violation of his relationship with his employer.

End of story.

Re:The dude violated a policy he admitted he read.

[cp.tar (871488)]

Throughout history, there have been many kinds of slavery. Some were at least semi-voluntary, and ended after an agreed-upon time period.
Much like contracts of today.

Re:The dude violated a policy he admitted he read.

[Otter (3800)]

So if your employer wrote down in a policy that employees were not allowed to breathe...

The contest for Worst Analogy For This Story would seem to be between you and "However on the surface it does strike me as being awfully similar to a garbage man who works for a private waste management company, volunteering his time on saturdays on the Adopt-A-Highway program, cleaning up trash."

We'll see if Bad Analogy Guy shows up to contest this one.

Not so quickly now....

[Gat0r30y (957941)]

How do we know this isn't the guy who's been making CNN cover britney instead of actual news huh? Cause I'm all for firing whoever that dude is.

Re:Not so quickly now....

[Gat0r30y (957941)]

Nevermind.....

I marveled at our elevation of the death of Anna Nicole Smith to near-mythic status and our willingness to let the airwaves be taken hostage by every permutation of opportunistic degenerate from a crying judge to a Hollywood hanger-on with an emo haircut.

Well at least the poor dude doesn't have to work for them anymore.

this guy's story is pretty interesting actually

[zappepcs (820751)]

for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the light he sheds on the way that MSM / corporate news works these days. Even though so many of us suspect that the facts of his story were true before reading his story, it is always nice to hear an insider confirm your suspicions.

At this point, we should all be thinking about how to coerce MSM to be actual factual news outlets again? Ideas, anyone?

It's obvious that having good ratings is better than being rated highly as a reliable news source. Perhaps (new Internet meme inbound) it is time for Anonymous to start informing advertisers of MSM that we don't like the shows associated with their products?

It would seem that only money talks these days. The real question is: Is it the advertisers dollars that talk loudest, or the politically generated dollars that talk loudest? Who really are the MSM's dollar dealers?

sex sells

[esocid (946821)]

With the exception of the period immediately following 9/11, which saw the best characteristics of television journalism shocked back into focus and the passion of even the most jaded and cynical of its practitioners return like a shot of adrenaline to the heart, the profession I once loved and felt honored to be a part of has lost its way.

That's pretty much how I feel about journalism these days. I'm not sure what brought it about, whether it is who owns the mass media or government, but no longer are there worthwhile reports about what is important. It's about what sells. The days of muckracking seem to be over (for the mass media, wikileaks comes to mind most currently as non-mass media) and it is more about this celebrity did this or propaganda sent down the channels, and shy away from stories that really expose stories with an unbiased presentation.

I was asked to complete self-evaluations which pressed me to describe the ways in which I'd "increased shareholder value." (For the record, if you're a rank-and-file member of a newsroom, you should never under any circumstances even hear the word "shareholders," let alone be reminded that you're beholden to them.) I watched the media in general do anything within reason to scare the hell out of the American public -- to convince people that they were about to be infected by the bird flu, poisoned by the food supply, or eaten by sharks.

To think that someone who works in the business of providing an unbiased view of what exactly is occurring in the world should in no way have any connection to whether or not their employer makes money off of it. This goes back to making money. If I had watched CNN before now I would stop, but I guess since I never do it's moot.

I see opportunity for him...

[Pojut (1027544)]

It was obvious he was growing quite a following...this news story will undoubtedly add to that following. He should slap a couple of google adsense boxes on his page, and make his blog full-time. He likely has the exposure necessary to do so...

As Opposed To...

[hyades1 (1149581)]

...the two douche bags they used to have on staff who carried water for the Bush administration. They didn't fire those guys 'til just about every other media outlet in the world outed them and started poking fun at CNN. One used to report regularly on education, and how effective the "No Child Left Behind" bill was. Then somebody noticed he got a whole whack of money from Bush to do PR work on...you guessed it.

And then there was Bob Novak, about whom the less said the better. And I'm pretty sure there was somebody else who got caught taking money from people he was supposed to be providing disinterested commentary about, but the name escapes me. One thing's for sure. They have never had a military "expert" on regularly who said anything even mildly critical about the idiots at the Pentagon who seem to be doing such a good job of getting American soldiers unnecessarily killed and maimed.

It sounds to me like they dumped this guy because he actually seems to know what good journalism is about. On a network that was an unapologetic cheerleader for the Iraq invasion and regularly buries real news stories under an avalanche of shallow, horse-race-style political coverage and pixelized footage of some starlet's crotch, I guess this guy just wasn't a good fit.

Excuses, excuses...

[fahrbot-bot (874524)]

Forget the "policy" CNN had in place. The upshot is that he wrote or did something someone didn't like and they canned him. They could have warned him, or given him options, but they didn't. That's the telling part. Companies claim their people are valuable assets, but that's just crap. Companies view employees as liabilities to be tolerated only as long as necessary.

This is a softball

[AmericanInKiev (453362)]

Clearly many employees at CNN blog. Should CNN want to enforce the rules, they by all means can, but they must terminate all employees which can so easily be shown to be in equal violation. But no, they showed their hand when they pointed out that he was being terminated for a particular opinion. That won't pass muster. Employees can't be fired for their opinions on a variety of topics, including religion, race, gender, etc ... surely these op eds wade into a variety of protected speech regions. Once CNN targets speech, they're toast. CNN is in the business of free speech, if they deny their bread and butter to other's their credibility goes down the toilet. - and they lose a lawsuit, silly decision...

AIK

Re:OMGWTFBBQ!!!

[Qzukk (229616)]

When will the madness stop??!

Once companies discovers they have to fire the vast majority of their employees because there just aren't as many cookiecutter droids as HR had hoped, and society collapses.

Re:Three words

[Daimanta (1140543)]

If you have to hide your identity to say what you want, the terrorists have won.

Re:Three words

[Dr Caleb (121505)]

Remember when two guys with a typewriter took down a US President - and used their real names.

Re:NOT his job

[gruntled (107194)]

(Disclaimer: I too was once a producer at CNN)

Unfortunately when you're a traditional journalist, any public expression of opinion is about your job...

I feel bad for this gentleman for losing his day job, but, seriously, anybody who works in the mainstream media understands that your boss is quite likely to impose certain limitations on public expressions of your personal opinion. It was only a matter of time before something this guy wrote on his blog ticked off somebody enough that a critical resource would refuse to provide necessary information to CNN. If you think this is crazy, Linda Greenhouse, who covers the Supreme Court for the New York Times, has been under absolute siege just because of who she's married to: Eugene Fidell, an expert on military law who's filed a number of briefs relating to the Guantanamo detainees. Note that nobody has been screaming that Greenhouse is doing a bad job or presenting the facts about Guantanamo in a biased fashion; they're simply claiming that it's impossible for her to do so because she is married to somebody who's a player in that arena. (I should probably note both that Greenhouse is considered the best reporter covering the court, and that in 1989 she was publicly chastised by the NYT for participating in an abortion rights march).

So editors are generally pretty intolerant of reporters who mouth off in a public fashion. The idea is that it's hard enough to create a story that presents the positions of both sides fairly if you're already on the record as saying, for example, that you wish the President could run for a third term. Filtered through that gem, your otherwise fair representation of the positions of all sides might appear to be somewhat slanted.

I'm a little astounded that this fellow didn't adopt an online pseudonym...

Re:NOT his job

[dgatwood (11270)]

He wasn't a journalist or a reporter, though. He was a producer who reportedly had no real input into the editorial decisions of the program. Would they have fired a camera operator for this? Secretary? The guy who fills the vending machine outside? You really have to draw the line somewhere.

• If they had fired a journalist or other person whose job is writing, that would be a very different story, as that would be doing something closely related to your job responsibilities, and the content could thus be technically owned by your employer. Restrictions on outside publishing would then be legally justifiable.
• If they had fired a reporter for doing this, then the person's face on the blog would tie it back to CNN and there would be legitimate cause for concern.
• If this guy had talked about working for CNN and blogged about his job responsibilities, there would be a strong tie again.

As it stands, though, nobody in the outside world had any idea who this guy was until CNN fired him and told the whole world that he used to be the producer for this show. The very act of trying to cover it up turned them immediately into the bad guy from the view of most of the general public, and immediately cast what would otherwise have been a minor annoyance at best into a PR nightmare. There are no words for that sort of stupidity on the part of CNN's management. If I were in charge of CNN, I'd have the resignation of every single person who signed off on that decision on my desk already. The people responsible for sacking the responsible party have been sacked, and all that.

In my mind, this story just confirms what I've suspected for a while---that CNN is no longer going to even keep up appearances of being an objective news outlet. Anyone with left-leaning opinions need not apply. The whole network is really all about pandering to the Presidential administration in power. With Republicans in the White House, CNN's political coverage is only slightly to the left of Fox News. You can get more balanced reporting by reading Fark. It really saddens me to say that, as just a decade ago, I thought it would be a great place to work. Since then, though, I've watched it go downhill faster than a car with its brakes cut, and at this point, I basically never watch it anymore. That and the whole problem with TV news not paying well enough to attract enough people with the sense to ask the tough questions.... See my rant from a few days ago on that subject....

For those folks who agree with me, here's what you should do: tell everyone you know not to go to CNN's website on February 29th. Let's send a message to CNN that what they did is wrong. Go spread it on the blogosphere.

Re:NOT his job

[gruntled (107194)]

The dirty little secret of TV news is that producers are the reporters. The people called reporters on television -- the people you see on camera -- typically stand where they're told, don't do the actual interviews, and oftentimes don't even write their own copy. They're essentially actors.

I've worked with on air talent who are very involved in the process, and that includes a lot of the folks at CNN. But to say that producers aren't journalists or reporters is incorrect.

Re:NOT his job

[Jafafa Hots (580169)]

I used to think like those editors too until I grew up a little and realized that all people have opinions and viewpoints, and it's much easier to be objective about an issue when you recognize and understand your own biases and take them into account rather than pretend the impossible - that you are uninvolved and impartial.

I remember Bernie Ward of CNN becoming furious at the suggestion that the media and reporters, specifically at CNN had a liberal bias. While I recognize that the accusation was merely part of the dishonest constant right-wing drumbeat and strategy that has driven our right-leaning media totally over the cliff, Ward's reaction was still very telling. He was furious at the suggestion that CNN reporters could be biased, denied the possibility of an bias. Wrong reaction. The proper reaction is to acknowledge that all people have a bias and that objectivity requires admitting and understanding that.

Re:An out-of-the-closet liberal

[quag7 (462196)]

Oh horseshit - there is no greater disservice than people in the news pretending they don't have an opinion. What *that* leads to is crap like Fox News appropriating the laughable "fair and balanced" tagline and playing the "objective" news in a supposed sea of liberal bias.

I want to know the biases of media types up front - left, right, or corporate (and no, I do not necessarily equate corporate suckups with conservatives). I do not think that having an opinion and stating it has any bearing on news reporting except to suggest that true neutrality is damn near impossible.

In order to be objective (or as close to it as is possible), reporters and producers need to understand their own biases - more importantly, they need to know the kind of biases which emotionally affect or overwhelm them. In my experience, everyone has an issue or two that drives them completely batshit. Coming to terms with this, and being open about it, is the only hope we have - it is the only way we can have "faith" in (don't like the word) the professionalism of the journalist in question. What makes a quality journalist, in part, is what makes a quality judge - understanding that he is human and fallible, and working on ways to keep that out of his work.

Journalists are not holy men; they are fallible like anyone else. To the extent that the best among them keep biases they are cognizant of out of news stories, that serves the higher purpose of a quality press. But for us, the viewers, having access to blogs like this allow us to decide for ourselves not only whether the journalist is professional enough to keep his or her opinions out of her reporting, but whether there may be a subconscious at work that we should be wary of.

Lastly, CNN is tabloid news reporting. Any credibility it once had has steadily evaporated. Like its competitors, it leads with the stuff he mentions - Anna Nicole Smith, Britney's problems, and so forth. CNN is far more impressed with itself than is any member of the public *I've spoken to* who has actually been paying attention.

Sucking neocon cock, pandering to the dumbest among us - these are all biases I hold in equal contempt. I still think there is a place for professional journalism, and I think it may well rise again. I shudder to think of blogs replacing this (few bloggers, if any, have the time or money to do the kind of traveling, research, and so on, that is important enough to cover a story completely - the medium (the internet) doesn't, obviously, bother me).

These are the dark ages of journalism, indeed. Let's hope for a renaissance or enlightenment on the horizon. And most of all, I hope no one is stupid enough to be buy the sanctimoniousness of the corporate-run news oligarchy when they suggest (or allow the insinuation to go unchallenged) that this has something to do with a commitment to objectivity and unbiased news. What they don't like, is not having a leash on everyone who works for them, and that leash is necessary to ensure that the stockholders can keep controlling the flow of information.

Sorry for the long post, but the guy I am responding to is so profoundly *wrong*, I couldn't help myself.

And don't play like you can speak for the "public," either, you anonymous cockknocker.