CNN fires long-time employee for tweeting her sadness, respect for late Hezbollah leader

She was deemed insufficiently "credible" as a Mideast Affairs editor after 20 years of service to the network.

It's becoming more and more dangerous to practice journalism in the US while being Arab.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/breaking-cnns-octavia-nasr-leaving-network-after-controversial-tweet/



CNN’s Octavia Nasr Leaving Network After Controversial Hezbollah Tweet
» 27 comments
by Steve Krakauer | 3:38 pm, July 7th, 2010
breaking

In the latest case of new media (or oversharing) gone wrong, CNN’s Senior Editor of Mideast Affairs Octavia Nasr is leaving the company following the controversy caused by her tweet in praise of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah

Mediaite has the internal memo, which says “we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised.”

Nasr tweeted this weekend: “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.”

After a blog post expanding on her position, CNN promised the issue was “serious” and would “be dealt with accordingly.” That’s apparently her exit from CNN. Here’s an internal memo obtained by Mediaite:



Nasr has been with CNN for 20 years.

many people here would demand the person be fired. At the very least, their credibility would be shot when reporting on the Mideast.

She's behind the scenes, not in front of the camera. If a CNN editor had tweeted about her respect for Ariel Sharon, no one would have heard about it, in all likelihood.

Quoth the NYT, she only had the title, but actually worked in basically an analyst's role.

Blitzer used to say it on air.

of a controversy would express regret and respect. That's all this woman did.

Considering CNN hired her knowing she was Arab it is suspect to say she was fired for being Arab...and her comment was not journalism.

Being Arab--or any other demographic--is not license to support a group such as Hezbollah.

She did not express support. In the US it's considered very, very bhad form to say anything positive whatsoever about "militant" Arabs of any kind. That was Nasr's real gaffe. To speak about a Hezbollah leader as though he were a person worthy of respect.

less than zero

As it is for the multitude that apparently jumped on CNN's back urging they fire a 20-year veteran for expressing a very mild opinion about a man. Not love, not support, not a vow to avenge, just sadness at his passing and great respect for him.

little to do with any terrorist acts, don't you?

In March 2006, an IRIN news report of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs noted: "Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings - it also boasts an extensive social development program. Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, twelve clinics, twelve schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance program. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Social_services

Hitler had national healthcare and a jobs program but he was still a genocidal maniac.

and you're silent on whether or not you think she was appropriately fired.

From the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/business/media/08cnn.html?_r=2

She said she used the words “respect” and “sad” because “to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman’s rights. She continued, “This does not mean I respected him for what else he did or said. Far from it.”


I realize some people might be like the dog in the B. Kliban cartoon, who when reading anything having the slightest thing to do with Hezbollah read it "Blah blah Hezbollah blah Hezbollah blah blah Hezbollah blah blah blah blah Hezbollah blah." But I hope you can see that she had her particular reasons for respecting the man that had less to do with middle eastern politics and more with sexual politics.

"Blah blah Hezbollah," right? :eyes:

If he hadn't been part of a terrorist organization that attacked innocent civilians, murdered dissenters, brought civil violence to his home nation and served as a puppet of Iran and Syria

THEN

I would say, "Good for you!"

But no murderer should be excused just because he likes what I like. I don't pervert my sense of right and wrong for the likes of killers.

He opposed FGM? Good for him. Look at my recent post history from a week or so ago and you find I'm rabidly opposed to FGM. But here is a man who opposed FGM but had no problem running an organization that would launch indiscriminate attacks that would kill women.

Am I supposed to feel better about rockets falling on me just because my clitoris is intact? Let me rub one out one last time and we'll call it good?

I'll pass.

Because I heard what you said about their so-called charity...race and faith based though it may be.

Yet, you seem to admit they indiscriminately murder and use violence to achieve their ends.

Why does THEIR violence get a pass when you would condemn similar violence from others?

Are you? Nasr and what CNN did to her is the subject of this thread. Are you aware of that?

That makes Fadlallah pretty much inseperable from the group he lead.

Add to that the fact her tweet specifically calls him "one of Hezbollah's giants"...so, yeah, Fadlallah kinda gets the linkage here.

I'm quite sure if you asked Nasr if she supports rocket attacks she would gaspingly say "Of course not!" But then one must wonder how any group lobbing rockets and hijacking planes has ANY giants in their midst.

Such people seem tiny to me.

Nasr's tweet can be construed as forgiving of a man associated with Hezbollah. Therefore she is guilty by association of aiding and comforting Hezbollah. Absolutely no room for nuance, no possible shades of gray here at all. CNN's employment policies and any American news corporation's policies must also show absolutely no tolerance for the slightest nuance that could be interpreted as favorable to any person living or dead associated with Hezbollah. Nasr got her due and any news agency that would consider hiring her after this incident in any capacity of journalism, especially with respect to the Middle East, is as good as showing aid and comfort to Hezbollah.

Is that something like your position on Nasr?

The reporter's tweet can be construed as forgiving of a man who lead the KKK. Therefore the reporter is guilty by association of aiding and comforting the KKK. Absolutely no room for nuance, no possible shades of gray here at all. CNN's employment policies and any American news corporation's policies must also show absolutely no tolerance for the slightest nuance that could be interpreted as favorable to any person living or dead associated with the KKK. The reporter got his due and any news agency that would consider hiring him after this incident in any capacity of journalism, especially with respect to the Deep South, is as good as showing aid and comfort to the KKK.

Is that something like your position on this reporter?

BTW - you substituted "associated with" where accuracy would say Fadlallah was the, "leader of Hezbollah".

Hezbollah is not equivalent to the KKK, which is a white supremacist organization with absolutely zero socially redeeming value. You can argue to the contrary all you want, but a sizable part of the world will not take you seriously when you make such a grossly simplistic equivalency.

Hezbollah has redeeming social value because you say so.

Fadlallah didn't order the hijacking of planes and the firing of rockets into civilian population centers he only gave "spiritual" leadership. Too bad he couldn't spiritually lead them away from targetted violence against unarmed civilians.

Hezbollah is a Fake-Version-of-Islam Supremacist which obviously makes him better than a white supremacist.

And I should just shut-up because the world tells me to.

Got it.

Hezbollah has no social redeeming value of any kind at all because you say so.

Fadlallah personally ordered the highjacking of planes and firing of rockets into civilian centers because any "leader" of Hezbollah is a military leader. He was the evil genius behind everything evil about Hezbollah, an evilly black black hole of bottomless evil that sucks anyone who gives it even the slightest whisper of a nod of a pass into its abyss of pure evil.

And you should just keep avoiding the consequences of siding with a corporation against a loyal employee because you agree with the hypersensitive media watchers who hounded them into firing her over a 140 word expression on the passing of a major Middle Eastern newsmaker.

Yeah that seems pretty accurate statement.

Far out.

Maybe you should try removing the blinders or log from thine eye and read that again.

I stated directly I understood he had a record for charity.

Good grief.

She wasn't praising his "charity." She was praising his advanced attitudes towards women, virtually unique among Shiite leaders of his stature.

feminism supporters that don't have to stoop to praising the spiritual leaders of mass-murderers.

I choose these people as my friends and allies.

:applause:

As I said earlier, this is obviously an extremely emotional issue for you, and it's equally obvious we won't be finding common ground here. C'est la vie.

:toast:

When is it acceptable to deliberatley target unarmed civilians or hijack planes or air TV programs that preach ethnic hatred?

And when is it acceptable to praise people who do such things?

Repeating that he was a "leader" of Hezbollah doesn't do it for me, clearly. I think you get that by now. In my admittedly far from perfect understanding of Hezbollah and Fadlallah, you're saying he's guilty of all of those things because he's a leader bears about the same weight as someone saying George McGovern was guilty of napalming innocent children in Vietnam because he was a leader in Congress at the time.

Of course maybe you believe McGovern was as guilty as Johnson or Nixon of killing innocent children in Vietnam, in which case, at least you're consistent.

Hezbollah's terrorist acts and wars the way McGovern tried to end our war in Vietnam?

If you've got proof of that awesome! Bring it over and Fadlallah will be my hero!

:fistbump:

If you're going to write off everyone with any degree of sympathy at all for anyone or thing associated with Hezbollah, as I said before, this is an utterly pointless attempt at finding common ground. I'll confess right now, if it wasn't obvious before, that I won't budge from my position that Nasr did absolutely nothing wrong with her tweet and CNN did something unjust in firing her. I understand that for you I've as good as excused her from expressing a degree of sympathy for Hitler or AIDS or murdering of puppies. To me that's really a pretty good clue that we're not going to get any closer on this. So what is the point of continuing the dialogue? All I'm trying to do now is get assurance from you that you're capable of nuance, and I'm not getting any.

Fadlallah has no analogy to McGovern because where McGovern opposed the war and worked for peace Fadlallah did no such thing.

That's not nuance that is intellectual dishonesty because you knew before you ever made that post you cannot show Fadlallah was anything like McGovern.

If you think you can be so nuanced as to be able to demonstrate when the murder and hijacking become acceptable or if you can show me Fadlallah opposed these policies and tried to end them then maybe we will have common ground.

:toast:

Thank you.

PS: Here's an example of someone who, I believe, demonstrates a capability for nuanced thought on Fadlallah and Hezbollah. Perhaps you'll find him too much of a sympathizer to appreciate his subtlety. That would be your loss, I think:

http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/reader/archives/oracle-of-hizbullah-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-fadlallah/

Hizbullah arose in Lebanon from a fusion of many discontents. It drew upon Shi‘ite frustration with endemic poverty and the collapse of civil society into civil war. It received inspiration and direct support from Islamic Iran and won a following among those who suffered as a result Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. It benefited from the indulgence of Syria and the fragmentation of Lebanon’s Shi‘ites themselves. Yet it is difficult to imagine how Hizbullah would have evolved without the omnipresence of Fadlallah. Others may have made Hizbullah’s choices, but the movement bore his mark. For he was Hizbullah’s oracle—a fount of infallible (if ambiguous) guidance, fed by an unfathomably deep well of wisdom. He rallied the masses to the movement, and then kept them from following paths to self-destruction. The movement and the man guaranteed one another’s survival—and together they wrote history.

McGovern?

:shrug:

"Yet it is difficult to imagine how Hizbullah would have evolved into the rocket-spewing, plane-hijacking, racist jerkwads they are without the omnipresence of Fadlallah."

FIFY

:applause:

Fadlallah was like McGovern in very few ways. Two points for you on that. Good job.

I still think you should read Kaplan's piece as an antidote to your own unsubtle opinions in this area.

I really have to start placing bets on this.

been too obvious.

I'm sure Palestinians will break out of the open-air prison that is Gaza and start shoving the Israeli population into ovens any day now!

:eyes:

But now that you mention it Hamas, like Hezbollah, seeks the extermination of Israel...and presumably its citizens.

band of murderers cost her her job.

I'm sure she'll sue and win.

:hi:

:applause:

PS: I wonder if you think any self-respecting Lebanese-American would take Israel's line against Fadlallah. I mean besides the fascist types who miss the Phalangist days of old.

If I may, please expound.

Are you saying a Lebanese-American should no condemn Fadlallah because Israel condemns Fadlallah?

If so, I don't find that to be a worthy point. Right and wrong stand regardless of who says it or who believes--or doesn't believe--it. Stalin was a rat bastard who killed countless millions. Hitler hated Stalin. That doesn't exonerate Stalin or excuse Hitler. They're both rat bastards. Likewise, condemning Stalin doesn't put me in the Nazi-sympathizer category (I'm not accusing you of doing such, I'm just using a "ferinstance," as my dad says).

I also don't think being a Lebanese-American or any other ethnicity matters. Not as condmenation but merely as a point: "tribalism" is going to be the end of us. I try to see people as people. Despite our disagreement throughout this thread please note I have been very cautious to NOT call Hezbollah a Muslim terrorist group. I have a few Muslim friends from college who are horrified by such groups. I cannot embarrass them by calling Hezbollah "Muslim" regardless of how Hezbollah prefers to present itself.

Explain to me why a Lebanese American is not permitted one fucking tweet in honor of a dead leader of lebanese people. As much as you want to distract from that outrageous fact, I'm not going to give you any aid or comfort. The sick fact is Nasr was fired for not towing the official establishment line. Glenn greenwald is dead on abbout this bit of American asininity today. I'd recommend it to yo but it would be wasted on you.

I'm commuting and typing this on an iPhone--not the moat comfortAble way to express oneself especially
when one is enraged over idiocy. I will return.

Are you saying a Lebanese-American should no condemn Fadlallah because Israel condemns Fadlallah?

No. I'm saying that most self-respecting Lebanese who are not Maronite Christians, and probably many who are, would not be caught dead tsk-tsking Fadlallah upon his death, not because Lebanese people have no sense of right or wrong, as you put it in your typically nuance-phobic way, but because most Lebanese people remember 1982. They tend to read that year quite differently from the way you and Ariel Sharon do, you probably know. They also probably remember the 81 civilians who were killed when an American plot to assassinate Fadlallah went off the way a lot of American assassination attempts on Muslim leaders go off.

By the way, did you know that William Barr, who was in on that plot, is a member of CNN's Board of Directors? I didn't until I read Glenn Greenwald on this travesty on my way home tonight. Perhaps that fact cheers you?

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


With the Nasr firing, here we find yet again exposed the central lie of American establishment journalism: that opinion-free "objectivity" is possible, required, and the governing rule. The exact opposite is true: very strong opinions are not only permitted but required. They just have to be the right opinions: the official, approved ones. Just look at the things that are allowed. The Washington Post lavished editorial praise on the brutal, right-wing tyrant Augusto Pinochet, and that caused no controversy. AP's Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier got caught sending secret, supportive emails to Karl Rove, and nothing happened. Benjamin Netanyahu formally celebrates the Terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel that killed 91 78 civilians and nobody is stigmatized for supporting him. Erick Erickson sent around the most rancid and arguably racist tweets, only to thereafter be hired as a CNN contributor. And as Jonathan Schwarz wrote of the Nasr firing:

William Barr is on the board of directors of Time Warner, the parent company of CNN. Barr was a senior adviser in the Reagan administration, which attempted to assassinate Fadlallah, missing him and killing more than eighty bystanders.

Having someone who was part of the slaughter of 80 civilians in Lebanon on your Board is fine. And having a former AIPAC official with an obvious bias toward Israel (just watch Blitzer in this 5-minute clip if you have doubts about that) is perfectly consistent with a news network's "credibility." But expressing sadness over the death of an Islamic cleric beloved by much of the Muslim world is not. Whatever is driving that, it has nothing to do with "objectivity."

And no, before you might attempt to put in words in my mouth, I'm not saying that those two men are the same, equivalent, morally equivalent, equivalently racist, blah blah blah, (insert predictable deflection and outrage here).

ETA: Meh, I replied to the wrong post, but the question remains.

They should all support the side that bombs them every now and then, rather than the side who takes care of them. Next!

And their charity for those they prefer does nothing to mitigate the fact they have no purpose but to use violence against anyone they do not like.

You might as well say, "If the Tea Party ever turns violent they are to be excused so long as they extend acts of charity to the people they like."

Violence is bad, remember?

Enough nonsense, thank-you.

The Palestinians don't have land - or much of it - and what land they do have is constantly encroached upon by Israeli settlements. If the Palestinians were given good land (i.e. workable land with a water source not reliant upon Israel) a long time ago, then you wouldn't see violence to the extent that you do today. Hezbollah grew out of the need to help Palestinians who were stymied financially because they could not work and suffering from lack of access to decent health care thanks to ultra right-wing Israeli policies.

The Teabaggers have a country. They may not like that it's run by a black man. They may not like paying for the upkeep of this country. They may be severely confused about who to blame for the state of the country... but they have a country.

Incredible.

Firstly the Palestinians were offered land in 1947 but the arab league and Palestinian leadership rejected it and declared war against the Zionists.

Secondly the origins of Hizbullah has little to do with the Palestinians, the org was started as a spin off of the Shia political group Amal, which was led by Imam Musa al-Sadr. Ayatollah Khomeini (Iran) disliked al-Sadr's politics (he was way too moderate) and wanted to spread the Iranian revolution so he funded a spinoff of the group which was called Islamic Amal. During the the next couple years that group morphed into Hizbollah and Musa al-Sadr disappeared, never to be found.

On edit - the Palestinians are being "stymied financially" by the ME countries that host them in refugee camps like Lebanon where they are not allowed to vote, own land or work in many professions.

you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.

And there was some reason to. I didn't know him. I also questioned the tweet. He certainly wouldn't have been a pal of mine. But among his own people? YES, there was reason to respect him. It is outrageous that she was fired.

"I don't respect the Italian Pascist Party...but I respect the MAN that Mussolini was; and among many of his fellow Italians there was reason to do so."

Sorry, I'm not sold.

That's fair to you?

tweeted favor for Palin or Bachman while still pretneding to be objective journalists.

And rightfully so.

But for all their ills at least Palin didn't lauch rockets into Russia...which apparently she can see from her house. The caveat being the 4th of July and bottle rockets; I can see her doing that.

Would you say an editor claiming respect and sentiment for Palin would be a credible editor and should NOT be fired out of fairness sake?

I'd roll my eyes, certainly, and maybe lose some respect for the editor. But want her fired? No. That's just me, I admit. I think journalists should be called on obvious bias, but expressing respect for a person recently dead is not really a sign of bias. It's more a sign of graciousness or civility.

after he called David Souter a "goat fucking child molester"? It seems you are saying that CNN was in the right to fire Nasr. I guess saying you are sad because someone you respected died is much more unprofessional than calling a sitting supreme court justice a "goat fucking child molester".

Of course we're still talking about the head of a terrorist organization.

commenting on a "terrorist" leader. But whatever, CNN is a hypocritical pile of shit. Period.

We were talking about a reporter's comments of admiration for the leader of a terrorist organization.

That's why I was noting the apples-to-oranges comparison.

Ericson is biased if he said what you attribute to him. If CNN wants to keep its credibility it needs to seriously weigh whether or not he best represents their professional image.

But there is a difference between saying such demonstrably ridiculous things against a SC Justice and admiring the head of a violent terrorist organization by orders of magnitude.

that Nasr's stated reason for respecting Fadlallah had nothing to do with Hezbollah's political aims, but specifically with Fadlallah's relatively liberal views on women. You seem truly incapable of grasping that subtle difference. I suppose you will come back with something about respecting Hitler's views on vegetarianism. To which I will ask you if Fadlallah was Hitler, to which you will come back with something about Hezbollah and Hitler sharing certain goals, etc., etc., etc.

I think we can write you off for supporting Nasr's First Amendment rights, correct?

I don't watch CNN so I lose nothing either way.

But Fadlallah was a genocidal killer. He may have been great on FGM etc but he had no problem indiscriminately killing women or anybody else he disapproved of.

If you are willing to excuse the murder of innocents just because the killers are sympathetic to some of your political positions I have to wonder where is your sense of right and wrong.

They weren't exercising any muscle at all here. They were demonstrating their lack of muscle and spine. Not to mention loyalty to a loyal employee.

PS: Make your case for Fadlallah himself being a "genocidal killer."

PPS: Ironic last sentence of yours there!

And they aren't spending their money on bus tickets for the Israelis.

You can no more convince me the fact Fadlallah was merely the "spiritual leader" of Hezbollah would mean he is not part and parcel of this agenda then saying the spiritual leader of the KKK doesn't support ethnically cleansing blacks from the US.

and makes one skeptical of your ability to be unbiased on this subject. Have you considered applying for nasr's job? You apparently have just the quality they're looking for. ;-)

double post

I guess the answer would have been yes.

The mind boggles. 20 years of "credibility" outweighed by a single tweet on the death of a significant leader?

:hi:

He also opened 10 schools, 6 orphanages, a women's cultural center, a medical clinic, believed women are equal to men, supported abortion (in some circumstances), condemned 9/11 attacks.

Nothing to praise there.

I see he favored improving science education in the Arab world, too. Sick!

Twitterers paid to spread Israeli propaganda Internet warfare team

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1-/10793-twitterers-paid-to-spread-israeli-propaganda-internet-warfare-team-unveiled.html

is missing from his biographies.

And there is this from the July 4, 1776 Times of London.... Veteran reporter Nigel J.A. Hawthorne III was sacked yesterday over professing a "respect" for a certain Geo Washington during a luncheon at the press club. Mr. Hawthorne certainly knew this Mr. Washington is considered a terrorist by His Majesty.

Start in the year 570 and add 1775 to get the stage of development of Islamic culture comparable to Christian culture 1775 years after year 1 of the Common Era. That's of course just an approximation; the Islamic calendar has a year that isn't exactly the same duration as the Gregorian year.

don't ya?

It's an argument that I've been seeing a lot lately on DU, and it indicates that Western civilization's level of development of the year 1776 will be reached by Islamic civilization in the year 2345 (approximately).

"His followers revered him for his moderate social views, openness and pragmatism. Fadlallah issued religious edicts forbidding female circumcision, condemning domestic violence-even allowing women to wear cosmetics and finger nail polish which some clerics opposed, and insisting that women could physically resist abusive husbands. He strongly supported female-male equality. He rejected the blood-letting at Ashoura events and like Hezbollah encouraged his followers to donate blood to the Red Crescent Society instead of cutting themselves. He also opposed the call to "jihad," or holy war, by Osama bin Laden and cruised the Afghan Taliban, which he viewed as a sect outside Islam and he was among the first to condemn the 9/11 attacks. Fadlallah opposed ‘suicide attacks” but distinguished the right of an individual to sacrifice himself as a weapon during asymmetrical warfare by aggressors."

http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/13509-mohammad-hussein-fadlallah--tolerant-open-minded-true-faith-in-mankind-passes-away.html

Very interesting guy!

Public figures should avoid Twitter. Period. Did I go over 124 characters?

:patriot:

Too much danger in being misinterpreted or "compromised."

will lose more viewers now. Didn't they lose a top-notch reporter some time ago because they would not allow him PSTD time off? The fellow worked night and day to keep us informed about Iraq.

a sitting Supreme Court Justice, a "Goat Fucking Child Molester", and they fire Octavia Nasr for not speaking ill of the dead. Yeah tell me how CNN is just "doing the right thing". :eyes:

Is that a fair and balanced description of what motivated them to fire her? Did they require that she speak ill of the dead?

For saying she respected a Hezbollah leader. Funny, call me crazy, but calling a US Supreme Court Justice a "goat fucking child molester" seems just as bad to me as saying you respect a Hezbollah leader.

But rude name calling isn't the same as admiring a genocidal killer.

Because a few pressure groups only hear what they want to hear and networks show no spine against them.

Nasr is free to sue for wrongful termination and/or breach of contract.

And I support the laws that would allow her to do so.

I hope she does sue. I think she'll win.

from a practical standpoint and I disagree with it. I wish her well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to be a journalist. Stenographers only please.

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


...

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.

Beyond journalism, speech codes concerning the Middle East are painfully biased and one-sided. Chas Freeman was barred from a government position -- despite a long and accomplished record of public service -- due to AIPAC-led anger over comments deemed insufficiently devoted to Israel. Juan Cole was denied a tenured position at Yale after a vicious neocon campaign based on his allegedly anti-Israel remarks, and Norman Finklestein suffered the same fate, despite a unanimous committee recommendation for tenure, after an Alan-Dershowitz-led demonization campaign based on his blasphemous scholarship about Israel. Does anyone ever suffer career-impeding injuries of this type -- the way Nasr and Thomas also just have -- for expressing anti-Muslim or anti-Arab views? No. The speech prohibitions and thought crimes on the Middle East all run in one direction: to enforce "pro-Israel" orthodoxies. Does this long list of examples leave room for doubt about that fact?

...