Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Remember, this is the network that gives Nancy Grace a prime-time slot, proving they have the highest regard for journalistic professionalism.
"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.
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
If you have to hide your identity to say what you want, the terrorists have won.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace are still employed.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
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...
Living With a Nerd
(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...
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."
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
CNN has a policy that they have to approve anything that is published by their employees. That's prior restraint, also known censorship. It's not illegal, it's not a violation of the first amendment, but it is the definition of censorship. Yes, the employees can choose to quit and then publish whatever they want, but at that point they are no longer employees. As long as they are employees, CNN's position is that they have the right to censor anything they publish.
Let's assume China has a policy of censoring whatever their citizens publish. Does that mean if a Chinese citizen is able to emigrate to Australia and publish whatever he wants, that China does not practice censorship?
You are correct that nothing was censored in this case, but the tag is appropriate, as CNN is asserting that their employees must submit to censorship if they want to stay employed.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
No, I wouldn't consider a blog with which they are making no money "published" in the ordinary sense of the word, any more than I would consider my posts to Slashdot as making me a "journalist" ...
In other words, it's about as clear as mud. Moreover, if you read it, it's not just because they had a blog, but because of what they wrote in it.
I have read a lot of the comments here saying stuff akin to "Well he broke company policy so he deserved it" but that is not what he is arguing. In fact he doesn't care. The fact that he took his punishment and learned from it is a prime example of Civil Disobedience.
He elaborates in his well written blog post that the blogging community (which has only been around for maybe half a decade) is going to continue to grow on the internet and overtake the "major" news organizations. If you look at the road-to-entry for television and you compare it to blogging, you know this is true. You're not likely to ever create your own cable television channel but to setup a blog it takes little more then 10 minutes and it will automatically be indexed in search engines without you ever having to try.
The current major news outlets are only a combination of 5 stations. Blogs on the other hand are a combination of hundreds of thousands. Now that the entry fee into the media (all media) is little more then a browser with an internet connection.
This alone won't herald any kind of revolution. It will take decades for the internet to penetrate the masses the world over but if recent events with Wikileaks is any indication; the internet at least exposes the absolute truth. Unfortunately, for anyone that puts bread on the table with this industry; this might herald the end of the commercialization of news since keeping it free will be trivial.
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.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
If you can't find sources of news on US television you're not smart enough to understand the news...
The Newshour, Frontline, Now, BBC World, BBCAmerica nightly newscast, Charlie Rose, Democracy Now, Expose and even a couple programs on CNN international.
Or you can always try practicing that whole "reading is fundamental" thing and check out a newspaper beyond the front page or website homepage.
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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.
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.
This space available.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The constitutional right you refer to doesn't exist. The whole text of the First Amendment: (from The Bill of Rights)
Note the first part: Congress shall make no law. That doesn't say anything about what private citizens may do; it just restricts the government. CNN is not compelled to keep paying this guy if they think it's no longer in their best interests to employ him. Whether that's a good idea or not is a different question, but one of the fundamental American rights is the right to be an idiot.
The only new source I trust is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
This is a news producer, given access at CNN's dime, blogging about it for his own use (and potentially collecting ad revenue too).
It wouldn't be considered acceptable in any other field. A programmer releasing code to things he was exposed to on the company's time, a record label employee running a celebrity gossip paper, they'd all be facing disciplinary action. Why is a news producer any different?
Why would Canada want to invade the US? Definitely not for the resources, because there is a resource shortage. Definitely not for the culture because it's largely imported. Definitely not for the land because we have more than we'll ever need. Hollywood celebs? No all of our actors have already taken over that aspect of Hollywood (well the good ones at least).
Perhaps to impose our Socialist agenda? Well we don't have one anymore so that won't happen.
No, there is no real reason for Canada to invade. Sorry.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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.
"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.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Wow... that brain tumour surgery must of cost CNN a ton of money. Well, I guess now that he has been fired, they don't need to worry about the future cost of his medical bills.
Actually, Frontline has been awesome for decades. I get disappointed when I discover people I know never heard of it. But anyway, Democracy Now is not a liberal show. It's on the Pacifica network, which is very leftist (think highly insightful liberal, which is almost nonexistent in the USA). If you're in California, it's KPFK in southern CA and KPFA in northern CA, and there is a station in Washington D.C. (where it's based, I think). They play lectures by Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti (at least during the fund drives). So if you voted for GW twice, you won't find anything interesting about Democracy Now, because, you know, they hate America. If you've never heard of Michael Parenti, you should listen to some of his lectures on audiotape from the early 90s (or is it CDs now?). Great speaker and very insightful.
If that's the case, yes very sad. As a Brit, I am more than happy to pay the TV license fee because I really, really value the BBC. Don't even watch TV, just use their website.
But would the US ever go for a mandatory $100 - $200 TV fee / tax, just to have advert free, relatively unbiased news? My sense is that when it comes to taxes, Americans lose their otherwise well developed sense of pragmatism and respect for information.
"don't say X or you lose your job" sounds like coercion to me. Sure, it's not the government doing it, but big business has plenty of power all its own.
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.
CNN is not a person; it is part of a corporation. Corporations, too, have been ruled to have a right to free speech. (Unlike in most other cases, in this one corporate personhood makes sense. Bear with me.) If Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper or Chez Pazienza says something stupid on the air, it looks bad for CNN, not just that one person. It's like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Sure, I have the RIGHT to run around telling everyone that a wolf is coming, but I do things to stop myself from doing so (like exercising judgment) so that people will trust me when it counts. If CNN employees say something stupid publicly, whether or not they're on the clock, people won't trust CNN, so CNN should do something to make sure it (through its employees) doesn't say stupid things. CNN is more valuable (from both a making money perspective and an informing the public of current events perspective) if its employees don't go off saying stupid things.
So CNN has the right to prevent its employees* from saying things that make people not trust CNN. How the news business is supposed to work is that people can trust an organization that will report things unbiasedly, and then, with a full set of facts, people will draw the conclusions they will. One news story from today is that Michelle Obama, Barrack Obama's wife, said on the campaign trail that "For the first time in [her] adult life, [she is] proud of her country." Some people are going to draw the conclusion that she is unpatriotic, others that Obama is too inexperienced for letting his wife make a rookie mistake like that. Still others will think that this whole "controversy" is stupid and move on. CNN's job is to give you the quote and it's your job to make the decision. If CNN is leading you in any of those directions, it is doing something wrong.
There's a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes at news organizations; misdirection might come from someone other than the guy in front of the camera. Chez Pazienza was a behind the camera guy, so his work wasn't always visible. He could have been pulling strings, trying to slant news in a certain way, and we probably would have been none the wiser. It's important to note here that CNN would have probably found out eventually if he was doing that. Had they caught him slanting the news, that's probably grounds for dismissal.**
Chez Pazienza evidently cares deeply about lefty causes. We know this because he runs a left-wing blog. CNN, like all credible news organizations, doesn't want people to slant its news to either the left or the right. The problem is that the public at large can't tell if someone is ACTUALLY slanting the news behind the camera, because they're not in the room watching the editorial decisions getting made. CNN, like all credible news organizations, tries not to employ devout liberals or conservatives except in very specific roles*. After all, die-hards are more tempted to slant the news. They caught a die-hard who slipped through the cracks, so they fired him.***
By the way, this is the kind of journalism ethics I learned in high school. I realize that it's not necessarily common sense to most people, but a producer for CNN should know how journalism works.
*Newspapers have the concept of an editorial "page" where the newspaper writes its own opinions on topics. (On Sundays this may expand to a section.) There, because it is supposed to be opinion and not fact, it's OK to display a bias. On cable news, it's harder to distinguish because there isn't the physical separation that comes from putting it on a different page. The equivalent is the talking heads show
Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
No. News died January 20, 1981.
Cheers.
It's still short-sighted on CNN's part. As the author of the article noted, a warning or ultimatum would have cast responsibility back on him, at which point he would have been forced to accept the repercussions of his (in)actions. Either way, the goal would have been achieved: This man would no longer be a CNN producer who blogged.
As it stands, CNN created a needlessly confrontational situation in which they come across as the aggressor.
Think about it this way: CNN obviously has a tremendous amount of respect for the blog as an effective and efficient news outlet with the potential to influence the opinions of many. Why would they want to risk ostracizing an employee with an all-ready established readership?
"Big business has plenty of power of its own" makes me Captain Paranoia in an age when the MPAA is writing copyright law? I suppose the Hollywood Ten weren't censored, then, and neither were blacklisted union organizers. Employers have a long, long history of firing people for exercising their first amendment rights. It's the same idea that's behind "cut your hair and get a job" - employers have a great deal of control over their employees, and while maybe an individual or even an industry is occasionally free of it, it remains the norm. If the bartender tells everyone to fuck off while on duty, sure. If the bartender writes a somewhat-critical blog about life at the bar while honestly identifying himself, though? Do you think that's right? Do you think that's anything *but* censorship? Do you think he can just walk down the street and get a job at another bar while still speaking freely? The business world will hire or exclude people based on things other than proven ability levels, and they generally think the same way about what these black marks are. It's much worse for a CNN employee than a bartender, though - how many TV media companies are there? And even if he does find a job, he'll probably lose money because of the lack of bargaining power, and quite possibly pull down his blog to improve his chances of being hired after employers google his name? I'm not talking about men in black helicopters. I'm not saying the employers are acting based on any massive, evil conspiracy - but just the same, employers take their own prejudices and standards and stuff into hiring decisions, and often don't approve of people speaking ill of them, and when this is left legal it leads to a practical condition of censorship.
That sounds like a pretty good description of Ron Paul, for one.
Whatever else you may say about him, he's definitely a conservative who hasn't supported Bush's initiatives and is enthusiastically in favor of a much smaller federal government.
Sorry buddy, but while there is a right to freedom of speech, there aint no Constitutional right to employment by CNN. As much as many /. liberals might wish they were, CNN is not an arm of the government, and there is no property interest in employment with CNN, unless this joker had an employment contract... and somehow, I get the feeling that he was an "at will" employee.
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
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
He never griped about CNN on his blog. That was a large part of the problem with CNN's decision, or at least why it gets such a reaction. A lot of people are really uncomfortable with being forced to conform to a narrow, "corporate" veneer both at work and at home. Most people give work 8-10 hours+ of their life every day. It's not too much to ask companies to stay away from the few free waking hours people have remaining.
This is why unions are a good idea. Bosses have too much power.
-Daniel
Ownyourphone.com. Custom ringtones, cheap and easy
Well, it's kind've notable, what with the nutjob in question being the father of Dodi Fayed, and with it being central to a multi-million pound court inquest. But yeah, it's still idiotic.
I am so tired of people misrepresenting shit like this, you only devalue its original meaning.
Freedom of Speech is our guarantee that one day should we ever get off our collective asses we can bitch all we want about the government and they cannot do anything about it. Trouble is we are giving it away each year, now we can't bitch if we name a candidate who is incumbent within 30 days of an election... what next?
Your reply speaks volumes as to why this idiot was fired. Your freedom of speech does not trump your employers rights. Your freedom of speech is guaranteed versus the government, not some other entity. Freedom of speech means accepting responsibility for those words, including being shunned by former friends, hated more by people who oppose your view, or being told to take a hike by a news organization which cannot afford to show bias among its staff.
Learn to know your rights and you won't be so quick to lose them.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Americans should expect their speech to be free from suppression by their government.
Americans should not expect their speech to be free from consequences from other non-governmental parties.
The Federalist Papers were written anonymously for a reason - and the anonymous speech is protected as a consequence. If one does not choose to take advantage of that protection, then one should not be surprised that people or corporations seek punitive retribution, if they are adversely affected by that speech.
- Sig files: contemptibly familiar the second time around.
National debt as a percent of GDP.
I really hope we can put the tax-and-spend liberal myth to bed soon. I wholeheartedly support the idea of electing fiscally responsible representatives, and would like to see this happen in practice.
The ______ Agenda
What about his employer's rights? Doesn't CNN have a right to protect their "image"?
News organizations are CONSTANTLY being attacked because they have a "perceived liberal bias". CNN probably spends a ton of money to fight this image because it takes seriously its need to be "perceived as an independent news organization." This perception affects every part of its business, from gaining interviews, advertisers and viewers.
This guy goes and posts rather liberal, opinionated diatribes on a regular basis.
How many stories has CNN run about people losing jobs, internships, etc. because of what they post to their blogs? This guy is either a complete idiot who should be fired because of his total lack of awareness on these issues indicates he's completely out of touch, or he was flagrantly violating his terms of employment (the employee handbook).
The fact that he coyly says he had "read the handbook" and had even seen the passage in question but "didn't take it seriously" shows that he was in the latter camp: flagrantly violating his terms of employment.
As has been said elsewhere, his freedom of speech has in no way been violated. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this conversation because he wouldn't have been able to write what he did? His blog wasn't taken off line.
He lost his job. If he's as good a news person as he claims to be, he'll have a new one in no time.
Something tells me the way he handled this (flaming CNN on the way out) won't help him in that department.