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