And just like that, with one brief tweet, @OctaviaNasrCNN is no longer…That is, because of her tweet mourning the death of Lebanese religious leader Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Nasr has now been pushed out (fired? It’s not yet clear) from CNN. The tweet?
Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot #Lebanon
This is all too reminiscent of what happened to Helen Thomas in June. A journalist expresses an unpopular opinion–albeit with poor wording–and is pushed out of their job, with help from the Twittersphere.
What exactly is it about the opinion Nasr expressed that makes it worth firing her over? Well, Fadlallah was a “mentor to” Hezbollah, an organization that the United States considers a terrorist group. Mind you, halfway around the world, that’s not remotely how Hezbollah is viewed; like it or not, in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a legitimate political party and organization. And Fadlallah a respected figure, honored even in Western (and Israeli!) media.
Now, I get why Fadlallah’s views don’t sit well with Americans. I’m not remotely a fan myself. Nasr explained why she made the comment she did, stating that Fadlallah’s views on women, within the Shi’a context, were rather liberal and within that context, impactful. But in the end, none of that mattered, and another good journalist with a long career was sacked for expressing an opinion.
Here’s what I don’t get: How come Mike Huckabee is allowed to state that Palestinians don’t exist? Why are conservatives allowed to draw imaginary lines between Miss USA and Hezbollah with no reprisal? Why aren’t journalists able to freely cover the BP oil spill? And why oh why can Martin Kramer call for genocide and garner support from free speech advocates?
I get that this is not strictly a First Amendment issue…journalists working under contract for big media companies are paid to toe the company line (unfortunately) and while Nasr can say whatever she wants, she can’t do it while earning a CNN paycheck. What frustrates me to no end, however, is how skewed such companies’ perspectives are on these issues.
The New York Times is an excellent example of what I mean: Their Middle East bureau is run by Ethan Bronner, an American Jew whose son is currently serving voluntarily in the Israeli military, a sure conflict of interest. And yet, despite the Times ombudsman and the Columbia Journalism Review tackling the issue, nothing came of it; Bronner is still in his position, his son is still serving with the IDF, and still doesn’t really hire Arab journalists. No, I don’t believe that a Middle East team without Arabs is fair and balanced. And no, I don’t think the Times would treat the issue of a Palestinian journalist with a son involved with Hamas in the same manner whatsoever. And that’s the Times. If we can’t expect them to be fair, then there’s absolutely no hope for CNN.