Tom Friedman Says Nasr Firing Troubling , Frank Rich Says Mel Gibson Always Nuts

by Glynnis MacNicol | 3:29 pm, July 18th, 2010

» 9 comments

Today’s New York Times op-ed pages are all fired up…in fact they’re almost bloggy. I was going to confine this post to Tom Friedman‘s assessment of CNN’s decision to fire Octavia Nasr, but how to resist Frank Rich who manages to connect Mel Gibson‘s abusive tirades with the current state of politics (and Fox News) in this country.

First here is Friedman, who not only worries what CNN’s decision portends for future journalists, but backs up the thinking behind Nasr’s controversial (singular) tweet. It’s rare that I say this anymore about a Friedman piece, but this one is definitely worth reading all the way through.

I find Nasr’s firing troubling…To begin with, what has gotten into us? One misplaced verb now and within hours you can have a digital lynch mob chasing after you — and your bosses scrambling for cover. A journalist should lose his or her job for misreporting, for misquoting, for fabricating, for plagiarizing, for systemic bias — but not for a message like this one.

What signal are we sending young people? Trim your sails, be politically correct, don’t say anything that will get you flamed by one constituency or another. And if you ever want a job in government, national journalism or as president of Harvard, play it safe and don’t take any intellectual chances that might offend someone. In the age of Google, when everything you say is forever searchable, the future belongs to those who leave no footprints.

And here is Rich on Gibson…he is not nice.

Six years ago [Mel Gibson] was not merely an A-list movie star with a penchant for drinking and boorish behavior but also a powerful and canonized figure in the political and cultural pantheon of American conservatism. That he has reached rock bottom tells us nothing new about Gibson. He was the same talented, nasty, bigoted blowhard then that he is today. But his fall says a lot about the changes in our country over the past six years. We shouldn’t take those changes for granted. We should take stock — and celebrate. They are good news…It was into that tinderbox of America 2004 that Gibson tossed his self-financed and self-directed movie about the crucifixion, “The Passion of the Christ.”
[...]
It seems preposterous in retrospect that a film as bigoted and noxious as “The Passion” had so many reverent defenders in high places in 2004. Once Gibson, or at least the subconscious Gibson, baldly advertised his anti-Semitism with his obscene tirade during a 2006 D.U.I. incident in Malibu, his old defenders had no choice but to peel off. Today you never hear conservatives mention their embrace of “The Passion” back then — if they mention Gibson at all. (Fox News has barely covered the new tapes. Ed note: Shepard Smith has talked about this frequently.) But it isn’t just Gibson who has been discredited. Even as he self-immolated, so did many of the moral paragons who had rallied around him as a culture-war martyr.

CNN, Frank Rich, Mel Gibson, New York Times, Octavia Nasr, Tom Friedman

http://apostrophejones.com Apostrophe jones

Which of these smarmy tubs is more revolting ?
http://apostrophejones.com Apostrophe jones

Hard to choose , isn’t it ?
http://apostrophejones.com Apostrophe jones

Hey . Can I sell my jams and jellies like Mr.Alphabet up above me ?
felixw

Mel Gibson embarrasses himself in crazy, indefensible rants over the phone, revealing his paranoia and lack of control. Frank Rich does the same, but under the imprimatur of the New York Times.
CaptainAmerica

The editor should make another note. The FNC show that beats most of CNN and MSNBC–”Red Eye” has talked about it constantly. They’ve done night after night about Mel’s tapes. Also, it was Red Eye from the start who questioned the tapes. It was the one cable show that acted like the tapes were doctored.
errxn

Wow, Frank Rich uses this sad episode as an excuse to throw everyone that he disagrees with under the bus. Color me shocked.
http://www.abramsresearch.com/ Dan Abrams

I totally disagree with Friedman here. You have to make a choice — either journalists can express opinions about the people and subjects they cover or the can’t. I happen to believe that it would be far more honest and enlightening if journalists admitted their biases when they have strong feelings about issues they cover. That would allow the reader to judge what that should mean.

But that is not the way CNN or The New York Times for that matter, operate. They claim that much of their value comes from dispassionate reporting with no bias towards one side or the other. So when a journalist who covers the middle east expresses admiration for the leader of a group that is at least partially a terror organization, its not just a small matter. He may have done other amazing things including being more progressive than others of his ilk, but can you imagine what would happen to an American journalist expressing admiration for an Al Quaeda leader who had other, better, attributes? When you work at a media entity like CNN (or the New York Times) and you don’t get that words matter — all of them– then that in and of itself, should be a fireable offense.

Friedman claims the standard as follows: “A journalist should lose his or her job for misreporting, for misquoting, for fabricating, for plagiarizing, for systemic bias — but not for a message like this one.” Really? Misreporting? or Misquoting? So a journalist, according to Friedman should lose his or her job for what may have been a mistake but not for what is clearly a heartfelt bias towards one of the key figures in the most contentious issue that she covers?

I think what he meant to say is that journalists ought to have more latitude to express opinions in this new media age. I agree. But then the standard has to be changed for everyone not just for her, and even then, I am not sure she can keep covering this story.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Lotus-Man/504821183 Lotus Man

<blockquote cite= Also, it was Red Eye from the start who questioned the tapes. It was the one cable show that acted like the tapes were doctored.

Experts who have directly reviewed the tape have already indicated that the tapes were NOT doctored. It was just Red Eye trying to make excuses for conservative poster boy, Mel.
lazzzlo

Wow.

“Dispassionate reporting with no bias.”

In one reader/viewers opinion, I really think that is the crux of the matter.

“I think what he meant to say is that journalists ought to have more latitude to express opinions in this new media age. I agree. But then the standard has to be changed for everyone not just for her, and even then, I am not sure she can keep covering this story.”

Should reporting still be straight forward and non-biased or at least commentary while witnessing “the news”?

And is there a need for an Editor or an Ombudsman?