Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
James Poulos, Ed. ·
Jul 7, 2010 at 7:08pm
What is there to say about the CNN editor fired for saying she has respect for a deceased Hezbollah cleric?
This: Our times apparently require us to join in a new game. When it comes to obituary praise, who's beyond the pale? Something about this game offends my sensibilities. But it's the talk of Twitter. And it raises what I suppose is an important question: where's the red line for a firing offense in situations like these?
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
Having to ask the question shows modern day moral relativism.
May '10
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
Twitter gives you 140 characters to work with: if you use three of those to say you're "sad" about the death of a Hezbollah loon and seven more to express your "respect" for the guy, you've crossed a line. Wherever the line is, you're on the wrong side of it - and your employer is justified in canning you for a lack of credibility.
May '10
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
Praising a terrorist, oppressive tyrant, or exponent of genocide -- alive or otherwise -- seems like firing grounds to me. She has a right to speak freely, of course; but CNN should be able to sever its relationship with her for having odious views. Is her firing actually creating some controversy in even nominally conservative quarters? From what I can see on TweetDeck, the howls of outrage are from the usual leftist suspects... no surprise there.
Jun '10
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
If they have praise for the life of someone involved in the terrorist killing of 200 American Marines (1983) then they are beyond the Pale, and hopefully forever beyond the borders of the USA. Good riddance.
Jun '10
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
Jimmy Carter: Having to ask the question shows modern day moral relativism. · Jul 7 at 7:16pm
Yeah, I think that has a lot to do with it Jimmy. For a culture that professes incessantly that you create your own reality, death is rattling. Death is the last and the ultimate objective fact. Most relativists have to confront objectivity at death. That's why relativists try to secularly beatify individuals after their death, even vile characters such as Teddy K - because the thought crosses their mind... "maybe there is something after death that I can't just make up on my own."
May '10
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
You can note the contrast between Ms. Nasr's micro-eulogy and Claire Berlinski's tart, "Good Riddance." I'll take Ms. Berlinski's moral clarity any day.
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
So, I posted this on the fly. Now that I'm back at HQ, the full story. Ms. Nasr's micro-eulogy was macro-repulsive and obtuse to the point of monstrosity. I raise the question about line-drawing because on my Twitter feed I see at least a few of our friends to the left arguing about whether a respect-filled eulogy for Donald Rumsfeld is -- what's the phrase? -- ah, here it is: "an interesting edge case." Ditto Pinochet. All honor to moral clarity -- and brace yourself for more of this kind of line-drawing.
May '10
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
The response to a seemingly odious Twitter post should not be a decision about firing or not firing someone. It should be, "Could you explain what you meant by that at greater length than 140 characters?"
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
Sometimes, Conor, that's absolutely right. But if the tweet said "Unless CNN honors this dead hero, CNN is an evil Zionist front," do you really sit down and ask for an explanation? Or do you show the person the door? Obviously CNN or any other news organization is entitled to hire, fire, and not fire at will. I'd say there's nothing hugely unreasonable about exercising swift judgment where praise for members of terrorist organizations is concerned.
May '10
Re: Thou Shalt Not Praise a Dead Terrorist
I'm drawing a distinction between a "seemingly odious Twitter post" and "unambiguously unforgivable Twitter post." And since very little is lost in "explain yourself, please," erring on that side seems prudent.
Let's take another look at that Tweet: "Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot." Surely it isn't a firing offense to be sad upon hearing that someone you've interviewed has died. So it's the "respect" line that is objectionable here.
So why not say, "Explain yourself, how can you respect this man?" If the answer includes, "it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah's life's work. That's not the case at all," and "I 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. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of 'honor killing.' He called the practice primitive and non-productive," well, everything suddenly looks very different.
CNN had the right to fire this woman, but I am not convinced that they should have done so.