I recently wrote about my concern over the publication by CNN of a statement that it had identified the man responsible for a satiric wrestling video that was reposted by President Donald Trump. CNN declared that the man had removed not just the video but other material deemed offensive or “ugly” by the networks. In light of his actions, CNN said that it would not reveal his identity — for now. The clear message was that CNN reserved that right to disclose the man’s identity if he resumed posting material deemed ugly by the network. Many of us objected to CNN’s language and rationale as inimical to journalistic standards and free speech. CNN analyst Kirsten Powers insisted that such concerns are groundless and that CNN acted entirely appropriately. She specifically responded to my column in USA Today raising these concerns. Both Powers and I are contributors to USA Today.
Before responding to Powers’ arguments, it is important to repeat what CNN actually said (and later what I actually said):
“CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”
Many of us saw that statement as high-handed, judgmental, and threatening. CNN clearly stated that it was not releasing the man’s identity because he had shown sufficient remorse and promised that “he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again.” CNN further says that it has not published his name because his apology “could serve as an example to others not to do the same.” It then reserves the right to disclose his name “should any of that change.”
All of that seems quite unambiguous and clearly inappropriate. It is hard to know where to start. The news story dealt with a videotape snatched out of obscurity by the President. Yet, CNN ties its decision to the poster stripping a variety of postings deemed ugly. More importantly, it clearly says that it based its actions on its satisfaction with the removal of the material and that fact that this would be a warning to others “not to do the same.” The “same” what? Posting things deemed “ugly” or insulting to the media or just insulting to CNN? If CNN is going to get into the business of withholding names based on its desire to send messages or force redemptive conduct, it should at least be clear. Finally, CNN did not simply say that it might release the man’s name if it became news. It said it could release it “should any of that change.” The “that” was his showing remorse, stripping postings deemed “ugly”, and serving as an example to others.
Powers does not address any of that language, but she does repeatedly state that I accused CNN of “being a ‘censor.'” In reality, I said that CNN was “behaving like a media censor.” (The title selected by USA Today also referred to “censor” but, as Powers must know, we do not pick our titles as columnists). There is a difference. I would never call CNN an actual censor because it did not directly remove material or even had the authority to do so. The column stated that this type of threat created a chilling effect on speech and used CNN’s position as a media organization to shape or deter speech.
While Powers insists that “there are consequences to our speech,” she fails to mention that I stated repeatedly that CNN would have been within its right to publish the name as news. What it did not have the right to do is to use the threat of publishing news to create a type of probationary status for a citizen. One can easily debate the culpability of this Reddit poster who merely mocked CNN – a video that took on a more sinister meaning with the President’s reposting.
Powers’ column reveals the very relativistic view that prompted my column. She generously states that anonymity has a place in free speech and “We don’t want to discourage that.” Of course, you can hear the “but” coming down the railroad tracks after a comment like that:
“But in a mature society, we should be able to distinguish the person trying to be a participant in the political system from a person who uses their anonymity to viciously target and attack people based on their race or religion.”
That sounds a lot like CNN’s “mature” view that we will not “out” you unless you write something we deem offensive. My view, stated in the earlier column, is that the man’s identity became news when his work was re-posted. His video was a fairly typical satire from on the left and the right on Reddit. Trump made him news. However, in my view, CNN should publish his name solely on the basis of whether it is news — not his promise to reform and his continued good behavior. If his name is not news today, what does it matter if he uses his anonymity to post objectionable or even hateful views? Will Powers and CNN apply the same standard to the millions of others posting such views, including some with high rates of “likes” or repostings?
Moreover, Powers refers to attacks based on race or religion. However, the notoriety of this man was a videotape that had a clear political content. CNN then proclaimed that the man had removed a variety things that it deemed “ugly.” Either the man’s other postings were news or it was not. CNN has no license to leverage news coverage based on changes in conduct by critics.
Yet, Powers insists that such leverage should be used based solely on whether it would work – not whether it changes the role of a news organization. Powers says that if she ran a company and felt that a poster was trying “to incite anti-Semitic rancor,” she could threaten the poster to “cease and desist from this kind of behavior.” She added “If releasing their identity was my only leverage, I would use it.” That certainly makes all of this simpler as a matter of journalistic ethics. It is merely about whether it would work. It is the ends not the means that is the focus of the analysis.
Of course, this is the worst form of consequentialism and, in my view, the very antithesis of ethics in justifying the means by the ends of one’s actions. Journalism is all about the means in how and why you report stories. Principles require you to do something that may not be to your advantage. If CNN declared that the man’s name was not news, there would have been no controversy. Likewise, if it declared that the news value did not out weigh the possible harm that could befall the man, most of us would have undersood and even supported the decision. Instead, CNN listed a serious of actions and said that it wanted this to be a lesson to others. It then said that it would reserve publication based on future good behavior.
Notably, CNN has not followed the recommended course of Powers who not only wanted the name released, but seems to take the view that all is fair in dealing with posters deemed offensive or vicious. What is missing in such an approach is principle. That is the one thing a news organization cannot do without.
Is Powers a legal expert.? Somehow, I doubt that. She’s trying to keep her job.
Why doesn’t the guy…or gal…at the centre of all this, come clean and get a Lawyer.?
J.T. Would be a good choice.
Of course, we don’t know if HanSolo’s other posts were racists or anti-Semitic or “ugly” because CNN coerced them into non-existence. We only have CNN’s word for it and we know how unreliable that can be.
What is lost in all of this is the terrific symbolism contained in the meme: CNN trying to take down Trump; Trump trying to take down CNN. Best two falls out of three.
Neither will take down the other. It’s not 1990, anymore. CNN preaches to the choir and hardly anyone else. Market fragmentation and their own lack of professionalism ensure that.
Trump holds his own in these exchanges by refusing to cave. With most Republican pols, you expect them to call a press conference and simper an apology, something Democratic pols do not do because these contrived media storms are seldom aimed at them. If they don’t, poltroons like Paul Ryan and greasy crooks like Haley Barbour bail on them and feed the media storm. Trump’s energizing because he won’t engage in this fan dance. He just tells the media to screw.
Here is what HanSolo ought to do: Call CNN’s bluff. Publish a second video with the same scenario. This time, the CNN guy takes down Trump. See if CNN has a gripe about it and discloses his name. If they do, they look stupid. If they don’t, they look hypocritical.
More importantly, the match will then be even at one fall apiece. He can make a 3rd video depicting the rubber fall. He sells advertising to it and makes a mint, all because of the publicity generated by CNN.
There is so much wrong with CNN’s conduct.
Why is seeking the creator of the Trump Clothslining gif “news” or the business of CNN ?
CNN makes a big deal of it acting to punish racist or sexist conduct.
Assuming arguendo that the creator of the Gif also engaged in racist and sexist posts.
The CNN gif itself was neither.
The only possible reason CNN could have for seeking out the author is to use its immense power as a major media outlet to crush some small fry who embarrassed it.
We are often offended by Trump Tweets – but atleast the conflict between Trump and CNN is a fair fight – despite CNN calling Trump a “bully”
Trump has gone after people – reporters and others with the wherewithal to attack back.
The contest between CNN and Trump is inherently fair.
While the rhetoric should embarrass them both.
Neither is engaged in bullying.
But CNN actively sought out some annoymous redditt poster – for the crime of making fun of CNN,
not for racism or sexism.
Regardless of whatever else they may have found,
their purpose was to intimidate a little guy who embarrassed them.
That is bullying.
Their subsequence self serving defenses are ludicrous.
And we have only their word about BOTH the apology and the purportedly offensive posts that have purportedly been subsequently deleted.
Professor Turley asserts, with conviction and conclusiveness, “… Of course, consequentialism is the very antithesis of ethics…”
Every advantage in the past is judged in the light of the final issue. —Demosthenes
Demosthenes (/dɪˈmɒs.θəniːz/; Greek: Δημοσθένης Dēmosthénēs; Attic Greek: [dɛːmostʰénɛːs]; 384 – 12 October 322 BC) was a Greek statesman and orator of ancient Athens. His orations constitute a significant expression of contemporary Athenian intellectual prowess and provide an insight into the politics and culture of ancient Greece during the 4th century BC. Demosthenes learned rhetoric by studying the speeches of previous great orators. He delivered his first judicial speeches at the age of 20, in which he argued effectively to gain from his guardians what was left of his inheritance. For a time, Demosthenes made his living as a professional speech-writer (logographer) and a lawyer, writing speeches for use in private legal suits.
Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequencesof one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the saying, “the end justifies the means”,[1] meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.[2]
Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology, in which rules and moral duty are central, derives the rightness or wrongness of one’s conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also contrasted with virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethicswhich treats morality like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision. Consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods.
Wikipedia
The professor is at best ignorant ( lacking knowledge ) and at worse stupid ( possessing knowledge and knowingly speaking/writing incorrectly.
What ever knowledge or proficiency the professor may possess he seems to me constantly and consistently over step his apparent area.
Sad.
Sad.
Turley’s ideology (similar to Lewis Powell’s) drives his choice of topic, his omission of contradictory information and his conclusions.
If CNN reporters and pundits start to learn basics of decent living they will stop bullying people while claiming that they are being bullied . CNN has become a filthy pool of corruption and mental illness that makes them feel grandiose and virtuous . In reality CNN is nothing but a stinky small pond of characters who are full of themselves but have no real stature !
I read the entire article again and there is a lot of bla bla here. If you “name” the dork (reveal his Identity) then you might accelerate his behavior, not curb it. Ignore the dork. Do not publish his message. The media is the message here.
Yammer, yammer, Turley.
Free speech, remember?
No one has the right to threaten a citizen for engaging in his or her freedom of speech.. That meme was an opinion. CNN is dancing on the razors edge..
Sorry, that is not what free speech states; no restrictions at all.
Might be some applicable state law as the several states can restrict speech acts.
Good Lord!
Free speech issues occur ONLY when the government claims control over it.
CNN is a corporation, even though it can’t be executed in Texas, it is subject to EEOC regulations.
suggested reading: https://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-speech-and-how-does-it-apply-to-the-internet
I did read on Infowars that CNN’s ratings have dropped so low, they are on life support. Zucker better be polishing that resume.
Paul Schulte,..
I would bet that Zucker has a generous Golden Parachute to tide him over, if he’s aced out.
I’ve noticed that the amounts of the severence packages can be very high, especially if the departing executive has run the company into the ground.
tnash – there is supposed to be a merger with AT&T. CNN stock is so low at this point the shareholders are holding junk bonds. Variety has been reporting for some time that Zucker’s removal has to be part of the deal.
Paul Schulte…
CNN is part of Time-Warner, but I don’t think they have stock that trades on its own.
Time-Warner stock (TWX) has been very strong due to the takeover premium AT&T is paying.
Paul, it’s a subsidiary of Turner, which is a subsidiary of Time-Warner. I don’t think shares in Turner are publicly traded, much less shares in CNN.
DSS – you are right. The proposed merger is AT&T and Time-Warner. However, CNN was one of their signature products. As it rolls down into the pig sty, it makes the merger less attractive. There is some talk that the merger is off, some that Zucker has to go, some that CNN will be spun-off.
What’s interesting about Zucker is that he’s been a media prince for 20-odd years. When what they conceive of as a meritocracy operates, he’s what you get.
His predecessor is another interesting product: a pure company man, hired by the company at age 24 and not departing until age 54. One of their major embarrassments over the years was Eason Jordan, another company man there employed from age 23 to age 47. Messrs. Jordan and Walton were both hired when the company had been in operation for about two years. They were a manifestation of the institutional culture as it had developed from nearly the point of origin to a point decades later. These guys were not aberrant. They were archetypes.
Paul Schulte,….
If the takeover of Time Warner falls through, it would most likely be because of anti-trust issues.
The EU and shareholders of both companies have approved the deal….if the U.S. blicks it, we’ll probably know within 2-3 months.e AT&T will pay $85 Billion for TW. Thete are so many componentssubsidiaries in the Time Warner empire that they may divest certain parts after they’ve acquired it.
AT&T’s debt load will be c.$160 Billion if the takeover is OKed.
That’s up from about $70 Billion 5 years ago, before the Direct TV and TW takeovers.
“which is a subsidiary of Time-Warner. ” Dig deeper DSS.
Is the DNC a subsidiary of Time-Warner? 🙂
I think in daily viewership they rank 8th out of the hundreds of cable networks out there. They’re not going anywhere. They’re just not worth much anymore. Thirty years ago, they were serious business and a challenge to the extant news cartel. Now they’re a niche product for garbage-for-brains partisan Democrats. Retrospectively, you can see they were at their zenith around about 1990.
I’m not sure there are any good sources anymore. The Times best days were over on the day A.M. Rosenthal retired. NPR’s always been a liberal network, but it was not until about 1986 that you realized they’re editorial policy allowed the use of sanadalista as stringers. PBS had a decent if imperfect product, but its quality was crucially dependent on the presence of two men, both of whom are now retired. Now you watch the News Hour to amuse yourself spotting the scamomatic story framing by Judy’s minions. U.S. News and World Report is gone. Newsweek‘s about gone. Before they discontinued their print edition, they decided to re-invent themselves as a variant of an opinion magazine. Readers got to see how utterly banal and uniform were the prog politics of Jon Meacham and his staff. It gave you some appreciation for Norman Cousins and Martin Peretz, who knew how to make that sort of thing engaging and lively.
Extortion’s a crime, David. What they did might also be a tort.
Miz Powers better be salting away her earnings from CNN cause it’s only a matter of time before it fails. Right now indies – both Progressive and Conservative — are contacting advertisers. Only old people who don’t get the internet still tune to their crap.
one millennial’s take:
It is clear that CNN was engaging in blackmail that happens to be legal, but not ethical IMO. They aren’t much of a news organization any longer. Powers wasn’t engaging in blackmail, but she seems not to base what she would do on principle, typical of a leftist. JT took the high road. If its newsworthy (which I don’t believe it is) then print the name. However, this wasn’t newsworthy because of the kid that published it, rather it was newsworthy only because Trump repeated it and his name was in the news loud and clear.
Allan – I am not aware of legal blackmail. If it is legal, then it is not blackmail. By definition, blackmail is illegal.
Paul, I have no question in my mind that blackmail is not legal so on that score you are correct and I am wrong in the use of the phrase legal blackmail. However, blackmail is actually something that is proven in court and unless proven carries no legal penalty and is not criminal. In this case, at least IMO and my gut, blackmail occurred but the one (a tiny minow in an ocean of sharks) being blackmailed has little or no chance of justice so CNN can get away with the criminal intention of their act. Thus I call it legal blackmail with a bit of sarcasm on the legal end. Of course you could always add “ ” and call it “legal blackmail”.
Allen – there are two stories that CNN is floating within their own story. One, the guy found them and apologized and took other stuff down, supposedly offensive. The other story is that CNN tracked him him down through his IP address, using Time-Warner and then forced him to apologize and take things down. According to CNN they have talked to him on the phone and now even the apology has been taken off of reddit. Now, if the latter is true, they doxxed him and blackmailed him. If it is the former, they are still blackmailing him by saying they will dox him. Either, would not pass journalism ethics when I was going to school.
Paul, even to use the term journalists with these con artists from CNN is to disparage anyone writing an honest account. James O’Keefe is a journalist and look at what government and the left wing say about him. Why he even got house arrest for his disclosure of the affairs of Senator Landrieu is beyond belief except that politicians and the news media wield a lot of power. That is one of the reasons I call CNN a legal blackmailer because that is exactly who they are. If O’keefe got charged for his IMO totally legal actions then anyone even this kid can be severely damaged by such powerful entities.
I also think it’s pretty hilarious that CNN has reacted so strongly to this video! Sure, they think those they criticize and ridicule 24/7 (usually Trump) should just cower and whimper ineffectually (or, as they put it, “presidentially”), but they’ve twisted their knickers over a parody wrestling video? Hilarious! Who’s “thin-skinned” and “narcissistic” now? LOL!
CNN has hired people , from CEO to its anchors and pundits who are nothing but jokes .
Powers is a AA minor leaguer and JT is a major league all-star. This exchange clearly shows that reality.
What Nick said. Exactly.
Excellent article!
CNN doesn’t understand — not only do their actions have a chilling effect on speech, but also on the willingness of future “sources” to come forward with information as well. What ‘source’ in their right mind would ever trust a CNN journalist now? God forbid if you were to ever disappoint them — they’d out your whole family.
“consequentialism is the very antithesis of ethics”
How was I to know: she was with the Russians too?
–Warren Zevon
Ms Powers made Prof. Turley’s point.
CNN is drifting farther from journalistic integrity every day.
CNN said they wouldn’t be bullied or intimidated by President Trump but it’s OK to threaten HanSolo unless he apologizes. Shouldn’t they apologize to President Trump for the unfounded claims about him and Russian collusion?
The target of CNN’s threats should get a good attorney and sue. In that event, whether he has a viable case or not, CNN will likely reach into its currently deep pockets and settle to end the suit and the negative publicity that’s sure to follow it.
On another track, what does all this protection from violence tell us? It seems clear that left of center violence is now an accepted principle, and CNN, if not everyone in the media, knows it–and arguably promotes it with their biased coverage and “fake news.” If the individual’s name gets released, and if any harm should come to him, CNN will own that. If they think they’re under attack now, “they ain’t seen nothing yet.”
Finally, CNN’s ratings are headed to the cellar, where I think belong. And, as it is with individuals who come under scrutiny by their employers, it’s more than likely CNN will continue to dig themselves ever deeper into a hole. They’re digging, they deserve what’s coming, and I’ll lead the cheers when the hole collapses around and over them.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/ratings-collapse-cnn-now-losing-nick-nite-prime-time-ratings-war/
No one has the right to threaten a citizen for engaging in his or her freedom of speech.. That meme was an opinion. CNN is dancing on the razors edge..
Consider this my clicking the “Like” option.
We live in a sociopathic culture and we do not expect decency from institutions and their mouthpieces. (Especially if they’re part of the social nexus which includes the Democratic Party of Rackets).
“We live in a sociopathic culture and we do not expect decency from institutions and their mouthpieces.”
Rinse and repeat.
I used to occasionally watch Powers when she worked for Fox. To call her an unoriginal DNC mouthpiece is being unnecessarily gracious.
Doxxing is wrong. Blackmail is illegal.
This week CNN also admitted that this guy was the wrong guy and only had “A version” of the video and not “The Video”.
This is a key point “KFILE identified the guy who posted a version of the video on Reddit…”
http://mailchi.mp/cnn/reliable-july-5-2017
Exactly. The video was shared and re shared thousands of times. Most likely the President got it up off of Twitter.
But we are suppose to believe #FakeNews ‘spoke’ to the dude, he confessed, and he is also an
Anti-Semite for good measure?
Yet CNN cannot figure out that Computer Expert Seth Rich employed by the DNC was killed after he became upset with the corruption of Bernie losing, and the content of filth in the tens of thousands of emails, that he decided to give to Wikileaks?
We are to believe CNN when they told us only THEY should be allowed to read Wikileaks??? And not the little people?
You cite the Seth Rich murder hysteria hyped by the right wing. The myth has been debunked. For a review, Wikipedia compiled a list of studies about the investigation.