CNN does something RIGHT for a change

Media Bias
CNN X

A CNN switchboard operator was fired over the holiday — after the operator claimed the ‘X’ placed over Vice President’s Dick Cheney’s face was “free speech!”

“We did it just to make a point. Tell them to stop lying, Bush and Cheney,” the CNN operator said to a caller. “Bring our soldiers home.”

Laurie Goldberg, Senior Vice President for Public Relations with CNN, said in a release:

“A Turner switchboard operator was fired today after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views — behavior that was totally inappropriate. His comments did not reflect the views of CNN. We are reaching out to the caller and expressing our deep regret to her and apologizing that she did not get the courtesy entitled to her. ”

At first, I was very reluctant to claim that the “X” that was flashed over Vice President Cheney’s face during a recent speech, was anything but an equipment malfunction. Having done video editing when I was in college, I am familiar with various forms of cues that are used to key up segments of video. I did not want to jump the gun and claim CNN was up to the typical tactics of the current liberals in charge, in D.C..

What bugs me the most about this, is not the act itself, but the typical interpretation of “free speech” by most of this country. We live in a country where you can stand up, and say “I do not agree with the President”, and I respect that right. Where I believe that right ends, is when you express those feelings in a forum where you 1)cause actions in response to your speech, that cause someone harm, or 2)when those beliefs are forced upon an audience that is captive, or unsuspecting. While you are capable of changing the channel, one doesn’t expect a media mogul such as CNN, to air a personal political grievance such as this, so it is in one way or another, being forced upon a captive audience and therefore inappropriate.

I thank CNN and it’s staff, for taking such action against this individual. Before you assume “the worst”, I would have the same opinion, had this been 1998, and this was VP Al Gore.

11 Comments

  1. Libertarian Jason  •  Nov 28, 2005 @10:10 AM

    1)cause actions in response to your speech, that cause someone harm,

    Define “harm”. For argument’s sake, let’s assume the whole thing was part of a “vast left wing conspiracy”. To whom did this evil “X” cause harm? (And no…your delicate sensibilities do not count….)

    or 2)when those beliefs are forced upon an audience that is captive, or unsuspecting.

    Oh, please… Are you trying to say that television viewers are held captive by the idiot box? The last time I checked my tekevision remote, there was not only a channel changer button, but an on/off switch as well….AND no one was holding a gun to my head.

    Even if this was intentional, it would still under the guidelines of free speech. Maybe poor in taste, but still free nonetheless.

    (Or do you think media outlets should be rquired by law to be more “sensitive”?)

  2. James  •  Nov 28, 2005 @10:23 AM

    Ok, first… I never once said “I am offended by this”.

    I never said that this harmed anyone, what I DID say was that your freedom ceases to exist when what you say causes harm. Nothing I said in that case applies to this situation, it was just a provision for the lack of a TOTAL freedom.

    I also mentioned that you are not LITERALLY a captive audience while watching TV, we all have the freedom of self censorship, but what we tend to block out or change the channel, we can see coming.

    My point was that given that no one could have seen something like that coming, this persons views are forced on the viewers AT LEAST one time, against their will. Poor taste? YES! Should he have been fired? YES!

    I’m not as “sensitive as you assume I am. Otherwise you would have seen me jump on this when it happened.

  3. Libertarian Jason  •  Nov 28, 2005 @11:21 AM

    Well, I never said you were offended by this…but the general consensus among people on “the right” seems to be that CNN ought to be brought up on charges of treason, and after a brief show-trial, summarily executed.

    My request still remains, though: Define “harm”. I was always taught that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me”… So I’m interested to see what your definition of what “harm” is done by such speech.

    It is likewise absurd to think that you have a right to not be offended/bothered/put-off by something you “didn’t expect”. There are plenty of things in life that happen that we don’t expect that are otherwise things we would rather not see/hear/experience…. Hell, I run into it every day at work. So do I have a right to then force others to behave in ways I would rather they behave? Or is the burden on me to changes my actions… (ie. not watch CNN, find a new job, etc…)

  4. John  •  Nov 28, 2005 @2:37 PM

    “…but the general consensus among people on “the right” seems to be that CNN ought to be brought up on charges of treason, and after a brief show-trial, summarily executed.”

    Do you have a source for this? Who said that and how is it a general consensus amongst “the Right?” I’d like to see a list of specific examples to back this up. Everything else you said is true. But even in the absence of a right to freedom from offensive “whatevers,” do people not retain the right to complain if they think something is wrong?

  5. James  •  Nov 28, 2005 @2:53 PM

    My request still remains, though: Define “harm”. I was always taught that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me”… So I’m interested to see what your definition of what “harm” is done by such speech.

    When I say that “harm” can be done by someones “speech”, I am implying the following.

    Say that I am standing on a pedestal in the town square, preaching that all people with hazel eyes, must face death by having their eyes gouged out with hot pokers, and then they should be drawn and quartered… and while I am preaching this, a rather large angry mob of “hazel eye haters” gathers around and starts practicing what I am preaching, I am putting people in harms way by enciting the actions from my words. The words themselves don’t hurt a bit, but “in a court of law” I can be found guilty of inciting violence from my speech.

  6. Libertarian Jason  •  Nov 28, 2005 @3:14 PM

    Do you have a source for this? Who said that and how is it a general consensus amongst “the Right?”

    As I’ve listened to talk radio, surfed the net, and talked with my right-leaning friends, this is the impression I get. I meant that strictly in an anecdotal sense.

    But even in the absence of a right to freedom from offensive “whatevers,” do people not retain the right to complain if they think something is wrong?

    Absolutely. You may complain to anyone who will listen, using whatever resources you are able to muster on your own.

    But the implication of the the phrase “you have a right to free speech unless….”, especially in this context, is that when you violate that “unless”, then government action is warranted. After all, only government can violate free speech. The rest is simply a question of property.

  7. Libertarian Jason  •  Nov 28, 2005 @3:25 PM

    Say that I am standing on a pedestal….

    Well, I might say you _still_ have a right to say that. The fact that others listen to you, and more importantly, act on what you say, is grounds for their punishment…(and a harsh one at that, I might add.) But any punishment you receive, I might suggest is unwarranted, because to say you “caused” these Hazel-eye bashers to commit the acts they did is to suggest that they were not responsible for their actions…you were. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to keep the blame where it belongs.

    Speech certainly can motivate people to do various things. In fact, one could argue that the sole purpose of communication is to illicit a behavior. If we start criminalizing the speech because it leads to undesirable actions, then how can we differentiate them? And more importantly, _who_ gets to decide? For example, if I’m a socialist who is convinced that anyone who dares suggest that speech advocating the abolishing of welfare is akin to advocating the starvation of old people and minorities…wouldn’t I be justified in punishing the speaker because if people start acting on that speech, that would be “bad”?

    My point is…its very subjective what constitutes “hate speech”…and criminalizing hate speech is really just criminalizing thought. Let’s punish violent acts, and combat ugly and distasteful speech with our own free speech.

  8. John  •  Nov 28, 2005 @4:51 PM

    But the implication of the the phrase “you have a right to free speech unless….”, especially in this context, is that when you violate that “unless”, then government action is warranted. After all, only government can violate free speech. The rest is simply a question of property.

    A point I never argued nor even implied anything to the contrary.

  9. James  •  Nov 28, 2005 @5:47 PM

    Well, I might say you _still_ have a right to say that. The fact that others listen to you, and more importantly, act on what you say, is grounds for their punishment…(and a harsh one at that, I might add.) But any punishment you receive, I might suggest is unwarranted, because to say you “caused” these Hazel-eye bashers to commit the acts they did is to suggest that they were not responsible for their actions…you were. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to keep the blame where it belongs.

    While I tend to agree, judicial precedent shows otherwise. One CAN make the arguement that the current Judicial precident is wrong, but until someone does, “hate speech” is still a crime.

    What should be done to someone who yells fire in a crowded public place when there isn’t one? What if someone is trampled to death? Personally, I think the person who yelled, IS responsible for the words that came out of their mouth.

  10. Libertarian Jason  •  Nov 29, 2005 @9:20 AM

    While I tend to agree, judicial precedent shows otherwise. One CAN make the arguement that the current Judicial precident is wrong, but until someone does, “hate speech” is still a crime.

    I knows it’s called a “crime”…but just because you call something a crime, doesn’t make it so. Moreover, I disagree that your implication that it _should_ be a crime wasn’t made. If that’s not your position, then I would urge you to be a bit more precise.

    What should be done to someone who yells fire in a crowded public place when there isn’t one? What if someone is trampled to death? Personally, I think the person who yelled, IS responsible for the words that came out of their mouth.

    Ahh, I was hoping you’d bring this up. This is probably one of the most twisted conclusions ever in the history of debates on free speech. Who was that Supreme Court Justice who said that… Hugo Black? I forget.

    In any event…the issue in such a case isn’t one of free speech, but rather property rights and the principle of contract. The reason why you can’t yell “fire!” (or anything else, for that matter) in a movie theater is because the movie theater doesn’t allow it. When you buy a ticket to see a movie, you do so with the expectation that you will watch the movie in a civilized manner and not interrupt the performance for others in attendence. Yelling “fire!” needlessly, or any other action which violates your agreement to sit down and shut up, violates that agreement, and then subjects the violator to appropriate penealties. If your action causes harm, then it is the violation of your agreement that is the source of your punishment…not the exceeding of ones free speech rights.

    Remember, ones rights are always subject to the limitations imposed by the equal rights of others. Your free speech ends where my property begins.

  11. James  •  Nov 29, 2005 @11:33 AM

    Ahhh, but I didn’t SAY in a movie theater :)… I asked, “What should be done to someone who yells fire in a crowded public place when there isn’t one?”

    Removing the restraints of private property rights and your contract by purchasing a movie ticket.

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. For further information please see my Comments Policy.