War on Freedom

CNN warns it may expose an anonymous critic if he ever again publishes bad content!

on . Posted in War on Freedom

NEW YORK (PNN) - July 6, 2017 - A controversy erupted late Tuesday night after CNN published an article announcing that it had uncovered the identity of the anonymous Reddit user who created the video of President Donald Trump punching a CNN logo. CNN and other outlets had previously reported that this user, who uses a pseudonym, had also posted anti-Semitic and racist content on Reddit, including an image identifying all of the Jewish employees of CNN, designated with a Jewish star next to their photos. Though CNN decided - for now - not to reveal his name, the network made clear that this discretion was predicated on the user’s lengthy public apology, his promise not to repeat the behavior, and his status as a private citizen. But in its article, the network explicitly threatened that it could change its mind about withholding the user’s real name if his behavior changes in the future.

Several of the objections made to CNN’s conduct here appear to be false. That includes the claim by the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., that the user threatened by CNN is 15 years old (the CNN reporter, Andrew Kaczynski, said the Reddit user is an adult). The claim that CNN “blackmailed” the user into apologizing - expressed by a Twitter hashtag, #CNNBlackmail, that still sits at the top of trending topics on the site - seems dubious at best, since there is no evidence the user spoke to CNN before posting his apology (though CNN itself says it contacted the user the day before he posted his apology, which presumably means he knew CNN had found out his name when he posted it).

But the invalidity of those particular accusations does not exonerate CNN. There is something self-evidently creepy, bullying, and heavy-handed about a large news organization publicly announcing that it will expose someone’s identity if he ever again publishes content on the Internet that the network deems inappropriate or objectionable. Whether it was CNN’s intent or not, the article makes it appear as if CNN will be monitoring this citizen’s online writing, and will punish him with exposure if he writes something the network dislikes.

There is also something untoward about the fact that CNN - the subject of the original video - was the news outlet that uncovered his identity. That fact creates the appearance of vengeance. If you, even as a random and anonymous Internet user, post content critical of CNN, then it will use its vast corporate resources to investigate you, uncover your identity, and threaten to expose you if you ever again do so.

The reality here is likely more complicated. The most offensive passage here - “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change” - sounds like classic lawyer language that executives or corporate lawyers would demand be included. It does not sound like something a typical journalist would write on his or her own. (CNN did not respond to inquiries about who inserted this language or what future behavior on the part of the user might trigger CNN’s threat to expose him.)

CNN’s role in discovering this user’s identity is likely more a byproduct of Kaczynski’s well-established Internet-sleuthing skills than a corporate decision to target a critic. Indeed, the decision to withhold the person’s name - had it been made without the threat to expose it in the future - could arguably be heralded as a commendable case of journalistic restraint.

In response to the controversy last night, Kaczynski argued that “this line is being misinterpreted. It was intended only to mean we made no agreement [with] the man about his identity.” That may have been CNN’s intent, but that is not what the sentence says.

Whatever the intent, this is a case where one of the nation’s most powerful media corporations is explicitly threatening a critic with exposure should he publish material that the network deems - based on its own secret standards - to be worthy of punishment; and the threat comes in the wake of his groveling public apology, posted less than a day after he learned CNN had discovered his identity.

There is also a real question about whether a news organization - when deciding what information is newsworthy - should take into account factors such as whether someone is remorseful for what he said and whether he promises not to express similar views in the future. Those considerations seem to be the province of those vested with the power to punish bad behavior - a parent, a terrorist pig thug cop, or a judge - rather than a news outlet. All of this has a strong whiff of CNN deciding who is a good boy and who is a bad boy based on the content of its views, and doling out journalistic punishments and rewards accordingly.

Moreover, if this person’s name is newsworthy - on the ground that racists or others who post inflammatory content should be publicly exposed and vilified - does it matter if he expressed what CNN executives regard as sufficient remorse? If his name is not newsworthy, then why should CNN be threatening to reveal it in the event that he makes future utterances that the network dislikes?

If you’re someone who believes that media corporations should expose the identity even of random, anonymous Internet users who express anti-Semitic or racist views, then you should be prepared to identify the full list of views that merit similar treatment. Should anyone who supports Trump have his or her identity exposed? Those who oppose marriage equality? Those with views deemed sexist? Those who advocate communism? Are you comfortable with having corporate media executives decide which views merit public exposure?

Whatever else is true, CNN is a massive media corporation that is owned by an even larger corporation. It has virtually unlimited resources. We should cheer when those resources are brought to bear to investigate those who exercise great political and economic power. But when they are used to threaten and punish a random, obscure citizen who has criticized the network - no matter how objectionable his views might be - it resembles corporate bullying and creepy censorship more than actual journalism.

Eulogies

Eulogy for an Angel
1992-Dec. 20, 2005

My Father
1918-2010

brents dad

Dr. Stan Dale
1929-2007

stan dale

A. Solzhenitsyn
1918-2008

solzhenitsyn

Patrick McGoohan
1928-2009

mcgoohan

Joseph A. Stack
1956-2010

Bill Walsh
1931-2007

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Eustace Mullins
1923-2010

Paul Harvey
1918-2009

Don Harkins
1963-2009

Joan Veon
1949-2010

David Nolan
1943-2010

Derry Brownfield
1932-2011

Leroy Schweitzer
1938-2011

Vaclav Havel
1936-2011

Andrew Breitbart
1969-2012

Dick Clark
1929-2012

Bob Chapman
1935-2012

Ray Bradbury
1920-2012

Tommy Cryer
1949-2012

Andy Griffith
1926-2012

Phyllis Diller
1917-2012

Larry Dever
1926-2012

Brian J. Chapman
1975-2012

Annette Funnicello
1942-2012

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2012

Richie Havens
1941-2013

Jack McLamb
1944-2014

James Traficant
1941-2014

jim traficant

Dr. Stan Monteith
1929-2014

stan montieth

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015

Leonard Nimoy

Stan Solomon
1944-2015

Stan Solomon

B. B. King
1926-2015

BB King

Irwin Schiff
1928-2015

Irwin Schiff

DAVID BOWIE
1947-2016

David Bowie

Muhammad Ali
1942-2016

Muhammed Ali

GENE WILDER
1933-2016

gene wilder

phyllis schlafly
1924-2016

phylis schafly

John Glenn
1921-2016

John Glenn

Charles Weisman
1954-2016

Charles Weisman

Carrie Fisher
1956-2016

Carrie Fisher

Debbie Reynolds
1932-2016

Debbie Reynolds

Roger Moore
1917-2017

Roger Moore

Adam West
1928-2017

Adam West

JERRY LEWIS
1926-2017

jerry lewis