Dear CNN: Fire Don Lemon. Or Fire Yourself, PART I: The Ethics Alarms Firing List

Before I discuss why CNN host Don Lemon has to be fired, and he does, I decided to check to see how many times Ethics Alarms had endorsed, recommended or demanded that a particularly unethical employee be fired. There are more than I thought. It’s a fascinating group, though:

  • 18 journalists, almost half
  • 9 political appointees
  • 7 educators: teachers, professors, and administrators
  • 3 performers/ celebrities
  • 2 prosecutors
  • and a mix of others.

Reviewing them, I don’t think any deserved to be fired any more than Don Lemon does after his statements this week.

Here’s the list:

Mike Wise, a Washington Post sportswriter.

ESPN reporter Erin Andrews

Piers Morgan

CNN’s Carol Costello

CBS reporter Major Garrett and Washington Post reporter Suzy Parker

Dr. Deandre Poole,  Florida Atlantic University professor

Teacher Brandi Hutto

Transgender flip-flopping reporter Don/Dawn Ellis

Helpful court clerk Sharon Ellis

Tucker Carlson

Bill O’Reilly

Waitress Dayna Morales

Obama AG Eric Holder

Plagiarizing high school principal Stephen Strachan

Discovery Channel president Paul Lewis,

John Brennan

Yelp employee Talia Jane

Veteran’s Affairs head Robert McDonald

MSNBC host Alec Baldwin

MSNBC host Martin Bashir

MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry

New York Times ombudsman Margaret Sullivan

Brian Williams

Donald Trump (!)

Karl Price,  assistant Jefferson County (Kentucky) district attorney

Hero CVS clerk Joe Morici

Ellie Mystal

Kelly Ripa

Harvard President Drew Faust And Dean Rakesh Khurana

Baltimore City Attorney Marilyn Moseby

Sally Yates

Michael Flynn

James Comey

Anthony Scaramucci

Coleen Campbell, Philadephia TV news reporter

Trinity College Professor Johnny Eric Williams

Washington Post writer Fredrick Kunkle

College administrator Catherine Gregory

MSNBC’s Joy Reid

Red Sox minor leaguer Michael Chavis

Roseanne Barr

Scott Pruitt

California State University professor Randa Jarrar

Ryan Zinke

High school principal Lisa Mars

Dr. Lara Kollab

That’s 46. I’m sure some names are missing; I also didn’t include all of the many male executives and others who were fired for sexual assault and harassment—Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, Matt Lauer, Louis C.K., Keven Spacey,  Les Moonves, Garrison Keiilor, et al.—since those egregious cases required no endorsement or even much analysis.

I’ll add Lemon to the list in Part II, coming up soon. I already suggested to CNN that he should be at least suspended for being drunk on the air; he wasn’t, and now, probably correctly, he regards himself as untouchable, especially since he’s black, gay and CNN no longer has standards.

29 thoughts on “Dear CNN: Fire Don Lemon. Or Fire Yourself, PART I: The Ethics Alarms Firing List

  1. You should do a partisan breakdown, as near as you can manage — not all of them have known politics. It would be instructive, and also point out to those who read this blog that it doesn’t spare one side over the other.

    Another even more interesting (and relevant) statistical cut would be the fundamental ethical principles violated by this group.

    =====OFF TOPIC=====

    Finally, I want to respond to a bit of Orrin’s comment before he was banned. He raised a couple of points that I think deserve some commentary, and even though this isn’t an open forum, it is enough of a placeholder not begging much directly relevant commentary that I want to bring them to the attention of folks. Orrin was apparently banned, and deservedly so, for essentially violating many of the blog’s guidelines, including an assault on the host and a bunch of partisan talking-points represented as thoughtful commentary. I will be paraphrasing, since his comments are no longer available.

    “The news media is doing a good job exposing Trump’s lies.”

    No, they aren’t. They are trying to make everything Trump says into a lie, whether it is or isn’t. I don’t think anyone who supports what Trump is doing believes everything out of his mouth. Since his earliest days on the campaign trail, Trump has been making exactly the same sorts of statements he is making now — thinly sourced or even unsourced assertions of fact, hyperbole, deceptive argumentation and puffery, among other things. In other words, we know he lies.

    We knew what Trump was when we elected him (disclaimer: I didn’t vote for him). I have no objection to fact-checking him and in fact, welcome it. But when the fact-checkers prove themselves as partisans determined to bring about the end of his presidency by trying to twist every word into a lie, they are not doing a good job. They are using an “ends justify the means” effort to undo an elected presidency. That’s not what the press is supposed to do.

    “Those who elected Trump must be held to account.”

    I’ve tried to come up with a rational reading of this thought, but failed. To me, this is a description of pure fascism — not the kind most on the Left impute to Trump, but the real kind, the fascism of Mussolini, Lenin, and yes, Adolph Hitler. It is the “you will be made to care” rhetoric of the concentration camp, the re-education camp, the line-them-up-in-front-of-a-ditch-and-shoot-them thinking of the worst people this world has known.

    Compare this thinking to the words of a primary Mussolini influence, Giovanni Gentile:

    “The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people”.

    This sounds like the Left’s prescription for America to me. You will be held to account. You will be made to care. The values of the State will be your values, because they are morally right and unassailable.

    I’m having a hard time finding a lot of room for “freedom” in there — of any kind.

    Many have wondered why more leftists don’t comment here, and Orrin is an example of why — he doesn’t reason, he regurgitates. He will brook no dissent as anything other than an immoral evil to be silenced. He will tolerate no argument that assails his perfectly balanced understanding of the world, as it cannot be relevant. Ad hominem and whataboutism are his stock in trade.

    As much as I sometimes long for a leftist to show up here, Orrin demonstrated why such wishes are probably folly. Those who have the fortitude simply engage in personal attacks and talking-point spouting. Those who are rational and thoughtful apparently lack the fortitude.

    I’d love to be proven wrong, but I don’t think I will be.

  2. I suspect this has to do with Lemon’s declaration that the MSM should not broadcast Trump’s speech, or if the MSM were going to broadcast it, that the MSM should show it on a tape delay so that they can rebut it in real time. If that is the case, Lemon needs to be fired or, at least, sent for serious therapy. Lemon prejudged it as totalitarian propaganda. He needs serious help. But, CNN won’t, though. For instance, Anderson Cooper gave his prebuttal (sp?) before Trump put on his tie and jacket.


    • I just have one question, not really directed at you, but rather in general because you raised it:

      How is securing the border “totalitarian propaganda” under any, rational or otherwise, reading of the term?

      • It’s a huge stretch, but..

        Securing the border is preventing people from entering our country.
        Some of the people wanting to enter our country are people in severe need.
        The Jews of Europe in the 30s were also people in need.
        The entry of the Jews of Europe to the United States was limited solely because of anti-Semitism.
        The only reason to prevent people in need from entering the United States is due to bigotry.

        That seems to be their argument. And, since the regime that caused the Jews to flee was a totalitarian regime that used propaganda, any argument politicians use to mean our borders should be secured is totalitarian propaganda…or something like that. It’s hard to tell whether we’re behaving like Hitler or repeating our mistakes in relation to Hitler when the Left is railing.

        • Securing the border is preventing people from entering our country.
          Some of the people wanting to enter our country are people in severe need.

          … (snipped for brevity)

          I see. So the argument is severe need trumps national security and the sovereignty of our nation. Those in severe need deserve to drink from our public trough regardless of their citizenship, their worth as a potential citizen, their intent to actually add to the fabric of our country, etc. just because they need help.

          Does anyone actually believe this? They are essentially saying that America is the support facility for all oppressed people who want to avail themselves of it.

          If that’s the case, why the hell should I work? I’m not interested in acting as a charity for the rest of the world without my consent. I’ll just join the rest of the downtrodden at the public trough and claim oppression as a marginalized old, white male who identifies as a Puerto Rican transvestite.

          I have an even better idea — Let’s bring up the entirety of the people of El Salvador to America, and the left can take care of them. I’ll go down there and live on the beach, and we can all be happy.

          • If that’s the case, why the hell should I work?


            This is what caused the downfall of the USSR: the people knew they would not enjoy the fruits of any extra effort they took at their government designated jobs, and thus devolved to the minimum needed to stay out of trouble with authorities. It is how human nature acts in such circumstances.

            This is how ANY socialist society ends up. Socialism depends upon everyone selflessly doing their best for the good of everyone, and to ignore those in charge (the Elite) who get wealthy and gather all the power, to whom the laws do not apply. ANY part of that equation failing is the death of the whole system.

            Our would-be socialist masters simply believe THEY will be the Elite under the new system, and it is good to be king. This is what the Globalist Elite NWO is all about: solidifying the class society such that they are on top permanently.

      • How is securing the border “totalitarian propaganda” under any, rational or otherwise, reading of the term?

        ::: raises hand :::

        In my humble opinion, to adequately understand the strange present, one has to look to the extremes and gain and understanding of what their perspective is, and what they are ‘struggling against’, and then turn back to the political center and see how each pole, the ‘extreme left’ and the ‘extreme right’ if you wish, exerts their mutual influence.

        Here, for example, is something I selected from an anarchist site called ‘Itsgoingdown’ (.org). It is a blurb for a book that they sell:

        How to Join the Resistance: Ideas for Fighting the Trump Regime and Becoming Ungovernable

        “There is a lot of possibility in the world right now and we shouldn’t give up, even though it feels pretty bleak at times. When things are in flux as much as they are right now, it creates opportunity. People are increasingly looking to collective and autonomous action to exercise power; more people are sympathetic to militant tactics and radical visions of what is possible and desirable. Trump’s candidacy and presidency have created some serious divisions in the ruling class, which destabilizes power and creates vacuums. To the extent that those vacuums can be filled with anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist principles and organizing, we could see some significant victories for our movements.”

        The video provides more insight:

        I think it is notable that there is an extreme right and an extreme left and that they both hold their own ‘political center’ in contempt! For example, the Anarchist Left despises normie leftists as too weak or ‘coopted’. The Radical Right feels the same about the ‘conservative’ establishment.

        I think at the same time that one could also examine the ‘political center’ and see how it too is a ‘position’ and that it has various currents that inform it. What I mean is that for all that it sees itself as ‘normal’ and ‘balanced’ (which in a way it is) it is also determined by certain ideology (which can be examined).

        I think the Radical Left and Anarchist perspective, that they more or less blindly hate the State in nearly any form. The choose to become agents of chaos. As I understand their ideal, their ideological values allow them to move to a position of radical action based on ‘autonomy’. Any one of them, simply when they feel inclined and when they decide it necessary, can *take radical action*. Their object, according to their declarations, is to ‘become ungovernable’. This is a source of pride.

        They would view The Wall as just one example of a neo-fascistic strategy to concentrate power in the hands of the State when, in their view, all people should unite together and struggle together against *their common enemy* the governments that rule and their various hierarchies.

        As to the word ‘totalitarian’, I think that they can more or less bend their terms to suit their sentimentalist positions. The word is not really important, it is the sentiment!! that flows!! through their veins!! It is a form of *political enthusiasm*. It is religious really (in function). Language gets infused with emotion and also with many exclamation points!!!!!

        • As to the word ‘totalitarian’, I think that they can more or less bend their terms to suit their sentimentalist positions. The word is not really important, it is the sentiment!! that flows!! through their veins!! It is a form of *political enthusiasm*. It is religious really (in function). Language gets infused with emotion and also with many exclamation points!!!!!

          This actually makes sense to me.

        • Well written and thought out.

          Such anarchists also ignore human nature: the impulse to impose one’s will upon another just because you can. I think that given the destruction of their enemies, the governments of the world, they would quickly find that there are plenty who would hoist the Jolly Roger and proceed to plunder their way across the landscape. If the anarchists agree to help each other, defend each other mutually, then the politics begin all over again.

  3. Shouldn’t Sec of HUD Ben Carson be on the list as well because of his nepotism scandal where his wife was in charge of buying agency furniture for a ridiculous price? This was like the golden standard for a corruption case, doesn’t get anymore cynical than that. I think there was even a post on this topic.

    • 1. As I said, the list is probably missing several names.
      2. Carson is an idiot, and never should have been appointed. My position is that he should have been fired 5 minutes on the job.

      • You would give him 5 minutes? I was for firing him after 5 seconds. He is the case study that being brilliant in one area may not translate into any other, and may actually make one worse than one would have been otherwise.

        Anyone who listened to the man debate or even speak knew this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.