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
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
Waitress Dayna Morales
Obama AG Eric Holder
Plagiarizing high school principal Stephen Strachan
Discovery Channel president Paul Lewis,
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
Donald Trump (!)
Karl Price, assistant Jefferson County (Kentucky) district attorney
Hero CVS clerk Joe Morici
Harvard President Drew Faust And Dean Rakesh Khurana
Baltimore City Attorney Marilyn Moseby
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
California State University professor Randa Jarrar
High school principal Lisa Mars
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.
Ethics Alarms 
The link above for “Donald Trump (!)” doesn’t work.
You tested all the links?!?
You didn’t?
The link is now fixed. I apologize for the inconvenience.
slickwilly wrote, “You tested all the links?!?”
Yes.
You… win the Internet today. Or the prize for the most OCD. Or something.
I mean, dayyyyammm!
slickwilly wrote, “You… win the Internet today. Or the prize for the most OCD. Or something. I mean, dayyyyammm!”
Naaaa, It was just a point and click courtesy to Jack to make sure they all worked, it only took about 15 or 20 seconds to click them all.
Wait—you didn’t READ THEM??????
Jack Marshall wrote, “Wait—you didn’t READ THEM??????”
Ha!!! I think I’ve already read all of them at least once before.
I wrote them and I had forgotten most of them
Doh!
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:
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.
Oops, I was wrong. Orrin’s comment is still available
I’ve been a bit out of it for a few days, where is Orrin’s comment?
Never mind, I found it.
Not his final one, however, since it triggered his immediate expulsion.
From what you quoted, rightly so. I also saw a Chris comment show up, and apparently be banished to the darkness from which it came. It demonstrated, in full, why you banned him and why he has not been reinstated. It was, in fact, a thought-copy of Orrin’s last comment, at least the part you quoted.
Brothers from another mother, perhaps? Or maybe worse, sockpuppets.
Chris would have to hit his head with a skillet 50 times for his cognitive function to descend to Orrin level.
Heh. Well, I didn’t get to see it all, so I’ll take your word for it.
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.
jvb
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.
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? ”
Exactly.
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.
::: 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:
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.
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.