CNN’s Standards Are Now The Story…
Politico’s Dylan Byers got CNN again standing by its previous statement…
UPDATE (6:50 p.m.): CNN spokesperson Jennifer Dargan told me the network is standing by the statement it provided in the wake of Bort and Blappo’s initial report back in August. That statement follows:
CNN has the highest confidence in the excellence and integrity of Fareed Zakaria’s work. In 2012, we conducted an extensive review of his original reporting for CNN, and beyond the initial incident for which he was suspended and apologized for, found nothing that violated our standards. In the years since we have found nothing that gives us cause for concern.
Ok. CNN doubles down. Or triples down. Or quaduples down. They’re not going to change their mind. They’re bound and determined to go down with the SS Zakaria. Fine. Let’s play this out…
So now the story pivots from Fareed Zakaria and whatever he did or didn’t do to what the hell are CNN’s standards exactly?
Do CNN’s standards include plagiarism?
Do CNN’s standards include cut and paste jobs?
Do CNN’s standards include “patch writing”?
Our Bad Media has made a better than circumstantial case that Zakaria looks guilty of at least one of the above.
But if CNN feels that Zakaria is not guilty of any of the above how does it differntiate the definitions of those terms from what Zakaria has (not in CNN’s eyes) done? What makes what Zakaria did different? What are CNN’s standards?
CNN by standing by Zakaria and not commenting further to specifically rebut the latest OBM charges; charges which include incidents that occurred after the original 2012 story erupted, has opened up its own standards for examination for they are the very things the network said he has not violated.
Fareed Zakaria is radioactive and CNN has chosen to bask in the radiation. It just keeps digging itself deeper. Horrid PR and crisis management going on here. Absolutely horrid.