CNN's Jim Clancy Resigns After Twitter Rant About Israeli Propaganda

[Newsjock]

Source: Gawker

CNN International correspondent Jim Clancy has left the cable news channel, where he worked for 34 years, according to an internal memo obtained by TVNewser. CNN confirmed Clancy’s departure in a separate statement: “We thank him for more than three decades of distinguished service, and wish him nothing but the best.” But the network declined to comment on a series of bizarre tweets—in which Clancy seemed to suggest that Israeli propaganda had a hand in the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris—which preceded his abrupt resignation.

On January 7, Clancy began tweeting about why, exactly, Charlie Hebdo published cartoon caricatures of Mohammad; his personal theory was that the newspaper wanted to mock not the Muslim prophet but people who “distort his word”:

... Clancy never explained what pro-Israeli propaganda had to do with the Charlie Hebdo killings. Nor does he seem to have any plans to do so. While the correspondent continued tweeting as if nothing had happened for the next few days, he quietly deleted his Twitter account on Thursday. He has not commented beyond a cheery goodbye email he sent to his CNN colleagues on Friday.

Read more: http://tktk.gawker.com/cnn-s-jim-clancy-resigns-after-twitter-rant-about-israe-1680003120

[Xilantro]

1. Greenwald: "As the west celebrates free press values, another CNN career is destroyed..."

"..for tweets relating to Israel"

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/556148801061552129

[libdem4life]

3. + 1000

[oberliner]

4. Typical garbage from Glenn

Pretends to not know what free speech is.

If he (Clancy) had posted similarly weird non-sequitor bizarre insulting tweets about Palestinian supporters - Glenn would be be the first calling for him to be fired.

But at least he is consistent!

[PCIntern]

6. +1000 nt

[samsingh]

46. i'm glad he's gone

[Xilantro]

8. Has Greenwald called for the firing of anti-Palestine voices?

?

[oberliner]

11. Jennifer Rubin comes to mind

Why the Washington Post won’t fire Jennifer Rubin

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/11/why_the_washington_post_wont_fire_jennifer_rubin/

[Xilantro]

19. You thought your link would be a Home Run. Instead, you struck out

Because Greenwald asked for equal treatment of both anti-Israel and anti-Palestine comments. He did not say whether:

a) Both should lead to firings, or
b) Neither should lead to firings.

[oberliner]

20. Not really

I thought it was pretty weak, but it was the best I could find.

I'll take back my claim that Glenn would try to get someone fired for tweeting negatively about Palestinians if you will take a look at the Clancy tweets with an open mind.

[Xilantro]

23. "I thought it was pretty weak"

It doesn't look like you originally thought it was "pretty weak", until you learned that someone read the entire article.

Then you refuse to take back a comment based on a "pretty weak" premise.

[oberliner]

25. I did

It was the best I could find but it wasn't great. It makes exactly the point you say it does. I am happy to take back my comment. I hope you will look at the Clancy tweets.

[Scairp]

26. I dont get it either

She is really awful.

[Ned Flanders]

16. Hypersensitivity to criticism of Israel

It seems to me that there tends to be a rather strong reaction to any criticism of Israel and/or the United States' support of that nation. But please consider that one can be critical of Israel without being anti-semitic.

Flame on, now, my shields are up.

[oberliner]

18. The tweets didn't include any criticism of Israel

He tweeted: "The cartoons NEVER mocked the Prophet. They mocked how the COWARDS tried to distort his word. Pay attention,"

And then when someone said he was wrong, he called that poster part of the "Hasbara Bridgade" - a phrase often used in relation to pro-Israel people.

But nothing actually related to Israel was brought up which was why it appeared to be a weird thing to say.

He followed up with some other name-calling and whatnot.

If you read the whole exchange, I'd be curious to know if you thought it was coherent.

[Ned Flanders]

31. a related subject

I refer to "As the west celebrates free press values, another CNN career is destroyed..." "..for tweets relating to Israel."

You should maybe check out the wikipedia article on the Israeli Lobby, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Means_of_influence. I don't pretend to know much on the subject, so Jah help me if the sources cited are not reputable, but seems to me that Wikipedia generally keeps things rather uncritical, such comments being changed by those who would rewrite history (but there I go, on a tangent).

I read the article, and he went off on a heck of a tangent himself by going off on Israel, but worth resignation? That "satire" comment is pretty unconscionable as well. But it still stinks to me of the Bush years, "if you talk bad about America then you hate America."

[oberliner]

32. Who knows why he resigned?

Maybe he was embarrassed by the unprofessional and incoherent way he conducted himself in the twitter exchange - maybe the content of said exchange wasn't really the relevant factor.

[LovingA2andMI]

30. THIS^^^^

And it's AMAZING how it's turned around every single time to the latter. Almost like it is a plan to shut down any FREE SPEECH on the subject. Interesting.....

[branford]

36. First, Jim Clancy has no free speech rights to employment at CNN.

Unless and until Clancy is arrested by the government for his tweets, the First Amendment argument is nonsense.

Second, while all anti-Israel tweets are not antisemitic, some most definitely are.

Third, did you actually read the Twitter exchanges. It's still a mystery why Clancy even raised the issue of Israel in a discussion of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and shootings, he was citing a known and prolific antisemitic conspiracy account as part of the "hasbara," and many of his tweets, which he deleted well before his resignation, simply made no sense at all, were incoherent and terribly uncivil, certainly not what was expected from an anchor of a new network on his Twitter account connected to CNN (@clancycnn).

[LovingA2andMI]

50. LOL!!!

We lose our free speech rights, at work. Is this completely so we can't speak unless spoke too or told when and how to speak. Just curious.....

[branford]

52. Are you being obstreperous or simply ignorant?

You also not so subtly avoided responding to the substantive points in my post.

Nevertheless, as you are hopefully aware, Clancy's employment relationship with CNN is governed by an employment contract or he is an at will employee. Given the sensitivities of working for a media corporation, any contract between Clancy and CNN almost certainly permits his termination if he embarrasses the network. In light of the sheer absurdity and incivility of his Twitter behavior, he resigned, which I imagine was the only option other than being unceremoniously fired.

You should note to salient points. First, unless and until Clancy is sanctioned by the government for his speech, claims of any abridgment of his right to free speech are simply absurd. Moreover, never forget that CNN has free speech rights as well, and to the extent the employment relationship was ever governed by the constitution, he would have no right to speak on behalf of CNN in a manner contrary to their wishes (his Twitter account was @ClancyCNN and was used to promote CNN and himself).

You certainly do not lose your free speech rights at work. Except in the most extreme circumstances (e.g., criminal threats, etc.), you need not fear the heavy hand of government no matter what you say. However, that does not mean that there's no social or other private consequences. Absent ancillary protections such as relevant contractual terms or certain union or collective worker activities, your employer, as a private party, is under no obligation to continue working with you.

[karynnj]

42. Stupid comment by Greenwald

Free press values do not mean that there will be no consequence for saying or writing things others find despicable.

American and other western countries give people the freedom to say things, but others have the freedom to consider that what they said was wrong -- and to not want them associated with their company.

Imagine if Greenwald has a subordinate who comes out with an expose claiming Snowden is a vain narcissist more interested in being well known than privacy rights. Would you then have a problem if Greenwald both disputes this and fires him?

[merrily]

51. This is not about free speech but contractual obligations.

People who are on TV sign contracts with clauses that affect their personal lives, including refraining from doing things that bring negative attention to their employers.

[still_one]

2. Not sure what point Clancy was trying to make, but his premise that Charlie Hebdo was trying to mock

those who don't follow the prophet, does not follow from the magazines history, especially with regard to their view of ALL religion

[oberliner]

5. The exchange is bizarro

Maybe his mental acuity is slipping.

[branford]

7. If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that Clancy might have been drinking while tweeting. nt

[Xilantro]

10. But anti-Muslim comments are neither bizarre not alcohol-induced

Double standards.

[oberliner]

14. They often are

But did you see the series of Clancy tweets? They are kind of all over the place and odd.

[branford]

33. Did you actually read the entire Twitter exchange?

My comment about Clancy drinking or otherwise not of sound mind was not in jest.

It was surreal, embarrassing, and beneath an anchor for a major news network. They included everything from accusing a known antisemitic conspiracy Twitter account as being part of the Hasbara to denigrating the handicapped as cripples. Many of the comments just didn't make any sense regardless of context.

You could agree with his position on Israeli settlements, be a Palestinian-supporting partisan, and still easily find his comments downright cringeworthy and odd, although why he brought up Israel at all in a discussion about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons is still a mystery. Clancy even deleted a number of the tweets days before the entire account disappeared and he resigned. If your only defense of Clancy's actual comments is that anti-Muslim or anti-Palestinian comments might not have resulting in a reporter's termination. that's really no defense at all.

Lastly, enough with the straw man argument. If you would like my opinion about particular alleged anti-Muslim comments, I will happily oblige whether I believe they are bizarre or the result of a chemically induced lack of discretion. If you allege a double standard, produce real comparable examples.

[11cents]

9. Yes, it was bizarre right down the line.

Non sequitors, inaccuracies (he listed what was clearly a neo-Nazi twitter feed as one doing pro-Israel "hasbara&quot -- and people who politely tried to correct him were blocked. Posting while drunk, maybe.

[Xilantro]

12. Michelle Malkin just called Clancy's comments "nutty"

Go Michelle and Oberliner!

[oberliner]

15. And David Duke thinks Glenn Greenwald is awesome

See how that works?

[Xilantro]

22. If you tell us where Duke and Greenwald agree

I'm pretty sure you and I will agree as well.

Shoot.

[oberliner]

24. They both think Israel is a racist state

They both think it should not exist as it currently does.

[Fred Sanders]

29. Strawman alert!

[branford]

34. You really need to look up the definition of strawman. nt

[Xilantro]

55. wouldn't most DUers agree?

Should Israel be smaller or exist as it stands today,? If DUersrs think Israel has stolen land, then your argument is weak. Make a poll, please. I bet you wont

[oberliner]

56. That was my point

Just because DUers (or Glenn Greenwald) have the same position with respect to Israel as David Duke doesn't mean they should be linked with him in some way.

Similarly just because I have the same position on Jim Clancy's nutty tweets as Michele Malkin doesn't provide any legitimate reason to link us together.

If for instance, you posted that Israel is a racist state and I posted in response "David Duke also just said Israel is a racist state. Go Xilantrao and David!" - that would be pretty ridiculous (at the very least).

[still_one]

17. and why would you make an association with Malkin and a DUer? Are you trying to be funny

because it isn't, and it is out of line

[Xilantro]

21. I didn't associate them

I associated their support for Clancy's departure.

[Fred Sanders]

28. That settles it, I am with Clancy and Greenwald.

[still_one]

13. We are on the same page

[Fred Sanders]

27. CNN's double standard on full display. Lot of that standard going around.

[branford]

35. Could you cite an actual example of comparable tweets or other social media postings

by a CNN anchor or other high-ranking personality that were clearly anti-Muslim or anti-Palestinian (or anti-disabled, or as Clancy refers to such individuals, "cripples&quot where no disciple or similar actions was taken by the network?

If not, your claims of a double standard are just plain ignorant.

[Fred Sanders]

37. Your demand for answers of me is what is just plain ignorant.

[branford]

38. You accuse a news network of a double standard

concerning discipline for social media postings concerning Israel versus Muslims or Palestinians, and when asked to provide actual proof of such a malicious claim, your response is that such a request is ignorant? You're doing yourself and Jim Clancy no favors.

I'll inquire yet again. Can you cite to any actual situations or events at CNN that demonstrate your claim of this elusive and discriminatory double standard at the network?

If, as you explicitly claim, the double standard is on "full display," you should have no trouble at all providing multiple and unequivocal evidence.

[Bragi]

41. I submit as evidence...

Every CNN story and panel on last summer's Gaza killings. Check 'em out. Double standards up the wazoo.

Also, check out all the academic literature of the last decade, say, analysing CNN's middle east coverage. It's pretty well all about double standards.

You're welcome!

[Fred Sanders]

43. He is one of those that wants an argument, not an answer, know what I mean? As long as you can keep

arguing you can keep the facts from getting in the way of the untruths.

Thanks for comment. CNN has not fired Don Lemon? What's up with that?

[branford]

45. "Keep the facts from getting in the way of the untruths," what does that even mean?

I'll ask yet a third time.

Can you cite to a single actual example of comparable tweets or other social media postings by a CNN anchor or other high-ranking personality that were clearly anti-Muslim or anti-Palestinian (or anti-disabled, or as per Clancy, "cripples&quot where no disciple or similar actions was taken by the network?

You reference Don Lemon. I don't recall where he did anything remotely similar to Jim Clancy, but if you provide a link, I'll be happy to discuss it.

I'm also curious, have you actually read even a substantial portion of the Clancy Twitter exchange? If so, could you kindly explain his comments about Hebdo cartoons that they weren't intended to satire true Muslims, something I've seen no one remotely allege either on the left or right, why he even raised Israel (or the derogatory "Hasbara&quot when discussing the Hebdo shooting, or why an anchor of a major new network would cite a known and prolific antisemitic conspiracy account as evidence of "Hasbara?" The Twitter exchange, and his abject lack of civility, looked far more like a nervous breakdown or drunken rant than anything resembling a discussion from someone representing a news corporation. If Clancy's comments simply expressed opposition to Israeli settlements, similar to comments he's made repeatedly before with little fanfare, no less discipline by CNN, I surmise that he would still be an anchor at network.

It appears your purported defense of Clancy is little more than complaints that CNN is not sufficiently pro-Palestinian/Muslim for your taste, which is not a defense at all.

[DAMANgoldberg]

39. This is not really about his tweet...

CNN has been in the mode to get rid of long-time staffers. Jim Clancy, if not actually but very close, is one of the Original CNNers, that the current regime of TimeWarner wants to get rid of. Now he may have given a reason for this, but it continues to be a cost cutting move of anyone with seniority at the network.

Having said that, Wolf Blitzer must have something on management because he is still around.

[branford]

40. Wolf is one of the blandest, least offensive and management accommodating

news anchors alive today. Unless he suddenly has a breakdown, I believe his job is quite safe at CNN. Nevertheless, he and other journalists should probably steer clear of social media.

If CNN is truly trying to eliminate long-time staffers, a claim I had not heard before, Clancy certainly offered himself up to management on a silver platter with his Twitter fiasco.

[DAMANgoldberg]

48. Examples

Candy Crowley
Susan Candiotti
John Zarrella
Soledad O'Brien *
virtually all of CNN entertainment currently at Entertainment Tonight
Mike Galanos
Vinnie Politan
and various producers and executives
that is just some senior people, Ms. O'Brien is kinda sorta still with the network.

[branford]

49. As I said, I have no idea if CNN is actually trying to get rid of the old timers.

Your post was the first I've heard of it. I also don't tend to follow the careers of most CNN personalities in great detail.

Soledad O'Brien is an interesting case. First, she's not really old guard. Her early career was at MSNBC and NBC. I still remember watcher her at The Site in the mid 1990's. Her departure from CNN was also unsurprising. They kept on giving her shows and specials, but the viewers didn't appear to be interested. I also thought that she's now totally gone from CNN and that she's purportedly producing specials for Al Jazeera America.

I also still think Wolf's in no danger. His level of blandness and dependability is hard to come by nowadays.

[DAMANgoldberg]

53. Not totally gone...

She still produces the "minority" in America series, Black, Hispanic, et al. I believe she also does New Orleans related documentaries. Most of her work is Al Jazeera America and HBO. You are correct about her early career at MSNBC when Microsoft decided to be in the TV business.

As for her lack of success in the AM, nobody else @ CNN has gotten decent ratings since Paula Zahn.

[Johnny Rash]

44. Funny "how", those who oppose FREE SPEECH, are the ones loosing the most from it!

If "Free Speech" was a WOMAN, she will have to be more than a Wonder Woman, in order to stay alive.

[OnePercentDem]

47. Good riddance

To another hack.

[nilesobek]

54. 34 year veteran. I speculate truth serum, (alchohol).

34 years, late in the 4th quarter, maybe health problems, maybe problems adjusting to his coming retirement and social situation.

They always come out at the end like Helen Thomas. They don't do it in the prime of their careers, its too risky. Remember that next time someone tries to tell you how brave some drunken antisemitic is for standing up to the power.

[branford]

57. I think many journalists made stupid and nasty comments in the past with similar frequency.

The difference today is just scope and venue. While before idiotic or drunk comments might have been made at a bar or conference (and probably still are), the other people present were generally other colleagues who might hold similar views or had the professional courtesy not to repeat the comments, hoping that such courtesy would be reciprocated when they screw-up. The number of people present was also minimal.

Today, however, we have venues like Facebook and Twitter that journalists need to use to maintain personal career exposure and promote their employers. These places are far more public, and in our hyper-partisan atmosphere, ultimately less forgiving.

If Clancy had an argument in a restaurant or theater similar to what occurred on Twitter, we likely would have never learned about just how ridiculous and uncivil he could be, and he probably would still be on CNN.

Twitter, Facebook and other social media do not destroy careers, it just lets a greater slice of the public view celebrities and other personalities more often and in less guarded moments, with all the consequences that follow someone in the public spotlight.

I very much doubt that the Twitter exchange was the first time Clancy ranted about "Hasbara," read antisemitic conspiracy feeds or acted like a complete buffoon. However, in this particular instance, he shared it with the entire world. He's lucky Twitter didn't exist 20 years ago, or he probably never would have been at CNN for so long.