So, What DOES It Take to Get Fired By CNN, Fareed Zakaria?

August 13, 2012

Zakaria plagiarized a piece he wrote for TIME magazine (Breitbart)…He also posted the same plagiarism at CNN. As Friday wore on, CNN and TIME both went from “no comment” to suspending Zakaria, a journalist praised for his perspective on foreign policy. …As a journalist he’s especially known for his anti-Jewish sentiment.  (commentary) Fareed Zakaria is guilty of plagiarism. He has admitted copying a portion of a New Yorker essay and apologized. Time, where Zakaria works as a columnist, has suspended Zakaria for a month, and CNN—owned by the same parent company—has suspended him pending an investigation. This represents a mere slap on the wrist for someone whose standard speaking fee is $75,000. Yale University lecturer Jim Sleeper notes, however, Zakaria has a perch not only at CNN and Time, but also at Yale University, where he sits on the Yale Corporation, the University’s governing board and policy-making body. There is no greater academic sin than plagiarism. Students can be expelled for plagiarizing papers, and professors can be fired. To let Zakaria off the hook on his own recognizance would be to eviscerate the principle of academic integrity for which Yale says it stands. Whether Yale President Richard Levin will do the right thing, however, is another issue. While Levin has distinguished himself as a master fundraiser, he has also shown a disturbing willingness to undercut free speech (ironically, with Zakaria’s acquiescence), compromise academic integrity to foreign interests, and embrace fame over principle.


The PR firm that helped Libya (Mother Jones)

March 4, 2011
(EOZ)In February 2007 Harvard professor Joseph Nye Jr., who developed the concept of“soft power”, visited Libya and sipped tea for three hours with Muammar Qaddafi. Months later, he pennedan elegant description of the chatforThe New Republic, reporting that Qaddafi had been interested in discussing “direct democracy.” Nye noted that “there is no doubt that” the Libyan autocrat “acts differently on the world stage today than he did in decades past. And the fact that he took so much time to discuss ideas—including soft power—with a visiting professor suggests that he is actively seeking a new strategy.” The article struck a hopeful tone: that there was a new Qaddafi. It also noted that Nye had gone to Libya “at the invitation of the Monitor Group, a consulting company that is helping Libya open itself to the global economy.”Nye did not disclose all. He had actually traveled to Tripoli as a paid consultant of the Monitor Group (a relationship he disclosed in an email to Mother Jones), and the firm was working under a $3 million-per-year contract with Libya. Monitor, a Boston-based consulting firm with ties to the Harvard Business School, had been retained, according to internal documents obtained by a Libyan dissident group, not to promote economic development, but “to enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi.” So The New Republic published an article sympathetic to Qaddafi that had been written by a prominent American intellectual paid by a firm that was being compensated by Libya to burnish the dictator’s image.  People that the Monitor Group brought to Libya, along with their subsequent speeches of articles. They include Richard Perle, Anthony Giddens, Francis Fukuyama, Nicholas Negroponte, American Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, Bernard Lewis, David Frost, Benjamin Barber and Joseph Nye. In addition, the Monitor Group maintained contacts with other influential people to get them to be more sympathetic to Libya, including George Soros, Fareed Zakaria, and Thomas Friedman. Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Fareed Zakaria speaks about Ahmadinejad interview w/ Larry King Sept 2010

September 23, 2010

Fareed Zakaria lied. Israel is not in conflict with any International Laws concerning Nuclear Bombs. To not even mention this is why you know this news programs is biased.

Fareed Zakaria: Cushioning Our Descent into a Post-American World

June 22, 2010

Fareed zakariaNewswk 030909 radical islam cropped2Nothing surprising here — “Post-American,” and therefore willing to “live with” radical Islam as a “fact of life,” Fareed Zakaria now takes up space in the Washington Post excusing Ahmadinejad (and taking the opportunity to bash John McCain in the process):

McCain reveals a startling ignorance about the Iranian regime when he argues, as in his speech, that it “spends its people’s precious resources not on roads, or schools, or hospitals, or jobs that benefit all Iranians — but on funding violent groups of foreign extremists who murder the innocent.”  While Tehran does fund militant groups, one of the keys to Ahmadinejad’s popularity has been his large-scale spending on social programs for the poor. 

Let’s take this last sentence bit by bit. 

visit Boker Tov now for a visual analysis…. seriously. Using the word militant groups is insulting to anyone who knows someone who died because of a terrorist attack. It disgusts me that this guy is allowed on TV and considered impartial and objective for an American audience.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | Fareed Zakaria | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon

Rashid Khalidi on CNN with Fareed Zakaria

April 20, 2010

You will recall that during the election campaign, the Los Angeles Times had but did not release a video of Khalidi’s going away party from Chicago, which was attended by Barack Obama, at which some extremely anti-Israel statements were made.

 the segment about Israel with Khalidi and Stephens starts around the 11:00 mark and ends around the 27:15 mark.

Ron Radosh notes the part that is most problematic.

During the discussion, Zakaria asked whether or not it was “a shift for the — the United States to be suggesting that this stalled peace process [between Israel and the Palestinians] hurts America’s ability to pursue its interests.” What the administration is now saying, Khalidi responded, “is that Israel is a drag on the United States. It’s not a strategic asset, and this is a discursive shift of some significance.” (my emphasis) To put it a bit differently, Rashid Khalidi, who in 2008 worried that because of American politics Obama had to appear to be a supporter of Israel, now believes that Obama’s promise to move U.S. policy towards the Palestinian perspective is coming true.
Khalidi again emphasized his main point: “that Israel is not the strategic asset it was touted as during the Cold War” and that the U.S. had returned “…in effect, to the Eisenhower administration’s view of the Middle East as an area where the United States has problems, and Israel is, in some small way, one of those problems.” Clearly, all the boilerplate assurances coming from the Obama camp in the past few weeks — assuring Americans that the U.S. commitment to Israel as a major ally is as firm as ever — have not dissuaded Khalidi from reaching a quite different conclusion.

Leave a Comment » | Fareed Zakaria, Rashid Khalidi | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon