32

One of my conspiracy theorist friends on Facebook recently linked an article claiming that Amber Lyon was fired from CNN for blowing the whistle on the Obama administration paying CNN to not air certain story.

Associated with the article was the following "infographic": enter image description here

The article linked above makes this specific claim:

She says she was ordered to report fake stories, delete unfriendly stories adverse to the Obama administration (like the Nick Robertson report), and construct stories in specific manners while working for the left-wing network.

CNN is paid by foreign and domestic Government agencies for specific content.

Let me repeat that.

CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays for CNN content.

I could not find any mention of these allegations on Amber Lyon's own website.

Furthermore, the article referenced as a primary source for the claim makes no mention of anything besides the suspicion that the government of Bahrain influenced CNNi's decision to not air a specific documentary of Lyon's in its entirety.

A unverified google document is cited as the back-and-forth between Lyon and CNN, but it seems limited to the discussion of Bahrain.

However, Lyon has stated during at least one interview that she believes CNN runs featured news pieces that are financially sponsored by various foreign governments, including Bahrain, Georgia, Lebanon and Kazakhstan. These pieces are purportedly paid propaganda pieces, funded directly by the foreign governments.

Is there any evidence to support this claim? Lyon claimed to have found this out through research; has she ever detailed this research, or provided supporting evidence? Did she also claim the United States government was also paying CNN for specific content?

Beofett
  • 9,363
  • 4
  • 57
  • 84
  • 1
    Here's Lyon talking about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFDC7zmJgQg – Django Reinhardt Apr 13 '13 at 19:50
  • And a balanced article talking about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/04/cnn-international-documentary-bahrain-arab-spring-repression – Django Reinhardt Apr 13 '13 at 19:50
  • @DjangoReinhardt The video of Lyon that you linked in the comments clearly indicates that she is accusing CNN of taking money to run "featured" propaganda pieces for various foreign governments... good find! I've edited to focus a bit more on the specific claims, however, I think perhaps "fake stories" may be stretching the claim a bit. – Beofett Apr 13 '13 at 20:45
  • @Beofett Yes, her claims are very clear. The claims of that infographic are deliberately distorting things to target CNN (US) and the Obama Administration -- which is something she's never specifically done. – Django Reinhardt Apr 13 '13 at 21:33

1 Answers1

63

TLDR: The meme is completely false.

Ironically, the article and the infographic are both spreading the same type of propaganda they accuse CNN of.

Some background: Firstly, CNN and CNN International are separate organizations.

Amber Lyon became concerned about the credibility of CNN International (ie, not CNN -- which is US only), because of their handling of a documentary she made called iRevolution: Online Warriors of the Arab Spring for CNN (not CNN International).

I know, it's a little confusing. Bear with me.

13 minutes of her hour long documentary was about Bahrain and its corrupt government. She says she wondered why her CNN documentary wasn't going to be aired on CNN International -- even though it was actually made specifically for CNN -- because she believed it was of direct interest to CNN International's audience.

So confused was she by this, that she decided to dig a little deeper, and that's when she discovered what she claims were "financial connections" between CNN International (not CNN) and the Bahrain government that showed the country had paid for pro-Bahrain content to be aired on CNN International. (She also claims she found similar connections with Lebanon, Georgia and Kazakhstan.)

This is the basis for saying that Lyon made accusations about governments paying for content on "CNN" -- it was actually CNN International she was accusing, not the US arm, CNN.

CNN International issued a response to her claims, which stated,

“[The documentary] was never intended to air on CNN International. It was an hour-long program about the impact of social media on the Arab Spring that was commissioned for CNN US, where it ran in June of 2011 ... There is nothing unusual about this programming decision [to not air the documentary on CNN International].”

So yes, CNN aired her documentary in the US in June 2011, they just didn't show it on CNN International. Now given that CNN International is the most watched English speaking news outlet in the Middle East, you might think that Lyon's were justified, but CNN maintains that they had already aired similar Bahrain programming that was critical of Bahrain... including some of Lyon's other work!

With regards to Lyon's accusation that CNN International aired "sponsored" content from corrupt regimes, they also stated that,

CNN International has carried advertising and sponsored content since the 1990s. The critical issue is that our editorial operations and our commercial operations are completely separate. No deal ever buys any editorial influence. (emphasis added)

CNN International was investigated in 2015 regarding their "sponsored content" by UK body OFCOM. They concluded that CNN International had produced a small number of sponsored "current affairs" programs (which, incidentally, is against UK law), but did not take issue that such content was not transparently labelled "sponsored". They also did not find evidence of editorial bias. (Source)

This is where a gray area appears... You can read their back-and-forth debate here, and decide for yourself:

The infographic also is focused solely on CNN (US) and the Obama Administration, neither of which have anything to do with the above.

So let's recap:

  • Did Amber Lyon claim she was ordered to report fake stories? NO

  • Did she claim she was ordered to delete stories that were unfriendly to the Obama Administration? NO

  • Has she made any claims that the US Government pays for content on CNN or any other news outlet? NO

  • Has she specifically accused the Obama Administration of paying for stories or propaganda pieces? NO

Finally, she was also never "fired" from CNN for blowing any whistles either. She was laid off (along with 60 other people) as they closed a whole division down as part of restructuring. And if you need further proof of this, consider the fact that it was only after she was laid off that she started talking publicly about her concerns... so it certainly wasn't connected with "whistleblowing".

More than this, she also specifically says that she never saw any evidence of US Government officials controlling the news during her time at CNN. (You can hear her talk about both of these things in her own words here)


As an aside, with regards to Amber Lyon's actual concerns with US news outlets (including CNN) and its relationship with the US government, Amber Lyon is very clear about what they are -- and they have nothing to do with the claims of the infographic:

  • She believes that all major US news outlets seem to be pushing "anti-Iran" messages, much like they pushed the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" prior to the invasion of Iraq (that's the example she uses). She says that, due to the earlier messages preceding the Iraq War, she feels that the US government may be gearing up to war with Iran in the same deceitful manner. (You can hear her talk about this in her own words here.)

Update: Eight years after she voiced her concerns, we can see that her fears of a US war with Iran amounted to nothing.

  • She considers ALL US news outlets suspect, and she uses news outlets that were FOR the Iraq War (and who reported about "weapons of mass destruction") as prime examples of this sort of propaganda. In other words, her concerns on this matter have nothing to do with CNN or the Obama Administration specifically, and actually she implies large accusations towards other networks (eg. Fox) and other administrations (eg. Bush's).

  • Now, to be fair, Lyon does have some issues with the Obama Administration -- even though they have nothing to do with them paying for news content or CNN. In her interview with (ahem) Alex Jones, she talks about how she feels the present Administration has made all news outlets afraid of publishing stories that include sources they've deemed as "terrorists".

This, she says, has put the government in control of what gets reported, because journalists don't want to be indicted to reveal their sources. She says the government should not be in control of who is deemed a terrorist, and who is not, and that journalists shouldn't be threatened with indictment to reveal their sources, even if the government considers those sources to be threats to national security. (Source)

I think this is an interesting claim, and it's a shame that this isn't what's being spread around in infographics and overwrought websites.

It's hard to know where the truth lies and the conspiracy theories begin with regards to CNN International's ties to corrupt regimes. She talked with Alex Jones in September 2012, but it's worth watching for what she says (you have to ignore what Alex Jones says) and that you're aware that she's referring to the Bahrain government and CNN International.

Her claims that the US Government's attempts to crack down on terrorism is negatively affecting the free press is troubling, but she's never claimed they paid CNN (or anyone else) for content.

So, regardless of all of this, one thing is for sure; both the infographic and article are absolute nonsense.

Django Reinhardt
  • 2,205
  • 1
  • 25
  • 35
  • 4
    The passive-aggressive comments about Alex Jones are unnecessary and unwarranted. – Brian S May 13 '14 at 17:22
  • 23
    Alex Jones is a crackpot conspiracy theorist, plain and simple. He is also the furthest thing from a reliable source, which is why I acknowledge the unfortunate reality that it's on his show that Amber Lyon talks about her experiences. I'm sorry if you're a fan of his, but I'm not changing my answer. – Django Reinhardt May 14 '14 at 09:47
  • 13
    Not a fan (not even familiar with him), I just don't think the personal attacks are something you should have in your answer. If you don't feel he adds value to what Amber's doing, mention _that_, instead of "coughing" every time you mention Alex's name. – Brian S May 14 '14 at 13:44
  • 7
    I suggest you look him up. – Django Reinhardt May 15 '14 at 13:53
  • 9
    @BrianS It's a matter of credibility. He has none. As far as I'm concerned her appearing on his show means she has little. – Loren Pechtel Sep 28 '16 at 18:11
  • 2
    @BrianS Have you since learned who Alex Jones is now that he's been banned by YouTube, Facebook and Apple? – Django Reinhardt Aug 10 '18 at 23:14
  • I don't see why the claim that while CNN does run propaganda for money for those regimes running that propaganda for money has no influence on other editoral decisions should be bolded. It would make more sense to bold the admission that they do run sponsored content (paid propaganda pieces). – Christian Apr 15 '20 at 10:48
  • 1
    @Christian If you research it, it's because sponsored content is clearly labelled as such. CNN International was found to have broken some UK laws regarding current affairs programs between 2009-11 (UK law says current affairs programs may *never* be sponsored), but the investigation concluded that CNN International had been completely transparent in clearly labelling such content as "sponsored", and that their editorial impartiality hadn't been affected either way. So it's not noteworthy. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/18/bbc-world-news-cnn-international-cnbc-sponsorship-rules – Django Reinhardt Apr 15 '20 at 10:59
  • 1
    The fact that someone claims to be impartial after they took money is just a self serving claim. It doesn't change the fact that they have a conflict of interest. There's no claim in the meme about them not being open about running paid propaganda. The question is whether or not they run paid propaganda and they did. Furthermore a lot of labelling of sponsoring is not picked up by most of the audience. – Christian Apr 15 '20 at 11:10
  • 3
    @Christian I'm sorry Christian but the OFCOM investigation is the one who found them to be impartial. The Obama administration did not pay CNN for content, Amber Lyons was never claimed they did, nor did she claim that she was forced to delete "unfriendly" content about them or report "fake stories", and she was never "fired" for whistleblowing. The meme is 100% false. – Django Reinhardt Apr 15 '20 at 11:12
  • 1
    @DjangoReinhardt : The link you provide doesn't say that they found them to be impartial. They say that they can't proof that the conflict of interests that existed in the form of significant amounts of money changing hands influented editorial decisions. – Christian Apr 15 '20 at 11:15
  • @Christian Please point me to section of the Ofcom report which says that the Obama administration paid CNN for content, deleted "unfriendly" reports about them, and published fake news. Thanks. – Django Reinhardt Apr 15 '20 at 11:30
  • @DjangoReinhardt Do you think that only being bribed by the Obama administration would be worthy to be critized and not being bribed by the Bahraini's? – Christian Apr 15 '20 at 11:33
  • 3
    @Christian I suggest you start a new question asking for evidence that CNNi was "bribed" by the Bahrain government. Amber's claims are explored in full in my answer. – Django Reinhardt Apr 15 '20 at 11:36
  • 1
    If someone claims a politicians was bribed and the politcian did receive the money on their personal bank account, we usually say that they got bribed even when nobody proved that the money influenced their political decisions. I don't understand why you would hold journalists against a different standard. – Christian Apr 15 '20 at 12:18
  • 1
    @Christian I'm doing no such thing. There's no "personal bank account" here. TV shows are sponsored all the time. If they tried to claim they weren't sponsored, or were secretive about who their sponsors were, then you could claim impropriety. They are open and transparent about all sponsored content -- even openly making reference to it themselves. Plus the accusations are already addressed in my answer in great detail. – Django Reinhardt Apr 15 '20 at 13:06
  • The actual OFCOM report on "Funded Factual Programmes" is on pages 30-142 of https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/50079/issue_285.pdf – Henry Jun 01 '22 at 15:19
  • 1
    Personal attacks are inappropriate on a site like this regardless of whom the target is. This site is about evidence. Association with a particular individual is not evidence for or against an assertion, unless the assertion specifically touches that association. _Stick to the evidence._ Anything else weakens your answer. – Kyralessa Jun 14 '22 at 06:09
  • @Kyralessa What "personal attacks" are you referring to? – Django Reinhardt Jun 14 '22 at 14:10
  • @Kyralessa I've read your entire comment. What "personal attacks" are you referring to? – Django Reinhardt Jun 14 '22 at 14:14
  • @Kyralessa Please quote the offending elements of the answer you're referring to – Django Reinhardt Jun 14 '22 at 17:17
  • This answer should stick to the facts and omit the author's opinions. Incidentally, if someone fears something will happen and it doesn't, that doesn't necessarily mean those fears were unfounded. People feared acid rain would destroy our forests; it didn't; but it would have if we hadn't done anything. – reinierpost Jun 17 '22 at 16:22
  • 1
    @reinierpost Please quote any objectionable content so that it can be assessed. Otherwise you are making vague statements that are applicable to every answer on every SE site – Django Reinhardt Jun 17 '22 at 16:59
  • "Ironically, the article and the infographic are both spreading the same type of propaganda they accuse CNN of." Opinion. Judgemental. Irrelevant. – reinierpost Jun 17 '22 at 17:03
  • "So confused was she by this, that" Speculation. Judgemental. Irrelevant. – reinierpost Jun 17 '22 at 17:03
  • "Update: Eight years after she voiced her concerns, we can see that her fears of a US war with Iran were unfounded." Opinion. How do you know they were unfounded? – reinierpost Jun 17 '22 at 17:09
  • At first I thought the whole aside was superfluous, but on second thought I think it provides important context. – reinierpost Jun 17 '22 at 17:09
  • 1
    @reinierpost Thanks. I've considered your objections. 1, this is the central argument of the answer which is then argued with sources. 2, this is recounting her own story -- ie. this is what SHE said. 3, this is trivial semantics, but I will edit it to satisfy you. – Django Reinhardt Jun 17 '22 at 18:15