What's notable about the return of Toobin isn't that he was allowed back or that his colleagues are treating him like a colleague now that he is a colleague again.
I've been avoiding this story because — as I've said from the start — mishandling a camera and getting seen doing something that would be mundane in private should stimulate pity, discretion, and a rush toward forgetting.
If it's true that what happened to Toobin was pure accident, we should react the way we do when we barge in on someone sitting on the toilet, which is to quickly say, "I'm sorry," and retreat as quickly as possible into the pretense that nothing happened. We don't laugh about it and go on for months calling this person "The Defecator" the way people are calling Jeffrey Toobin "The Masturbator."
But there is something I want to say about Toobin, and I'm not seeing the current headlines even mentioning it.
As I said last fall, there's a big difference if Toobin intentionally exhibited himself. It's possible that Toobin appropriated a captive audience for his sexual gratification:
A person might derive kinky pleasure from flashing a quick glimpse of his nakedness. A person — perhaps Toobin — might think: They'll wonder What the hell am I seeing? No way! He may trust that they won't do anything about it. They'll just think: Oh, poor Jeffrey, so embarrassing. We'll all just pretend we didn't see that.
If Jeffrey — or whoever — thinks like that, he could also progress to thinking something more like: I am free! I can do this and get away with it! They'll all pretend they didn't see!
That's abusive.
I thought there was going to be an investigation to determine whether what happened was more than an embarrassing mistake. But now Toobin is back, and I see he's still asserting that it was an unfortunate accident, and I don't see anyone questioning that characterization. When was it ever determined that he lacked intent? It seems to me that the powers that be simply waited for some time to pass, then brought him back and expected us not to think about the only question that ever mattered. That plan seems to have worked!
Am I the only one talking about this? To me, the current reintegration of Toobin into the media elite is offensive because it totally eclipses the only question that justified doing anything other than pitying Toobin and never even reporting the story in the first place.
पोस्ट्स
१८ टिप्पण्या:
Temujin writes:
This comes back to my favorite topic. Standards. Or really, the lack of them in today's world. This was not an anomaly. This was not just some lack of better judgement (by their law expert). This was a conscious act of bizarre self-fondling in front of his entire team. And it's not even that he was masturbating in front of his team (maybe he's a big fan of Louis C.K.). It's that he chose a meeting- zoom or otherwise- to make that his time to pleasure himself. As a former business person who took part in more than my share of meetings, both in front of large groups, and via teleconference, I can honestly say I never once had the thought: "Say...this seems like a good time to whip it out.". I would hope my employees took my business more seriously. Especially those getting paid a nice wage. One would think it's time for serious adults and corporations to take some responsibility, and have some accountability, and not just when someone says 'Maga!' or, "I'm not a racist.".
CNN and the rest of the media have literally no idea how many people think they are clowns. They want us to take them seriously. They get all glassy eyed when they are insulted by politicians or citizens. Yet, they get nothing right. They seemingly have zero standards. They cannot tell the difference between truth and fiction, tending to go with the fiction over truth every time. Remember the 'peaceful demonstrations' while standing in front of a burning Atlanta?
Remember how they censored any reporting of Hunter Biden's laptop- a crucial bit of information going into the election? This- after the actual information was already out there. We knew it to be true.
Remember how they all laughed about Hydroxychloroquine, simply because Trump backed it's use or more research into it? And voila! They were wrong about that, too.
Remember the 'Russia! Russia! Russia! collusion farce they kept alive for years? We do.
Remember the fake FISA warrants that would lead to imminent indictments? We do.
Remember how Andrew Cuomo was Godlike and Gov. DeSantis was evil and stupid? We do. And we in Florida have lived a nicer, freer year than anyone else in the nation, while New York is a freaking mess.
Remember how Lafayette Square was cleared so Trump could do his walk? Yeah...except that also turned out to be false.
And on and on. This list could be two pages long. CNN has been so wrong about so many things for so long that the majority of people stopped thinking of them as a news organization years ago. They are thought of as clowns. And their decision to give Toobin a 'time-out' for masturbating at a zoom meeting with the team says all you need to know about this organization. Had that been my employee, he'd be gone. Within the hour.
CNN reminds me of an article I once read about actual clowns. In the article, the clown talked about how seriously he took his 'art'. And it is an art form, for those who really make (or made) a career out of it. There are/were clowns who took it seriously. They considered themselves artists. But no matter how seriously they took themselves, this clown remarked, the public only saw clowns.
This is CNN.
Vince writes:
Your post about the Toobin Zoom incident was, I think, correct. Based upon the limited nature of the reports concerning the incident, it is entirely possible that Toobin has been pilloried for a mere technical mistake.
It seems to me that Toobin's past history of sexual transgression (fathering a child with Jeff Greenfield’s daughter while married to another woman, falsely denying that behavior, propositioning female colleagues, swingers clubs) supports the darker version of the narrative. See https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/cnn-jeffrey-toobin-made-shockingly-sexual-proposition-well-known-media-figure-claims-article-1.198127
And there is also the element of the ethics of Toobin’s professional life. His pursuit of Elliot Abrams on Iran/contra was hardball to put it mildly. Abrams was coerced into a guilty plea, and later pardoned. Toobin’s writings and cable news commentaries for the public regarding the USSC are monotonously propagandistic. These things may predispose me against Toobin, but not irrationally.
Tony writes:
Yes, you are the only one.
Most people take the Joe Rogan approach and don't think about it. If they do, they think what a pathetic perv. Those who would associate with him are just as sad. That they still have a high self regard is exponentially more pathetic.
Do people still watch CNN outside of the airports?
Dave Begley writes:
An investigation? By CNN? Surely you joke. They aren’t in that business. CNN won’t investigate to see if the 2020 election was stolen or if the FBI had people inside the Capitol on 1-6.
I do think there's an investigation at the New Yorker that we've never heard the end of.
From CNN Business:
The New Yorker suspended Toobin and fired him a month later, after its internal investigation had been completed.
Toobin said that The New Yorker did not find any other forms of misconduct by him during its probe of his 27 years at the magazine.
"I was told very specifically by the people involved that they looked at my entire career ... and found there had been no complaints about me," Toobin said. "No issues. ... It was just this incident."
Toobin said that he believed The New Yorker's decision to fire him was "excessive punishment."
"But look," he added, "that's why they don't ask the criminal to be the judge in his own case."
A spokesperson for The New Yorker declined to comment.
CNN took a different approach from The New Yorker's. The network said at the time that Toobin had asked for some time off "while he deals with a personal issue, which we have granted."
So the New Yorker did do its investigation and the consequence of that is firing. I would infer that they did find intent but that keeping it unspoken was part of the arrangement. The CNN interviewer didn't ask Toobin about the findings of the investigation but let him say the punishment was excessive, though it wouldn't be excessive if they found he meant to exhibit himself.
Rose writes:
I agree with you about Toobin. Based on his past history, I have no doubt it is possible he planned to do what he did. He certainly seems comfortable in trying to manipulate women. CNN didn’t seem interested in finding out.
BTW, this is not a defense of Casey Greenfield. She was an adult when she got involved with Tobin and should have known he was married and possibly that he was involved with additional women. To her credit she did push back when he tried to control her response.
A question I have seen elsewhere: Is he the only legal analyst anywhere? What a great opportunity to hire a more diverse candidate missed and why?
I do agree with Temujin – if my employee, he would have been gone. If I saw restitution from him, I might consider rehiring him in the future, but “whoops” doesn’t cut it as an apology.
Iain writes:
The problem with Toobin is not so much the question of whether he intended to be "discovered," though that's perhaps an interesting question about the extent of his narcissism. The problem is that he intended to spank the monkey during a business meeting.
The reaction to this from so many of my liberal "Me Too" citing female friends has been a bizarre contrast with their declared views of what's acceptable social behaviour. They are completely forgiving, following the approved line that Toobin was simply accidentally caught doing what we all do. Really? No, we don't all wank during business meetings. We just don't. Even now that my friends are telling me it's apparently OK, I'm not going to do it. It's selfish, it's malignantly narcissistic. As Temujin points out, normal people don't even think of doing this. It really is beyond the pale, and he ought to be held responsible. This tells us a lot about what matters at CNN, and it's not flattering to the network.
---Iain
PS: I am enjoying Temujin's consistently interesting commentary. He's lucid, articulate, and he engages with the material. He seems to be an exemplar of what you were looking for in the new comments policy, and as a reader, I like it too.
Ken writes:
I am trying to picture how an investigation would proceed into whether Toobin acted intentionally or mistakenly in sharing his diversion with his colleagues. I'm with the "why wasn't the position simply filled?" take.
I spoke the other day with a friend who confessed that he was on an early morning 2 person work video call. Put on a shirt and tie but no trousers. Stood up unthinking and the woman let out a scream. Maybe saved by the knowledge he is out. That led to another friend describing a group zoom where a male participant stood up to put on his trousers in full view while my friend tried to alert him in the chat.
Is this something only men do?
Michael writes:
"Temujin writes (of the media, but it could be Progressives in general) " They cannot tell the difference between truth and fiction..." But this isn't quite right. They can tell the difference; it's just that to them 'truth' is that which advances the Progressive agenda and 'fiction' is anything that impedes it - and the words have no other meaning. This is why it's essentially impossible to have a discussion with them."
MikeR writes:
@Aian "PS: I am enjoying Temujin's consistently interesting commentary. He's lucid, articulate, and he engages with the material." I protest on behalf of those of us who aren't, aren't, and don't.
Michelle writes:
Commenter Rose surely can't be serious in asking if Toobin is "the only legal analyst anywhere." If he were, there would be no opportunity to hire a "more diverse candidate." There is no "diversity" when the sample size is one.
As to where are the others, well, Nina Totenberg, Adam Liptak, and Linda Greenhouse all spring to mind. But they are probably not "diverse" enough for Rose, all being white.
Your hypothesis about Toobin's behavior is interesting, but IMO beside the point. You are framing the incident as Toobin did himself -- i.e., the problem was just that people saw him masturbating, not that he was masturbating while being paid to pay attention to something besides his dick -- and adding the wrinkle that maybe he wanted to be caught. But that's the wrong frame. The relevant question is that the idiot thought it was OK for him to jerk off as long as no one saw him at it. But it's wrong even if no one knows. To take your caught-on-the-toilet example: If you were actually dumb enough to install your Zoom camera in the bathroom, no one could be accused of "walking in on you" when your poop was televised.
Barry writes:
I agree that there is a larger question of intent that should be pursued (and perhaps was by the New Yorker), though I am not sure how one would come to any conclusion on intent without an honest confession from Toobin. And it seems clear that he has gotten cleared (by CNN standards) via the generous grace of time and privilege of connections and position.
But this isn't the same as walking in on someone in the bathroom or while changing. Perhaps I am naive and too acclimated to a digital life but these stories that popped up in 2020/2021 of telecommuting mishaps (like Ken relays) simply point to the perpetrators' unawareness of the world around them. I never had anyone tell me this, but it seems obvious: You should never do anything on a conference call (video or otherwise) that you wouldn't do in an in-person meeting. Don't use the toilet. Don't talk to someone else in the room with you about a different matter. Don't pick your nose. Don't try to multitask and not pay attention to the meeting at hand. And don't pleasure yourself or expose yourself.
It is not prudish or anti-sex to say you should not masturbate while at work. It is just courtesy and respect for others. Yes, there is a blurring of work and home for telecommuters, but it is past time for folks to grow up and realize their obligations to the people around them (even virtually).
I'm not recommending masturbating at work.
But Toobin was at home, and these have been strange times. I would be more empathetic about human frailty.
But if he did it to get a thrill, it's completely different. Of course, there's no way to know because he's lying if that's what it was and he might be lying.
I am simply objecting to the current news coverage of this story and the way, when he made his comeback, there was no questioning on this point. And there *was* continued humiliation, including his self-abasement that included asserting that his lack of intent to appear on camera was not a defense in any way! It's a defense against the really awful charge that isn't being talked about.
R.A. Crankbait writes:
Somewhat lost in the story is the topic of the Zoom call: Toobin and the other pundits were going through a role-playing simulation or rehearsal in preparation for commentary on election night.
So Toobin was essentially pleasuring himself while discussing how they were going to attack Trump or spin the results coming in. If that's what floats your boat....
Steven L. writes:
"If it's true that what happened to Toobin was pure accident, we should react the way we do when we barge in on someone sitting on the toilet, which is to quickly say, "I'm sorry," and retreat as quickly as possible into the pretense that nothing happened. We don't laugh about it and go on for months calling this person "The Defecator" the way people are calling Jeffrey Toobin "The Masturbator.""
I cannot quite agree with your analogy. This isn't like walking in on someone in the restroom, where you expect to find people using it. This situation is more like walking into someone's office at work and finding them using the toilet there - sans toilet.
In such a case, I think the person *would* pick up a nickname - on the way out the door after being immediately fired.
At work = different rules.
Tolkein writes:
Why wasn't he fired for gross misconduct?
If he was on a work call, he should have been working, not xxxxing (I'm a bit of a prude). He couldn't have been concentrating on work, or his colleagues' comments, all of which is very rude, quite apart from not being what he was paid for.
I assume he has material on CNN management. And what about the female colleague who interviewed him about the matter. Disgusting and gross.
Rose writes:
“But Toobin was at home, and these have been strange times. I would be more empathetic about human frailty.”
Perhaps the lack of empathy you are seeing is due to the experiences of people who also worked from home. I worked from home for 4 months and it was made crystal clear that we should treat the experience like we were still in the office. In fact we continued Zoom calls for months afterwards despite being in offices next to one another during the calls.
But I did forget that all this occurred during planning for election night coverage. When you are practicing “what ifs”, it can get boring for those not very involved. Still a stupid thing to do, hut you are correct in saying no one really knows what happened except Toobin.
And since I have been called out … I was being sarcastic. Obviously there are numerous people capable and willing to do legal analysis for CNN. Were I CNN, I would have looked at a number of options to replace Toobin and perhaps they did.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा