Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Eason Jordan Accuse US Military Of Assassinating Journalists?
captainsquarters ^ | February 01, 2005 | Captain Ed

Posted on 02/02/2005 2:56:56 PM PST by swilhelm73

Forumblog, the blog dedicated to covering the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, reported last Friday that CNN chief Eason Jordan accused the US military of targeting journalists for assassination, and succeeding in twelve cases (via Hugh Hewitt):

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others. Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters.

Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real "sh--storm". What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military.

To be fair (and balanced), Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it.

To be fair, I can't find anything on this other than the Forumblog source. A Google on Eason Jordan Davos journalist doesn't immediately produce anything on topic other than references back to Forumblog. I have no reason not to trust Forumblog, but I also don't know much about Forumblog. One link does confirm Jordan's participation in the conference, but it's just a roster.

If true, this boggles the mind. Eason Jordan, who represents a news agency, gets up in the middle of an economic forum and claims that America's military has a policy of assassinating journalists -- and then backs off by saying that he's just passing on rumor? Bloggers wouldn't do that, let alone reputable journalists. And if Jordan said this, then why hasn't CNN reported on it? A search of the CNN site for military target journalist reporter returns nothing germane to Jordan's accusations. The second link takes the reader to the death of three reporters in Baghdad during the battle in April 2003. Jordan's own network has not a single mention of this stunning news.

Jordan has admitted to a skewed sense of journalistic ethics in the past. In a shocking column he wrote for the New York Times in April 2003, Jordan admitted that he had spiked news stories that reflected badly on Saddam Hussein to maintain CNN's favor with the genocidal maniac:

Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. ... A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

The question must be asked of Eason Jordan, especially in light of last week's events in Davos, as to his true motivations of his oddball sense of ethics. He refuses to report real stories of atrocities when they involve genocidal tyrants that just happen to oppose the United States -- but has no problem passing along rumors of atrocities that slander the American military. Does the protection of innocent life really lie at the heart of Jordan's calculations, or is it something more sinister and political? From where I sit, it looks like Jordan has a lot more interest in damaging American security interests than in reporting truth to the world.

Memogate pales in comparison to this. Memogate could be explained as an out-of-control producer working in a biased environment that allowed her to run wild, although I think it was much more than that. In this case, Jordan runs the news division. If he's passing rumors off as truth, especially in an international forum such as Davos where the damage to US prestige could be fatal to our troops in the field, it could be the worst scandal for American journalism in long memory. It could destroy CNN as a news organization almost overnight.

Jordan needs to come clean about his statements in Davos, and David Gergen should either confirm Jordan's accusations or clear the record. If indeed Forumblog reported this honestly, then Jordan needs to either produce the evidence for such charges or resign in disgrace, with his last action an apology to the US military aired in CNN's prime-time news show. If not, CNN's entire news organization loses all credibility as long as he remains in it.

UPDATE: GayPatriot actually covered this yesterday and lists OpinionJournal's Political Diary (subscription required) as a confirming source:

I'm no fan of openly gay Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, but when at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he did something which surprised -- and pleased me. And I've got to give him credit for questioning a ludicrous claim made by a CNN Executive. According to Friday's Wall Street Journal Political Diary (available by subscription), Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive at CNN, implied that the American military was deliberately killing journalists in Iraq. He even "offered the story of an Al-Jazeera journalist who had been 'tortured for weeks' at Abu Ghraib, made to eat his shoes, and called "Al Jazeera boy" by his American captors."

And then, this liberal Democrat pressed Mr. Jordan to be more specific, putting the CNN Executive on the spot. The newsman rambled on a bit and mumbled some sort of response about how "'There are people who believe there are people in the military who have it out' for journalists." He could provide no evidence to buttress his claims, then "offered another anecdote: A reporter who'd been standing in a long line to get through a checkpoint at Baghdad's Green Zone had been turned back by the GI on duty. Apparently the soldier had been displeased with the reporter's dispatches, and sent him to the back of the line."

I think we can start thinking about dropping all the "ifs", and start demanding some answers from CNN. If Jordan has evidence of this military practice, why hasn't CNN reported it? And if he has no evidence, why would the chief of a worldwide news agency spread unsubstantiated rumors? What else has CNN reported that is similarly sourced, and what else has CNN suppressed with solid sourcing?

The first symptoms of the cancer may have appeared at CBS, but obviously the malignancy runs much deeper and wider than that.


TOPICS: Front Page News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cnn; easonjordan; iraq; mediabias; pressbias

1 posted on 02/02/2005 2:56:56 PM PST by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Thanks for the post-- I've been following it here.   They also had:

UPDATE: CNN has sent out an email to several bloggers, including us, that says:

Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan’s remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists. Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions.

Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of "collateral damage."


2 posted on 02/02/2005 3:12:49 PM PST by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama

Hugh Hewitt's all over this story too -- just discussed it on the radio with Jim Geraghty from TKS on NRO. Good work by bloggers...again!!


3 posted on 02/02/2005 3:20:00 PM PST by GOPrincess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
To be fair (and balanced), Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it.

But he just loved the applause, so he kept repeating the lie.

4 posted on 02/02/2005 3:20:17 PM PST by silent_jonny (The Nightime Sniffling Sneezing Coughing Aching Stuffyhead Fever So You Can Freep Medicine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
"Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of "collateral damage."

Which is it? Frank's was claiming 63 journalist have been killed by our military and Jordan was responding or was Frank trying to pin Jordan down for evidence of our military killing journalists. And who was the Senator present?

5 posted on 02/02/2005 3:27:26 PM PST by MontanaBeth (NEVER FORGET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama

Isn't this the CNN producer who refused to do stories before the war that made the Saddam Hussein regime look bad, in exchange for his reporters being allowed to roam around Iraq unmolested, in otherwords, got in bed with Saddam?


6 posted on 02/02/2005 3:28:24 PM PST by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

Mentally-ill asshole. Period.


7 posted on 02/02/2005 3:29:35 PM PST by 7.62 x 51mm ( veni vidi vino visa "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 7.62 x 51mm

I concur with your diagnosis, doctor. Should we proceed with the anal/cranial evacuation?


8 posted on 02/02/2005 3:33:47 PM PST by IGOTMINE (Please arm yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb.

Now, that's torture. Makes Abu Graab look like a picnic.


9 posted on 02/02/2005 3:41:04 PM PST by conshack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPrincess
Eason Jordan is also the one who said after Saddam was toppled by US forces that CNN did not report all the evil Saddam had done so that it could continue to report from Iraq. This man is an outrage.
10 posted on 02/02/2005 3:42:58 PM PST by elhombrelibre (Liberalism is proof that intelligent people can ignore as much as the ignorant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

Yes, it's described in the article above.


11 posted on 02/02/2005 3:58:04 PM PST by hobson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hobson

BTW is Sites still alive?


12 posted on 02/02/2005 4:10:48 PM PST by jocko12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MontanaBeth
Which is it?

That's the key.   Was Jordan "taken out of context" as saying that he believed the US assassinated journalists, or as saying he didn't believe it?  IOW, is CNN lying now or were they lying before?

13 posted on 02/02/2005 4:11:14 PM PST by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jocko12

Who is Sites?


14 posted on 02/02/2005 4:15:19 PM PST by hobson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
IOW, is CNN lying now or were they lying before?

Probably both.

15 posted on 02/02/2005 5:04:13 PM PST by MontanaBeth (NEVER FORGET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IGOTMINE

Yes, by all available means, I. How can you tell the difference with lib-dems?


16 posted on 02/02/2005 7:29:15 PM PST by 7.62 x 51mm ( veni vidi vino visa "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

INTREP


17 posted on 02/02/2005 8:46:02 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bttt


18 posted on 02/02/2005 10:35:58 PM PST by XHogPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XHogPilot

Why have you slapped 3 Eason Jordon articles into Breaking all at once?


19 posted on 02/02/2005 10:45:57 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
Yes.

Eason Jordan's statement

This statement appeared in today's New York Times.

Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.

We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails).

Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.

I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.

Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN.

20 posted on 02/02/2005 10:52:13 PM PST by Howlin (It's a great day to be an American -- and a Bush Republican!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
At the risk of being crude and being ZOTTED. It is my opinion that the disloyal media are fair game in a firefight as they are the enemy when they help the enemy.
21 posted on 02/03/2005 12:01:06 AM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1334604/posts
JUST WHAT DID EASON JORDAN SAY?
NRO ^ | 2/1/05 | jim geraghty

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1334818/posts
Speculation and cynicism and journalism (CNN's at it again)
Buzzmachine ^ | 2/205 | Jeff Jarvis

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333761/posts
Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq? [Eason Jordan Accuses Troops of Murder]


Breaking News?


22 posted on 02/03/2005 2:18:04 AM PST by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MontanaBeth

IIRC Frist was there.


23 posted on 02/03/2005 2:36:25 AM PST by Roccus (Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

hmm...?


24 posted on 02/03/2005 2:46:34 AM PST by swilhelm73 (Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

Hmmm..I saw this posted in breaking news and felt it was not..breaking news. I linked previous threads.


25 posted on 02/03/2005 3:02:24 AM PST by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: conshack
Now, that's torture.

Well, not unless they put panties on her head too.

26 posted on 02/03/2005 3:14:08 AM PST by blanknoone (The two big battles left in the War on Terror are against our State dept and our media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

The real story still is not being told...the media blackout. If a senior executive at Davos in any other industry made unfounded claims about the US military targetting its employees, the media would have been all over it. But because it was one of their own, the world doesn't know about it.

It was supposedly taped, and CNN is saying he was 'taken out of context' without providing the transcript.


27 posted on 02/03/2005 3:28:30 AM PST by blanknoone (The two big battles left in the War on Terror are against our State dept and our media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama

In other words, Jordan did blame the US soldiers for all the killings before he didn't blame our soldiers.


28 posted on 02/03/2005 3:55:13 AM PST by OldFriend (America's glory is not dominion, but liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

Most inexplicable of all is that Jordan is now the lover of Daniel Pearl's widow.


29 posted on 02/03/2005 3:56:14 AM PST by OldFriend (America's glory is not dominion, but liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
The man is a fool.

In his "statement," he tells us that he has not been telling us the truth for years. It was not because they wanted to "help" Iraqis, it was so CNN could stay there, file their false stories and make money selling commercials in newscasts!

If they has really wanted to help Iraqis, they would have told the truth about Saddam, thereby leading to his removal earlier.

Finally, what does any of this new "statement' have to do with his ridiculous claim that the USMIL has purposely killed journalists?

I have been an Army PIO in RVN and reporter with troops in later days. His claims are the height of delusion.

Of course, in the claim that the USMIL targeted journalists.... there might have to be some exceptions for Geraldo :~)
30 posted on 02/03/2005 4:50:45 AM PST by MindBender26 (Having your own XM177 E2 means never having to say you are sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Captain Ed as usual has done a first rate job. All should know while blogging his wife awaits a pancreas transplant. Send your thoughts and prayers to them both


31 posted on 02/03/2005 4:53:09 AM PST by CT CONSERVATIVE (Fight Crime: Shoot Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: conshack
And Eason felt just terrible suppressing that news. (There is a yellow stripe running down his back a mile and a half wide)
32 posted on 02/03/2005 5:08:20 AM PST by Angry Enough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

Someone finally got to Geraldo for shooting his mouth off?


33 posted on 02/03/2005 5:45:20 AM PST by newzjunkey (Demand Mexico Turnover Fugitive Murderers: http://www.escapingjustice.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

I'm sorry; I should have put the date on that statement; it was in April of 2003:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1334780/posts?page=44#44


34 posted on 02/03/2005 7:32:39 AM PST by Howlin (It's a great day to be an American -- and a Bush Republican!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

TOPICS: Front Page News; War on Terror; Click to Add Topic

I didn't put it in Front Page News myself, but I can see why someone would. It is not in breaking news though anyway.


35 posted on 02/03/2005 10:55:27 AM PST by swilhelm73 (Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

It was when I posted the links...it's NBD


36 posted on 02/03/2005 11:10:55 AM PST by MEG33 (GOD BLESS OUR ARMED FORCES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

Hmm, well, then I completely missed the tempest in a teapot I guess.

I've given up, for the most part, on using breaking/front page categories.

It is bad enough that I often get complaints about "reposting" an article because someone at sometime posted a somewhat similar one. I don't want to deal with hunting through every possible permutation of the topics dealt with to verify the news hasn't already been "broken". ;)


37 posted on 02/03/2005 1:39:16 PM PST by swilhelm73 (Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Roccus; MontanaBeth
IIRC Frist was there.

It was Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT).

Frist was also at Davos but, evidently, did not attend this panel discussion.

38 posted on 02/03/2005 3:12:53 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: okie01
It was Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT).

Thanks for the info.

39 posted on 02/03/2005 4:34:14 PM PST by MontanaBeth (NEVER FORGET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD
Wasn't it Eason Jordan who admitted after we took Baghdad that CNN had been withholding the truth about the Iraqi regime for years? In the New York Times, he confessed that his network didn't report all the "awful things" it learned about life under Saddam Hussein. His reason: that CNN was afraid that Iraq's information ministry would shut down that bureau and cut off CNN's access to Iraqi "newsmakers."

 

CNN's Access of Evil The network of record covered Saddam's repression with propaganda.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003336

BY FRANKLIN FOER Monday, April 14, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

As Baghdad fell last week, CNN announced that it too had been liberated. On the New York Times' op-ed page on Friday, Eason Jordan, the network's news chief, admitted that his organization had learned some "awful things" about the Baathist regime--murders, tortures, assassination plots--that it simply could not broadcast earlier. Reporting these stories, Mr. Jordan wrote, "would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff."

Of course, Mr. Jordan may feel he deserves a pinch of credit for coming clean like this. But this admission shouldn't get him any ethical journalism trophies. For a long time, CNN denied that its coverage skimped on truth. While I researched a story on CNN's Iraq coverage for the New Republic last October, Mr. Jordan told me flatly that his network gave "a full picture of the regime." In our conversation, he challenged me to find instances of CNN neglecting stories about Saddam's horrors. If only I'd had his Times op-ed!

Would that this were an outbreak of honesty, however belated. But it isn't. If it were, Mr. Jordan wouldn't be portraying CNN as Saddam's victim. He'd be apologizing for its cooperation with Iraq's erstwhile information ministry--and admitting that CNN policy hinders truthful coverage of dictatorships. For CNN, the highest prize is "access," to score live camera feeds from a story's epicenter. Dictatorships understand this hunger, and also that it provides blackmail opportunities. In exchange for CNN bureaus, dictatorships require adherence to their own rules of reportage. They create conditions where CNN--and other U.S. media--can do little more than toe the regime's line.

The Iraq example is the telling one. Information Minister Mohammad Said al-Sahhaf has turned into an international joke, but the operation of his ministry was a model of totalitarian efficiency. The ministry compiled dossiers on U.S. journalists. It refused to issue visas to anyone potentially hostile--which meant that it didn't issue visas to reporters who strayed from al-Sahhaf's talking points. CNN correspondents Wolf Blitzer, Christiane Amanpour and Richard Roth, to name a few, were banned for critical reporting. It didn't take much to get on this list. A reporter who referred to "Saddam" (not "President Saddam Hussein") was shut out for "disrespect." If you didn't cover agitprop, like Saddam's 100% victory in October's referendum, the ministry made it clear that you were out.

Leaving, however, might have been preferable to staying under these conditions. Upon arrival in Iraq, journalists contended with constant surveillance. Minders obstructed their every move, dictated camera angles, and prevented unauthorized interviews. When the regime worried that it had lost control of a journalist, it resorted to more heavy-handed methods. Information ministry officials would wake journalists in the dead of night, drive them to government buildings, and denounce them as CIA plants. The French documentary filmmaker Joel Soler described to me how his minder took him to a hospital to ostensibly examine the effects of sanctions, but then called in a nurse with a long needle "for a series of blood tests." Only Mr. Soler's screaming prevented an uninvited jab.

With so little prospect for reporting the truth, you'd think that CNN and other networks would have stopped sending correspondents into Iraq. But the opposite occurred. Each time the regime threatened to pull the plug, network execs set out to assiduously reassure them. Mr. Jordan made 13 of these trips.

To be fair, CNN was not the only organization to play this game. But as the network of record, soi-disant , they have a longer trail than most. It makes rich reading to return to transcripts and compare the CNN version of Iraq with the reality that has emerged. For nearly a decade, the network gave credulous treatment to orchestrated anti-U.S. protests. When Saddam won his most recent "election," CNN's Baghdad reporter Jane Arraf treated the event as meaningful: "The point is that this really is a huge show of support" and "a vote of defiance against the United States." After Saddam granted amnesty to prisoners in October, she reported, this "really does diffuse one of the strongest criticisms over the past decades of Iraq's human-rights records."

For long stretches, Ms. Arraf was American TV's only Baghdad correspondent. Her work was often filled with such parrotings of the Baathist line. On the Gulf War's 10th anniversary, she told viewers, "At 63, [Saddam] mocks rumors he is ill. Not just standing tall but building up. As soon as the dust settled from the Gulf War, and the bodies were buried, Iraq began rebuilding." She said little about human-rights violations, violent oppression, or festering resentment towards Saddam. Scouring her oeuvre , it is nearly impossible to find anything on these defining features of the Baathist epoch.

Reading Mr. Jordan now, you get the impression that CNN had no ethical option other than to soft-pedal. But there were alternatives. CNN could have abandoned Baghdad. Not only would they have stopped recycling lies, they could have focused more intently on obtaining the truth about Saddam. They could have diverted resources to Kurdistan and Jordan (the country), where recently arrived Iraqis could speak without fear of death. They could have exploited exile groups with underground contacts.

There's another reason why Mr. Jordan doesn't deserve applause. He says nothing about the lessons of Baghdad. After all, the network still sends correspondents to such countries as Cuba, Burma and Syria, ruled by dictators who impose media "guidelines." Even if CNN ignores the moral costs of working with such regimes, it should at least pay attention to the practical costs. These governments only cooperate with CNN because it suits their short-term interests. They don't reward loyalty. It wasn't surprising, then, that the Information Ministry booted CNN from Baghdad in the war's first days. In a way CNN's absence at this pivotal moment provides a small measure of justice: The network couldn't use its own cameras to cover the fall of a regime that it had treated with such astonishing respect.

Mr. Foer, an associate editor of The New Republic, is the author of "Soccer Explains the World," to be published soon by HarperCollins.

40 posted on 02/06/2005 9:37:39 AM PST by beaelysium (Paradise is always where love dwells.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson