Skip to comments.Who’s Responsible For More Deaths, Enron or CNN?
Posted on 04/11/2003 5:34:30 PM PDT by sjersey
From: HOWARD Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:13:25 EDT To: email@example.com Subject: The News We (CNN) Kept to Ourselves
This man is disgusting. He lifts rationalizing to new heights. To tell the truth or not to tell the truth, that is the question. Is it nobler in the mind to tell the truth and save some lives, or to refrain, thus costing more lives over time. Oh, and silly me. I thought it was a journalists duty to report the truth. But not when it interferes with the bottom line apparently. After all CNN might have lost some its position in Iraqi, thus losing its position in the ratings Oh, wait. It did anyway.
Of what use is it for a news organization to maintain a presence in a country if it won't report the news it finds there? Oh, wait. It lets them get scoops, ratings, and, thereby, money. How foolish of me to entertain the thought that their job might be to report the news.
Yet they won't wear flag lapel pins or use the term we to refer to freedom-fighting American troops, because that might cast doubt upon their precious objectivity. How absolutely vile. This is the lowest. CNN spent millions on the production of an anti American anti military piece of fiction about nerve gas in Vietnam. But will not tell the truth in Iraq because it fears retribution.
Well dude, the retribution is here. CNN like the Baghdad Broadcasting Corp are going down the tubes. I won't watch them again. ''The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
This is really the journalistic equivalent of corporate greed. Who is worse: ENRON's Andy Fastow, or CNN's Jordan? I'm sure every crooked corporate titan can justify in their own minds their skullduggery, but they are just grubby businessman. They are not as noble as a 'journalist'.
When it comes down to it, why are we more afraid and concerned about WMD than the leadership of an entire nation? Can't the leadership do worse damage with more far-reaching consequences than a WMD ever could? The things this man claims to know may have changed the course of history years ago - saving many destroyed families, lives, etc. Sticky situation with an easy solution - stand tall, stand righteous, be strong and do what's right, even if it's not popular or could be done cheaper...
This is very sad. This is indeed, nothing but some pre-emptive CYA by CNN. Too late. If CNN had any integrity, it would have removed it's entire staff in Baghdad when it became aware of such atrocities, fully broadcast the details of those atrocities, and it might have retained a shred of credibility.
It now is confirmed that CNN is not a news organization, it is a pack of pandering leftists who put profits first, and truth last. Funny, isn't that how they always slam those 'evil capitalists' they seem to deplore? Coward! This from an organization that will breathlessly report on anything about the Bush Administration that they perceive (insinuate) to have a hint of scandal: Cheney and the energy plan, Lott's comments, the Bush girls, ties to Enron, yet they cannot tell the truth about a murderous regime.
SAY IT! The only place a reporter can report (or manufacture a lie and report it) without fear is in the US, a country these bums work to tear down with every broadcast. PATHETIC! I'm sure CNN has the same side deal going with the Palestinian authority. This explains so much.
For over a decade CNN has knowingly hidden the truth about Saddam for years. People have been tortured and killed because CNN hid the truth in order to keep an office open in Iraq. But why? They werent reporting the truth! Read this news executives excuses. His hypocrisy is disgusting.
Why not pull their reporters out of Iraq and tell the truth about Saddam a year ago? They knew then that the truth would have supported George Bushs policy on Iraq. Knowing what they did about the monster in Baghdad, why did CNN continue their neutral editorial stand on going to war against what they knew was a regime of terror? Greed or cowardice?
For the sake of their business (which was knowingly reporting half truths and lies) they have been silent handmaidens to Saddam Hussein. They remained silent when the truth would have saved innocent lives. CNN is an accomplice to Saddams murders.
So he warned the King of Jordan.... why not the 2 brother-in-laws? They're dead. This really was disgusting. Out of his own mouth he condemns himself and it's written on paper! I guess confession is good for the soul, but how can he live with himself, knowing what he knew and staying silent. He should have been sitting next to Sec. Powell at the UN...adding his information to World!
And these are the guys who'd like the world to think the USA went to Iraq for the oil? Interesting how "businesses" if they support socialism and Democrats (think Hughes, Apple etc) get a free ride in the media (even when they ARE the media) but businesses who might not support Dems are excoriated (think Haliburton, MicroSoft).
Eason Jordan states that Uday Hussein told him that he was going to assassinate King Hussein of Jordan and his two brothers-in-law who had defected. Jordan says he "felt a moral obligation" to tell King Hussein about the threat. That's all fine and good, but didn't he have the same "moral obligation" to warn Uday's brothers-in-law??? If not personally, at least through US intelligence channels?
Well, he didn't. The brothers-in-law were lured back to Iraq under promises of their well-being - and then executed. CNN has blood on its hands, and I bet this is only the tip of the iceberg. When you know evil exists and you allow it to continue, you are just as responsible as those committing the evil. CNN does the exact SAME THING in Cuba, ever since it arrived there after securing permission to "broadcast" (CNN term for exporting propaganda). The network has a permanent female career correspondent there who, to date, has never uttered a negative word about the government. These people are media high-grade cyanide.
One has to wonder how many lives might have been saved if the press had told the truth about the torture in Iraq. What really angers me is how so many of these news outlets pretended there was no or little basis to the torture stories. Now, all of a sudden, they tell the truth. Perhaps if they had closed their bureaus and gone public with the atrocities hundreds if not thousands might have been saved. A pox on all their houses.
So who is responsible for the deaths of more people? ENRON, Global Crossing, Exxon, the timber industry, Newt Gingrich, and all the other whipping boys of the left ADDED TOGETHER, or CNN? Pull the plug on CNN... they are DONE!
Was Jordan so close to Uday that he could be trusted with information about a murder?
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
NO BLOOD FOR RATINGS!!
But to really get the aroma, compare the implication of Baghdad Pete Arnet reporting as the only westerner in Baghdad during the first Gulf war. What was the rationale? Why, "the public's right to know," of course!! The public, we are told, has the right to know anything bad about a moderate official like Nixon (and compared to Saddam, everyone short of Hillary is moderate).
Well, I guess we see now what the public does not have a right to know--anything negative about somebody who is actually is as ruthless as the Democrats painted Nixon to be.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ping list.
LET'S put this in perspective shall we - everybody involved with ENRON had bought into the hype and 'promise' of wealth un-imaginable. The employees had EVERY opportunity to make some stock distribution changes loooong before the end came and their paln, WHEN it was 'locked' for plan manaagement change it was ONLY locked for a couple of weeks ...
The REAL end came when the price of natural gas dipped - and caught ENRON in a squeeze play that ultimately resulted in their *complete* undoing ...
This was not a confession: it was a preemptive strike.
Our boys have gotten myriads of files from various Iraqi ministries, and great many Iraqis will be talking now. Mr. CNN is trying to put the most positive spin on his deeds before we learn about them --- and we will --- from Iraqi citizens and Iraqi archives.
It's not conscience that speaks here: just as is slept for a decade it could continue to sleep. It's not sonscience at all --- it's cowardice.
.. cnn probably wants to let the air out of the tires slowly on this one ...
Christiane Amanpour has been on tv badmouthing us all week, while she knew what true mistreatment of journalists was in this conflict.
In fairness to CNN... strike that... not in fairness... but they are not the only duplicitous folks here. Where were the specials on FOX or MSNBC, ABCBSNBC?
They all knew what was going on. But they figured everybody knew Saddam was evil, it isn't "news" when ya discover another atrocity.
This is a problem with media. Context. If somebody does something questionable 10,000 times... they will ignore the last 9,500 cases, for years... and devote their time to jumping on any questionable thing by the other side.
It distorts reality. A US tank might have fired at a hotel housing journalists. That is reported continuously for days. It fills up all the space on the air. By not reporting the "news" about the latest evils by Saddam, it wharps what reality is in the situation.
CNN sycophants are spinning hard, trying to convince us that CNN did what it did regarding Iraq to protect the lives of its reporters. To them, I say: All CNN had to do to protect the lives of its reporters was to remove those reporters from Iraq. Instead, CNN chose to collaborate with Saddam's ruthless regime in order to keep their reporters in Baghdad. And there is NO way they can justify keeping their reporters in Baghdad. Any sacrifice they might have been compelled to make to keep their reporters in Baghdad could only be justified in order to report the truth. But since the price they had to pay to keep their reporters in Baghdad was to SUPPRESS the truth and report Saddam's propaganda instead, there was no justifiable reason to keep the reporters there.
News organizations always have to play ball and make concessions in order to report. They are never totally free. When they sit at a Pentagon press briefing, for example, there are rules they must adhere to, and they must respect these rules in order to report the truth. But if the concessions they are asked to make force them to SUPPRESS the truth, as was the case with CNN and Iraq, then their entire purpose of reporting the truth is sabotaged. So why, in such a situation, would CNN continue to play ball? Because they had no objection to playing the role of Saddam's whore, and were perfectly willing to be his propaganda service. They knew damn well they weren't reporting the truth, and now they try to justify their actions by claiming they had to suppress the truth in order to report it. What crap!
Remember when ABC had the gall to complain they weren't getting enough information from the CENTCOM briefings in Doha, and they pulled their reporter out? This is how the corrupt and evil liberal media operates. When they are given the truth by the US government, they throw a hissy fit and leave. But when they are forbidden to broadcast the truth by anti-American dictators, they gladly remain and broadcast lies. A pox on them all.
THat is a big difference, friend. None of these netweorks is global. In essence, we should not be too hard on them for the same reason you are not upset with your loval TV station: they do not claim to have --- and do not actually have --- worldwide presence.
This is not so for CNN and the BBC. Both of these networked maintained offices --- continuous, permanent presence -- in Iraq. They cannot claim ignorance.
I do not mean to make it sound too dramatic, but the difference here is between not knowing or underestimating Hitler (MSNBC, Fox) and actively cooperating with him in Berlin (CNN), to make a parallel.
I think there are two greatest myths in our culture (both of which have been promulgated by the respective industries): (i) that it is always better to buy a house than to rent, and that (ii) TV News are in the news business. Both myths are exremely costly to our population, but they are allowed to stand.
TV News are not in the news business: news anchors sell sentiment. It's very simple: if they tell the news in which you are interested already, you will not watch, and they will not get the money. That is why, incidentally, you always here the same thing on all networks (until recently; Fox is breaking away now): just like different gas stations are selling the same (more or less) gas for the same cars, TV anchors must determine American sentiment and select the news accordingly.
"Dubious business model"
In the last few years they were taking advantge of every loophole in the book - they got squeezed following a peak in natural gas and electric prices among other things which finally sent their 'house of cards' crashng down.
Between failed ventures in broadband, energy-trading, risk-aversion-'trading' and a fall in energy prices they were finally unable to 'juggle' the books creatively any longer.
Also remember there was a deal/merger/sale with Dynegy that probably opened this whole 'can of worms' for inspection.
Had just a few factors of several taken off (like "Carbon (credit) trading") and enrgy prices remained firm my view is that Enron would still be in business 'cooking their books' and shifting debt around ...