Skip to comments.CNN says its silence on Iraq atrocities had nothing to do with maintaining access
Posted on 04/14/2003 2:22:03 PM PDT by DannyTNEdited on 04/13/2004 2:42:16 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
click here to read article
CNN International makes its money by being allowed to broadcast in many statist countries around the world and it is these many statist countries from whose permission, they must get.
Never mind what the government knew; I'm talking about the fact that they didn't tell the AMERICAN PUBLIC, which is their JOB, and therefore let the debate about the war go on with information that they KNEW to A DAMN LIE.
I'll put you down under the column of believing that the media knows best what we need to know to make accurate decisions about the safety of this country.
The damage is already done to CNN, and it's permanent. No, we're not going to wake up tomorrow and find out that CNN has suddenly fallen behind the DIY Channel in the ratings. But they are now deeply in second place behind Fox and sinking fast, and MSNBC is (slowly) trending upwards. There are now millions of people that suspect every word CNN reports, and angry enough that they will continue to bring this up every time anyone mentions CNN in any context whatsoever for many years to come.
Perhaps if CNN had taken some proactive measures - firing Jordan, closing the Baghdad bureau and dismissing all its employees instead of merely reassigning them to spread the sickness around, etc. - they could at least put this behind them. But they're standing tall. And false pride is a very, very stupid move in a situation like this. They will never live this down. Just as Fox News grew into the nation's most popular cable channel without a single positive word from the "mainstream" media, so too will CNN's repuation be made muddier and muddier as word spreads and they do nothing to even admit there's a problem, much less attempt to fix it.
Why should reporters be let off the hook? The dangers of working in Iraq were well-known to journalists, and I sincerely doubt that any were assigned there against their will.
CNN may be the worst example of journalistic prostitution, but this story casts a long shadow over virtually every news organization that sent reporters to Iraq. Take Fox, for example: every once in a great while, they would report that either their reporter or a Sky News reporter had a minder, but not very often. They could also argue that they were protecting their employees, but the point, for all of them, is: to what end? So that they could report untruths, half-truths and flat-out lies in return for being physically where the action is?
Journalistic integrity is an oxymoron, and has been for quite a while.
They kept quiet because they hated Bush more than they hated Saddam. Words are cheap but how did they act? Very anti-Bush.
Uh, that's why I said such a plan would require permission from the guy. And again: we don't know that CNN even asked in the first place. You seem to be trying to say that it's ok that they didn't even ask. It's ok that they went into automatic cover-up mode without even considering or trying alternatives.
I don't think anyone ever doubted that Saddam tortures and murders lots and lots of people.
This makes it ok for CNN to cover up factual information?
What, uh, business is CNN in, in the first place, if not to tell us factual information? If it's ok to hide factual information which supports general notions that everyone basically knows, why doesn't CNN just pack it in?
SO IT WAS FOR ACCESS!!
What a load of self-serving crapola. CNN's silence to protect one man and his family (if true) - was it worth the ten's of thousands that were brutally raped, tortured and murdered for over a decade?
What about reporters like Daniel Pearl? He lost his life trying to get the truth and report it. And you're willing to give CNN a pass? I'm speechless. There is no defending what they did.
That would make a great sign!
If it were so, Jordan would have mentioned it in his NYT article. Or, at the very least, he would be mentioning it now that the article has generated all this uproar.
That's great...unless you happen to the guy!
The very point of the exercise is to prevent the murder, while letting the world know the truth.
The world knows Saddam has threatened to kill the guy. Guy is killed. World knows Saddam did it. World opinion swings against Saddam.
Remember that dictators like Saddam survive on "world opinion." That's why they hire media whores to influence "world opinion" in their favor. If "world opinion" turns against them, they're toast.
You should have seen CNN Intl's coverage of when an Iraqi missile hit that shopping mall in Kuwait. Jonathan Mann was positively gloating about how Kuwait was now experiencing what Baghdad had had to live with!
They work as suppliers in the tyranny business.