[syriacus]

This set off a little back and forth between Richard and me, which I found amazingly condescending.

Good word to describe many who are connected with CNN.

[ClearCase_guy]

I really admire Quest's self-defense. "I'm not a dishonest news flunky who just reads teleprompters for CNN -- I've done it for the BBC for years!"

[Copernicus]

Posted to *CCRM

[BADROTOFINGER]

I REALLY like the end of the article, where Marc compares CNN's 'reporting' to the accounting practices of Enron and Arthur Anderson. I think that 'Enron-style reporting' should possibly earn a place in the FR Lexicon. It is that brilliant of a comparison, in my humble opinion...JFK

[anniegetyourgun]

I can't watch CNN anymore, but if I did, I would only be asking myself, "what did they know, and when did they know it."

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...I see the thousands of wires that pour into our systems, hear the correspondent reports, take part in the editorial meetings - and frankly, I can't see what we are keeping from the public...

Well we too see the thousands of wires and hear the correspondent's reports. Yet we come to radically different conclusions. Must be something to do with those editorial meetings where they scrub young Richard's tiny brain free of independent thought.

[sarasota]

I no longer watch CNN. Larry King's full hour with Dan Rather did it for me. Elitist and arrogant.

[Kudsman]

I love a good chuckle. Excellent example of how to combat condescending arrogance with sobering candor. I wonder if there was futher response or if Mr. Quest just cut his losses before looking totally goofy?

[Rockiesrider]

BBC... that says it all. Move alone there's nothing to see here.

[Exit148]

I don't think Richard Quest realized who he was taking on, when he answered Rauch in such a patronizing way. He bit off more than he could chew!!! LOL!

Peter Collins, the CNN probationer, has added fuel to the outrageous CNN story. I hope more reporters 'out' themselves, and help bring this behavior to the public. CNN's reputation is on the downside -- and it is their own fault.

I hope the negative stories on CNN stay on the front pages and finally get to those supporters who blindly follow them.

[ruppertdog]

I really don't have a problem with CNN "covering up" stories in Iraq as long as the truth comes out. What is the appropriate time? Who knows, but in Eason Jordan's case, if CNN had been forthwright in their initial reports they would have been kicked out of Iraq, and the much of the information and accounts that he recently provided would never have come to light. I would rather be patient and have the full story. It is the old better-late-than-never, better-never-late-debate.

I do not appreciate Tom Johnson's attempts to manipulate news in the name of kissing dictator butt. CNN acts like it is the network of record, but Johnson's actions illustrate that CNN needs to be profitable like everyone else.

This is the liberal double standard. How do you reconcile utopian liberal ideals with the basic need for capital? Answer: you can't. A good idea will only get you so far, and CNN needs to accept the competitive realitites of the market place or, similar to the NY Times, it will continue to be the network of the opposition instead of the network of record.(to steal a phrase from Taranto, I think)

[Exit148]

For those who did not go to the article to read more than the 'exerpted' portion, the following is a PS from Quest's last note, followed by Marc Rauch's last letter which Quest chose not to respond (didn't dare?) to.

"p.s. oh, and of course, it is so much easier to run a newsnetwork with 4000 people when you don't have a newsnetwork with 4000 people; many in harms way, to actually run."

From Rauch:
Sun. 13 Apr. 11:48PM PT

"Hi Richard-

Actually, there's very little risk at continuing a debate with me, unless you're afraid of learning something!

Sorry, I couldn't help the zinger, it was way too good of a set up.

If you got the impression in my last message that I don't appreciate your years of experience and knowledge, I apologize. I think your 15 years is a remarkable, noteworthy achievement. I know that to get that far you had to do a tremendous amount of hard work and prove yourself time and again. I know this to be true and applaud you for it. By the way, I know it to be true because as I enter my 32nd year in broadcasting, I've had to go through it twice as long. In your first letter you thought that I was ''assuming'' something as a mere pedestrian viewer. I thought, therefore, that it was only appropriate to let you know that you were presuming far too much for someone with less than half my experience. Oops, I did it again, didn't I.

On a serious note, let me say that I do appreciate your continued correspondence, although I am disappointed in this latest response from you. I think that the best response would have been something like, ''I'm sick to my stomach to find out that the public has been deceived. I think that what went on is a great lesson to be learned and I know that we will be much better in the future. I hope that you and your family will stick with CNN and let us re-earn your trust.''

You see, Richard, it wasn't simply a matter of me charging that CNN has kept information from me and the world, it is your boss (I presume your boss) that confessed he was hiding information. In my first letter to you, I simply asked what information you might have that you've not been telling the viewers. I thought it was a great time to let the skeletons out of the closet - it could have been great television. If you don't know what has been kept from the public, you might wish to ask Eason, as the information he referred to was as far from ''horse racing results'' as one could get. It could be helpful to know. It may make your next 15 years even more special.

However, instead of responding in a manner similar to the one indicated above, you chose to take a corporate viewer-be-damned approach by citing the welfare of 4,000 CNN employees above that of tens of millions of viewers (perhaps hundreds of millions). It's that kind of attitude that have made so many people angry at ENRON's management, and ARTHUR ANDERSON's management, and WORLDCOM's management.

Regards."
Marc J. Rauch ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[beckett]

Rauch nailed him good....a delicious skewering. I especially like the way Quest backed down in the last email, calling the publication of the exchange "silly" and their correspondence "closed." He ran away!

[martin_fierro]

[Exit148]

Marc Rauch had another column on this same subject and the exchange with Richard Quest. (See below, the Editor's note:)

"CNN Still Doesn't Get It: Note This E-Mail Exchange"

Posted by Marc J. Rauch
Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Editor's note: ChronWatch has a policy of not publishing e-mail exchanges without the permission of both parties. We asked and received Mr. Quest's permission. We are posting the exchange because we feel that Mr. Quest's responses are not only haughty, but ignore the thrust of the CNN story. CNN manipulated the news in favor of Saddam and in its own self interest. Mr. Quest still seems to be in denial."

I had written to Mr. Rauch about his column and he wrote back about the further correspondence. In the continuing exchange, Quest was still condescending and speaking thru his hat. It really was amusing to read it. Rauch was great! Quest was what you'd expect from reading his notes above.

I went to Chronwatch to get the article and post it here, but unfortunately the letter exchanges weren't available. (legal problems?) Too bad. It was fun reading. I'd post it from my e-mail from Marc Rauch, but if the web site wouldn't run it, I shouldn't either. Quest simply wasn't a match for Rauch and simply kept fencing for CNN