Lawmaker Outraged by Sniper Footage on CNN

LA Times ^ | October 21, 2006 | Tony Perry

[veronica]

SAN DIEGO — CNN has become "the publicist for an enemy propaganda film" by broadcasting a video showing an insurgent sniper in Iraq apparently killing an American soldier, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said here Friday.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) called for the Pentagon to oust any CNN reporter embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq.

"I think Americans like to think we're all in this together," Hunter said. "The average American Marine or soldier has concluded after seeing that film that CNN is not on their side."

CNN said it broadcast the brief video to show the threat that insurgent snipers posed to U.S. troops.

"Whether or not you agree with us in this case, our goal, as always, is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can," CNN producer David Doss wrote in a blog on the network's website.

Tony Snow, President Bush's press secretary, said the insurgents were hoping to "break the will of the American people" by giving the video to CNN.

[daybreakcoming]

Even in WW2 the government didn't censor pictures of dead soldiers

Did they use German or Japan propaganda film? Not that it's any better but those pictures were still shots - these days it is shown as in real time. That is, unless you get off on watching US soldiers "actually" die.

[daybreakcoming]

Embedded reporters sign pledges not to show the faces of dead American troops until their families are notified, but nothing prohibits the use of pictures in which identities are not discernible.

And that has nothing to do with a so-called American news agency showing video tape provided by the enemy.

CNN is putting it's money on the demos winning the next two elections and the US losing this WOT. Then they can go back into Iraq and do business with the enemy as they did before with Saddam's government.

[Arizona Carolyn]

CNN has become a total propaganda machine giving that hack Jack Cafferty his own prime time hour.

[Arizona Carolyn]

We all heard their founder, Ted Turner, last week saying that he resented the President saying you are with us or against us because he wasn't sure where he stood. Said it all to me.

[Arizona Carolyn]

He always does that.. I detest the man. I caught about five minutes of the segment that said the GOP has stolen elections because they hired programers to program the machines in their favor.

[MissEdie]

No, I'm afraid they'll try to show that the enemy is more important than we are.

[fhlh]

Unvarnished truth???

Then explain why the Cresent News Network refused to run the Danish MoooHAMed cartoons?

[Blind Eye Jones]

I hope you're not Glen Beck... and, if you are, you should, IMHO, be saying vote Republican on your CNN show to balance the liberal bias. The point is that this footage is aiding the enemy -- where news worthiness is superseding patriotism, the "support the troops" sentiment and is helping the insurgent cause of lowering American morale. I believe CNN is in bed with the enemy only because of their mutual hatred for Bush. They are being used by the enemy as a propaganda tool and they know it but continue anyway. CNN has a tarnished reputation dating back to Saddam and now they are the outlet of only bad news coming from Iraq. As I said, these leftists are aiding the enemy and there are many examples of their sympathetic leanings. The Danish cartoon was "news worthy" but CNN did not air that nor do they show pictures of 9/11. Despicable!

[onevoter]

Sorry - but comparing a CNN snuff-film to Free Republic just doesn't seem quite right. Free Republic is free speech - the film CNN is showing is terrorist propaganda. They are doing the job of the enemy. I see your point, but what CNN is doing is designed to rig the election and they don't care who is hurt in the process.

[Gondring]

I keep reading "apparently killed"...do we know if the victim was or was not killed? Would it have been okay to show the video if he popped up unharmed?

[Gondring]

The horrors of what the Nazis did were definitely shown to the American public, and in moving pictures, not just in stills.

[veronica]

Ah. Another sleazy liberal who wants to tell the world how to live.

[Jacquerie]

Americans are too sensitive to see videos of 911 but not to see Muslims pigs shoot soldiers.

YES! Since 911 I may have seen the jumpers once on the history channel. I hope an RNC ad showing this, and pointing out the contradiction is awaiting release a few days before the election.

[Gondring]

Take comfort that CNN's ratings are in the toliet where they deserve to be.

Not much comfort here...
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/aug06vs05.pdf

Total Daytime, compared to '05 numbers:
CNN up 35%; MSNBC up 20%; FNC down 7%

[Defender2]

#55 & #56.

nw_arizona_granny posted me this from another thread:

"democratic socialist members in Congress:

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm

from this search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=bernie.house.gov%2Fpc%2Fmembers.asp&client=netscape-pp&rls=com.netscape:en-US "

This IS why we cannot let the 'RATS win in November!!!!

[Mad Dawg]

Even if I don't agree with it, they are justified in showing it.

I think that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's right to do it. I have a free speech right, I suppose, to say all sorts of things that it would be wrong for me to say.So as far as I can see, they had the right, but that did not justify what they did.

Even in WW2 the government didn't censor pictures of dead soldiers.

When I was growing up, we had the Time/Life history of WWII. There was a photo of some GIs face down on a beach -- I think a Pacific beach -- and the caption said it was the first published picture of US war dead. As for the rest of your post, I think the voluntary self-censorship of the MSM as regards showing footage of the 9/11 shows that their intentions here have nothing to do with the unvarnished truth. Yes I think they are trying to propagandize the populace into abandoning this phase of the WOT. What they showed was footage given to them by the enemy, enemy propaganda. YES they have a right to do that; NO they are not right to do that. I happen to agree with Dubya that one major benefit to fighting them over there is that we are likely not to have to fight them over here quite so much.

"Compared to what" is always a good question to ask. In this case I would say that the fighting in Iraq is lousy compared to a peaceful summer's day with all the world at peace. It's excellent compared to giving the terrorists confirmation that they can inflict damage on the US without paying a huge price. Your mileage may -- and clearly does - vary.

Boy, they got a lot of civic values in North Korea. Every family has a picture of Kim in their home.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think there is an important difference between a dictator requiring his picture in every home and a school honoring the elected leader of a great democratic republic - even if it is not perfect and even if, as could never happen, the elected leader were, say, a mendacious whore-monger and rapist. Okay, maybe that example is a little too extreme....

My understanding is that the Government licenses the use of radio and television frequencies. The relationship between licenses and rights is confusing to me. I think that since CNN has admitted that they censored their pre-War news out of Iraq in favor of what Saddam wanted them to say, since they do not show footage of the 9/11,, and since they DO eagerly show enemy propaganda footage, one can legitimately enquire into the propriety of their having a license.

Another difficult question for me is the exercise of rights in time of war. I think CNN is on shakier ground than they realize.

[daybreakcoming]

Sorry, maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. Did those old newsreels show Nazi provided films of Nazis actually killing American soldiers while the war was going on?

[montag813]

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon)

Should say "(R-Cajones)". Hunter is the Man!

[Gondring]

There was a photo of some GIs face down on a beach -- I think a Pacific beach -- and the caption said it was the first published picture of US war dead.

In stereo... (Union soldier torn apart by shell.)

(Univ of Oklahoma has a nice description of the LOC collection.)

The difference is that in previous wars, if the public had seen the actions of our enemies against us (or had films provided by the enemy), the reaction would have been that we must fight harder to defeat them. Now, we have to worry about the country's resolve when the realities of war are known.

Still, it's true that images were censored and the American public has been lied to during WWII. I recall in particular a caption the American public was given for a photo; it was something like: "G.I.s provide first aid to a wounded German soldier," when the more accurate caption would have been: "G.I.s plunder a wounded German soldier and leave him in distress."

[jan in Colorado]

CNN was wrong. They are propaganda tools for our enemy! But then, nothing the ENEMEDIA does surprises me anymore!