Skip to comments.
The News We (CNN) Kept To Ourselves [must read]
The New York Times ^
| 04/11/03
| EASON JORDAN
Posted on 04/10/2003 9:16:06 PM PDT by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 1,561 next last
To: Pokey78
This makes it much, much worse... an interview with this gent asking him about CNN having to appease Saddam to stay in Baghdad. Jordan denies it like crazy.
Eason Jordan
October 25, 2002
BOB GARFIELD: After journalists were expelled from Iraq on Thursday, CNN head of news-gathering Eason Jordan, called the move "a Draconian measure that will sharply curtail the world's knowledge about what is happening in Iraq. Iraq is often displeased with CNN," says Jordan, "but especially this week when the network reported from the scene of that extraordinary protest in Baghdad."
EASON JORDAN: The big beef was that we reported that gunfire was used to disperse the demonstrators which is absolutely irrefutable fact, but the Iraqi government sometimes denies the facts and refuses to acknowledge the truth.
BOB GARFIELD: Well what kind of weird conversation is it with the Iraqi officials that you're having when you're holding up a, a piece of videotape and saying this is black and they're saying no, no that's white. It's bizarre!
EASON JORDAN: Well there are a lot of bizarre things in Iraq, and unfortunately the Iraqi officials refuse to look at the videotape because they said they didn't care what it showed or what was heard on the tape because the reality -the Iraqi reality - was very different from the actual facts.
BOB GARFIELD: I'm sure you have seen Franklin Foer's article in The New Republic which charges that the Western press is appeasing the Iraqi regime in order to maintain its visas -- to be there reporting should a war ultimately break out. What's your take on that?
EASON JORDAN: The writer clearly doesn't have a clear understanding of the realities on the ground because CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that it's prepared to be forthright; is forthright in its reporting. We wouldn't have a team in northern Iraq right now if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't report on the demonstration if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't have been thrown out of Iraq already 5 times over the last several years if we were there to please the Saddam Hussein regime. So the story was lopsided, unfair and chose to ignore facts that would refute the premise of the article.
BOB GARFIELD: Well what is the calculus? In the New Republic article he cites the coverage of Saddam Hussein's birthday by CNN which he deemed to be not a huge news event. Are you tossing bones to Saddam Hussein in order to be there when, when it really matters?
EASON JORDAN: No. I don't think that's the case at all. Now, there is Iraqi propaganda that is news! I mean there is propaganda from a lot of governments around the world that is newsworthy and we should report on those things. Saddam Hussein's birthday is a big deal in that country. We're not reading Iraqi propaganda; we're reporting as an independent news organization.
BOB GARFIELD: Back in '91 CNN and Peter Arnett in particular were heavily criticized, mostly by civilians, for reporting from within Baghdad during the U.S. attack in ways that they'd consider to be utter propaganda and to-- out of context and not reflecting the overall reality of Saddam Hussein' regime. Have you analyzed what you can get access to without appearing to be just a propaganda tool for Saddam?
EASON JORDAN: Well absolutely. I mean we work very hard to report forthrightly, to report fairly and to report accurately and if we ever determine we cannot do that, then we would not want to be there; but we do think that some light is better than no light whatsoever. I think that the world, the American people will be shortchanged if foreign journalists are kicked out, because even in Peter Arnett's case there were things that he reported on -- and this is a long time ago now -- but things he reported on that I don't think would have been reported at all had he not been there. We feel committed to our Baghdad presence. We've had a bureau there for 12 years with occasional interruptions when we've been thrown out, but we're not there to please the Iraqi government -- we're not there to displease the Iraqi government -- we're just there to do our job.
BOB GARFIELD: Let's say there's an -- a second Gulf War. Is that the mother of all stories? Do you have to be there? Are there-- decisions you'll make on the margins to be s-- as certain as you possibly can that you will have a presence there?
EASON JORDAN: We'd very much like to be there if there's a second war; but-- we are not going to make journalistic compromises in an effort to make that happen, being mindful that in wartime there is censorship on all sides, and we're prepared to deal with a certain amount of censorship as long as it's not-- extreme, ridiculous censorship where -- which we've actually seen a number of cases in previous conflicts -- not just with Iraq. But-- sure! We want to be there, but it's --we don't want to be there come hell or high water. We want to be there if we can be there and operate as a responsible news organization.
BOB GARFIELD: Very well. Eason Jordan, thank you very much.
EASON JORDAN: Okay, thank you.
BOB GARFIELD: Eason Jordan is the chief news executive and news-gathering president for CNN News Group. He joined us from CNN studios in Atlanta. [MUSIC]
copyright 2002 WNYC Radio
http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts_102502_jordan.html
281
posted on
04/10/2003 11:19:45 PM PDT
by
Tamzee
(Peace only happens when good guys win...)
To: diamond6
Nobody's talking about Jordan except you.
And for you to compare the military to the media is quite astonishing.
282
posted on
04/10/2003 11:20:48 PM PDT
by
Howlin
(It's a great day to be an American -- or an Iraqi!)
To: diamond6
Should they report the news, even if reporting it will get their sources killed? No, but they should remove themselves from the situation when it became apparent what the working relationship was. Instead, they kept going back to the well time and time again. Mr. Jordan met with these butchers more than a dozen times, even after knowing what they had done to that poor Kuwaiti woman and her family.
283
posted on
04/10/2003 11:21:03 PM PDT
by
Toskrin
To: Howlin; MamaLucci
Mama, when you have such an astute thought, you have to put it in LARGE and BOLD print!
284
posted on
04/10/2003 11:21:03 PM PDT
by
Slip18
To: Lucas1
People should email FOX NEWS with this... I just e-mailed Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, Shep Smith, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I urge other FReepers to do the same.
Actually... does anyone know Michael Savage's e-mail address?
285
posted on
04/10/2003 11:21:10 PM PDT
by
nutmeg
(Liberate Iraq - Support Our Troops!)
To: Lucas1
This had BETTER BE the HEADLINE on Drudge - for the next few days...... it should stay there and let people absorb it.
286
posted on
04/10/2003 11:21:55 PM PDT
by
bart99
To: Tamsey
Great find. (Ugh.)
287
posted on
04/10/2003 11:22:14 PM PDT
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
(Did you liberals say something? It's all just clicks and buzzes over here.)
To: wirestripper
"If that's true, and Jordan knew it, then he should have told the U.S. government. But do we know that for sure?"
Some rather shallow thinking.
I'm sorry I'm letting the facts get in the way of your crucifixion.
288
posted on
04/10/2003 11:22:30 PM PDT
by
diamond6
("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
" ... what I don't understand is why they fought the POTUS at every turn."
I do... Even though they knew what a terrible man Saddam was and the things he was doing... they still couldn't put aside their politics to support Bush's effort to rid Iraq from Saddam... I'm ashamed to be an american today...
To: Toskrin
BOB GARFIELD: I'm sure you have seen Franklin Foer's article in The New Republic which charges that the Western press is appeasing the Iraqi regime in order to maintain its visas -- to be there reporting should a war ultimately break out. What's your take on that?
EASON JORDAN: The writer clearly doesn't have a clear understanding of the realities on the ground because CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that it's prepared to be forthright; is forthright in its reporting. We wouldn't have a team in northern Iraq right now if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't report on the demonstration if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't have been thrown out of Iraq already 5 times over the last several years if we were there to please the Saddam Hussein regime. So the story was lopsided, unfair and chose to ignore facts that would refute the premise of the article.
*Snort*
290
posted on
04/10/2003 11:23:55 PM PDT
by
Howlin
(It's a great day to be an American -- or an Iraqi!)
To: Toskrin
Quote "EASON JORDAN: The writer clearly doesn't have a clear
understanding of the realities on the ground because CNN
has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that
it's prepared to be forthright; is forthright in its reporting. We
wouldn't have a team in northern Iraq right now if we didn't
want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't
report on the demonstration if we didn't want to upset the
Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't have been thrown out
of Iraq already 5 times over the last several years if we were
there to please the Saddam Hussein regime. So the story
was lopsided, unfair and chose to ignore facts that would
refute the premise of the article. "
291
posted on
04/10/2003 11:24:55 PM PDT
by
Lucas1
To: Howlin; diamond6
"And for you to compare the military to the media is quite astonishing."
I'm still waiting to hear how they could compare them...
To: Toskrin
Eason Jordan: "CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that it's prepared to be forthright; is forthright in its reporting."
HA HA HA!!!!!
293
posted on
04/10/2003 11:25:50 PM PDT
by
Humidston
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law)
To: wirestripper
BOB GARFIELD: Well what is the calculus? In the New
Republic article he cites the coverage of Saddam Hussein's
birthday by CNN which he deemed to be not a huge news
event. Are you tossing bones to Saddam Hussein in order to
be there when, when it really matters?
EASON JORDAN: No. I don't think that's the case at all. Now,
there is Iraqi propaganda that is news! I mean there is
propaganda from a lot of governments around the world that
is newsworthy and we should report on those things.
Saddam Hussein's birthday is a big deal in that country.
We're not reading Iraqi propaganda; we're reporting as an
independent news organization.
294
posted on
04/10/2003 11:25:54 PM PDT
by
Lucas1
To: Toskrin
No, but they should remove themselves from the situation when it became apparent what the working relationship was.Here's an idea: how about LEAVING Iraq and going on their INTERNATIONAL CABLE CHANNEL and say they left because they couldn't report the TRUTH.
295
posted on
04/10/2003 11:25:57 PM PDT
by
Howlin
(It's a great day to be an American -- or an Iraqi!)
To: wirestripper
What I expect from any news organization is not to compromise it's morality and integrity for the right to have a reporter in a country. Have you ANY doubt that the same compromise has been arranged in Beijing, Pyongyang, Saigon, Havana, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Teheran and countless other places in the world where ruthless tyrants seek total control of their realm?
It's always the same deal - report what we *tell* you to report or you won't continue to be our "guests".
296
posted on
04/10/2003 11:26:23 PM PDT
by
Tall_Texan
(Where liberals lead, misery follows.)
To: wirestripper
BOB GARFIELD: Back in '91 CNN and Peter Arnett in particular
were heavily criticized, mostly by civilians, for reporting from
within Baghdad during the U.S. attack in ways that they'd
consider to be utter propaganda and to-- out of context and
not reflecting the overall reality of Saddam Hussein' regime.
Have you analyzed what you can get access to without
appearing to be just a propaganda tool for Saddam?
EASON JORDAN: Well absolutely. I mean we work very hard
to report forthrightly, to report fairly and to report accurately
and if we ever determine we cannot do that, then we would
not want to be there; but we do think that some light is better
than no light whatsoever. I think that the world, the American
people will be shortchanged if foreign journalists are kicked
out, because even in Peter Arnett's case there were things
that he reported on -- and this is a long time ago now -- but
things he reported on that I don't think would have been
reported at all had he not been there. We feel committed to
our Baghdad presence. We've had a bureau there for 12
years with occasional interruptions when we've been thrown
out, but we're not there to please the Iraqi government -- we're
not there to displease the Iraqi government -- we're just there
to do our job.
297
posted on
04/10/2003 11:26:31 PM PDT
by
Lucas1
To: diamond6
That is NOT a fact; that's your shallow thinking.
298
posted on
04/10/2003 11:26:50 PM PDT
by
Howlin
(It's a great day to be an American -- or an Iraqi!)
To: Humidston
LOL>..calm down now!
299
posted on
04/10/2003 11:27:33 PM PDT
by
Howlin
(It's a great day to be an American -- or an Iraqi!)
To: MamaLucci
EASON JORDAN:but we're not there to please the Iraqi government -- we're not there to displease the Iraqi government -- we're just there to do our job.
300
posted on
04/10/2003 11:27:59 PM PDT
by
Lucas1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 1,561 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson