[chinche]

It's always the same deal - report what we *tell* you to report or you won't continue to be our "guests".

You assume it is always the same deal. Let’s say you are correct. CNN had the option of not being a “guest.” Why did CNN choose to be a good houseguest in Iraq given such a deal? Why did they accept the deal?

Some possibilities:

They thought it a good commercial strategy and let profits define their moral center.

They were secretly working for the forces of good.

They didn’t give a damn.

They swore an oath (to what god?) of allegiance to ironic objectivity. (That is they invented some sophist reason not to give a damn.)

They were coerced to be there and behave.

Their inner self demanded that they be reporters and so they heroically accepted the deep, intimate pain of keeping the horrific news to themselves in order to attain their true calling.

They were just following orders.

[Tall_Texan]

I wasn't defending CNN. I was merely expanding this beyond Iraq's borders. There are other tyrants in the world that would muzzle any independent reporting just as much as Saddam or moreso. It's just that we're at war in Iraq today, not North Korea or Iran. CNN would make the same faustian deal with those countries as they did with Hussein. Every time.

We Americans and our first amendment are held with little regard in parts of the world where this constitutional right is not taken for granted. Tyrants are perfectly willing to let the media be their propaganda tool and if the guests don't play by their rules, they're executed or tossed out.

Saddam didn't invent this game. In fact, he probably was more subtle about it than some other dictators.