Skip to comments.
CNN says its silence on Iraq ... ( a little late isn't it?)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/14/entertainment1432EDT0624.DTL ^
Posted on 04/14/2003 12:48:40 PM PDT by snooker
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:42:16 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
A top CNN executive kept quiet about some atrocities in Iraq not because the network wanted to protect access but because it worried about putting lives in danger, CNN said Monday.
Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, revealed the incidents in an op-ed piece in The New York Times Friday headlined "The News We Kept to Ourselves."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: cnn; easonjordan; iraq
The toast network trys to weasel out.
Sorry but it's already well done. All of CNNs future credibility is lost.
1
posted on
04/14/2003 12:48:40 PM PDT
by
snooker
To: All
PRETTY IN PINK
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
2
posted on
04/14/2003 12:49:40 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: snooker
This is intolerable. Absolutely intolerable.
3
posted on
04/14/2003 12:49:50 PM PDT
by
sarasota
To: snooker
A top CNN executive kept quiet about some atrocities in Iraq not because the network wanted to protect access but because it worried about putting lives in danger, CNN said Monday. CNN doesn't care about lives. CNN didn't give a damn about the Iraqis who died because CNN refused to expose the evil of the Saddam regieme.
4
posted on
04/14/2003 12:50:59 PM PDT
by
jimkress
To: jimkress
Since Jordan only saw fit to warn Jordan's King and not Saddams's sons-in-law, it shows that like most liberals, all human lives are equal, just some more than others.
5
posted on
04/14/2003 12:54:45 PM PDT
by
zerosix
To: snooker
He said that in the mid-1990s, an Iraqi cameraman working for CNN was tortured because the government believed Jordan worked for the CIA. Reporting the story "would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk," Jordan wrote. Ok, so why then did they keep operating in Iraq knowing that their mere presence there was putting the Iraqis who worked for them in mortal danger? If their concern was their employees safety, the best way to protect them would be to not have any employees.
Of course their admission also begs the question as to what other stories they are covering up in coutntreis run by desposts. Are they not reporting what's going on under the rule of Arafat, Mugabe, and Castro for fear of reprisals against their staff there? They have just sent a message to every despot on earth that if you want to muzzle CNN just torture a couple of their local employees.
6
posted on
04/14/2003 12:57:35 PM PDT
by
Hugin
To: snooker
A top CNN executive kept quiet about some atrocities in Iraq not because the network wanted to protect access but because it worried about putting lives in danger, CNN said Monday.
Ok, now we know where Bagdad Bob went. He's now the apologist for CNN.
We didn't believe him in Bagdad. We don't believe CNN's rationale now.
7
posted on
04/14/2003 12:58:00 PM PDT
by
TomGuy
To: snooker
You don't have to report on specifics to set the proper tone. Since they knew it was a murderous regime the tone should have reflected that.
CNN always portrayed Iraq as a people friendly paradise governed by Uncle Saddam.
It should have accurately portrayed it as "Return of the Gulag."
8
posted on
04/14/2003 1:12:25 PM PDT
by
peeve23
To: snooker
Might we not consider where else in the world CNN's selective and inaccurate reporting has "... nothing to do with access, and everything to do with keeping people from being killed as a result of our reporting..."
Of course, we must also look to the past to see CNN's reporting on the Clinton administration to see them reporting inaccurately for access. Or were they "...keeping people from being killed as a result of our reporting..." then, too?
Arkencide happens!
To: steve in DC
CNN is on it's way out. They know it.
To: snooker
I wonder if Christa could explain why Ambassador "Combover" was kissing Richard from CNN before he left New York. That seems a little close for a "reporter", don't you think?
11
posted on
04/14/2003 1:26:52 PM PDT
by
kcvl
To: Righter-than-Rush
12
posted on
04/14/2003 1:28:12 PM PDT
by
kcvl
To: snooker
Accessories to murder, torure, rape...which they they simply let go on and on.
I don't know how anyone could overcome what should be absolutely the horrid shame to appear on that...network.
13
posted on
04/14/2003 1:35:47 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: snooker
Why should we believe them?
Do they take President Bush's word for anything? Do they automatically believe Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the administration? If CNN is skeptical of the leaders of this country, we should be equally skeptical of CNN.
14
posted on
04/14/2003 2:25:46 PM PDT
by
djpg
To: snooker
CNN - RIP
CNN - We bury (articles). You dig.
15
posted on
04/14/2003 4:28:26 PM PDT
by
Diddley
(Dead, wounded, hidden, or escaped, Saddam is “As good as dead!”)
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