CNN's Jordan Defends Self; CNN Refuses to Let U.S. Use Its News

Media Research Center ^ | April 15, 2003 | Brent Baker

[Rebelbase]

Makes you wonder about this relationship.

[laz17]

Jordan and his ilk are tottaly corrupt and morally bankrupt. They confess their crimes but refuse to acknowledge that they're crimes, and they concoct every rationalization possible to excuse their behavior. Like the ex-prez from Arkansas that they adore and admire, they are sociopaths and pathological liars.

[laz17]

tottaly=totally

[syriacus]

I'm sure CNN fears will be the finding of documents showing CNN complicity and cooperation with the Saddam

Hmm...I wonder if a certain multimillionaire with a CNN connection used his money to buy Baghdad museum artifacts from Saddam some years back?

[onedoug]

Rather couldn't cut the mustard in the Marine Corps. I think he flunked-out of boot-camp and has hated America ever since.

[weegee]

CNN IS GUILTY OF RATINGS WAR CRIMES

[madison10]

Treason fits. So when's the trial?

[DED]

Jordan can't handle math, just like the Peace Pansies.
War is BAD. If there are 100,000 people being killed each year by Saddam's regime, and war will kill 100,000 and then END the killing, then war is BAD. If there are 100,000 being killed each year by Saddam's regime, and war will kill 35,000 and then END the killing, then war is BAD.
And Jordan's argument is that telling the story could have gotten some people in his Baghdad bureau killed (how many people were IN that place anyway). But telling the story might have SAVED hundreds or more, and presumably, they could have gotten a lot of the bureau personnel OUT.
The point was they didn't want to lose the Baghdad bureau.
My question is, of what value is a bureau that reports BALONEY? Well, it still generates revenue - just ask Dan Rather. His interview with Saddam didn't answer ANYTHING, but it generated lots of bucks - and that's what these guys care about.

[fifteendogs]

He could have turned his information over to a competing network. He is slime.

[Mr. Mulliner]

The example of Rather's interview with Saddam is a prime example of what's going on here with CNN.

It used to be that news bureaus really did mean something. Then about 3 decades ago networks began to see that news didn't have to be a money-loser as it had always been. Little by little news was changed from a service that the networks offered to a big cash cow. And in the process, the truth got trampled on.