Posted on 09/15/2003 4:10:50 PM PDT by aculeus
The following are the words of New York Times correspondent John F. Burns, on his experiences reporting from Baghdad during the war. Excerpted from the book Embedded: The Media at War in Iraq, an Oral History by Bill Katovsky and Timothy Carlson, published this week by The Lyons Press, used with permission.
From the point of view of my being in Baghdad, I had more authority than anybody else. Without contest, I was the most closely watched and unfavored of all the correspondents there because of what I wrote about terror whilst Saddam Hussein was still in power.
Terror, totalitarian states, and their ways are nothing new to me, but I felt from the start that this was in a category by itself, with the possible exception in the present world of North Korea. I felt that that was the central truth that has to be told about this place. It was also the essential truth that was untold by the vast majority of correspondents here. Why? Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves in play here was to pretend that it was okay.
There were correspondents who thought it appropriate to seek the approbation of the people who governed their lives. This was the ministry of information, and particularly the director of the ministry. By taking him out for long candlelit dinners, plying him with sweet cakes, plying him with mobile phones at $600 each for members of his family, and giving bribes of thousands of dollars. Senior members of the information ministry took hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from these television correspondents who then behaved as if they were in Belgium. They never mentioned the function of minders. Never mentioned terror.
In one case, a correspondent actually went to the Internet Center at the Al-Rashid Hotel and printed out copies of his and other people's stories -- mine included -- specifically in order to be able to show the difference between himself and the others. He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to this enemy of the state. He was with a major American newspaper.
Yeah, it was an absolutely disgraceful performance. CNN's Eason Jordan's op-ed piece in The New York Times missed that point completely. The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us. Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of one percent of the people of Iraq. So why not tell the story of the other people of Iraq? It doesn't preclude you from telling about terror. Of murder on a mass scale just because you won't talk about how your driver's brother was murdered.
...
In February I was denied a visa. Then I found there were visas available. I was in Amman. Some of my rivals who had omitted to notice that Iraq was a terror state were busy here sucking up. They were very pleased with themselves. These were people who'd argued that it was essential to be in Iraq for the war. I got a visa of dubious quality; it was a visa which allowed me to come in and cover the peace movement.
I assumed I would be thrown out immediately. I arrived only two weeks before the war. They accredited me. They took my passport away and held it for five days until a man who is said to be a deputy director of the Mukhabarat showed up one day -- a certain Mr. Sa'ad Mutana.
(Excerpt) Read more at editorandpublisher.com ...
BBC? CNN?
Washington Post? LA Times? (This is one case where, thanks to the gutsy and honest Burns, the New York Times is above suspicion.)
It must be a major papers since others didn't have people in Iraq prior to the war.
Did it really have to be excerpted?
No.
Reporters (and I use the term loosely) feared loss of "access"?
In Nazi Germany would our modern day press have reported on the SS's new uniforms while skipping the story of innocent people being burned alive in ovens? Would they look at us with a straight face and tell us we were getting the "news".
No, we would have had better coverage if our press had interviewed escapees. May reporters choke on the memories of fancy dinners eaten with these lying monsters.
Their site has all sorts of warnings about copying their articles. It is after all aimed at publishers (who own copyrights) and editors. Professionals.
Is it really such a big deal for you to go to their site? Why risk another blowup ala the WashPost LATimes of not long ago?
Perhaps with this tidbit followed by his book, interviews, etc., someone else will be prompted to get the facts.
One of Fox's Iraqi-based people might even get some help from Iraqi ex-minder types.
I'm sure Ailes would love to nail CNN especially following the Amanpour crapola spewed today.
The First Amendment assigns the responsibility for communication strictly to the reader/listener. It's caveat lector--let the reader beware, for the government is forbidden to sort things out and censor the unreliable.
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.