Posted on 09/16/2003 1:50:21 PM PDT by cwb
Veteran New York Times correspondent John Burns claims foreign journalists covering the Iraq war while Saddam Hussein was still in power did not present a true picture of the regime's tyranny because they believed they needed to curry favor with officials in order to gain and maintain access. JohnBurns's comments were excerpted by Editor and Publisher magazine from the newly published Lyons Press book, "Embedded: The Media at War in Iraq, an Oral History," by Bill Katovksy and Timothy Carlson.
The Times reporter said he put Iraq in a category of totalitarian states all its own, with the possible exception of North Korea, yet that "essential truth" was "untold by the vast majority of correspondents" in Baghdad. "Why? Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves in play here was to pretend that it was OK." Burns said some correspondents sought favor with the ministry of information, particularly its director, 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," Burns said. "They never mentioned the function of minders. Never mentioned terror." Burns said in one case, a correspondent with a major American newspaper printed out copies of his and other reporters' stories, "mine included," to present to Iraqi officials. "He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to this enemy of the state," said Burns, who did not name the correspondent.
Burns referred to the admission by CNN's chief new executive Eason Jordan earlier this year that CNN reporters practiced self-censoring in order to protect Iraqi lives. Jordan's April New York Times op-ed piece missed the point entirely, Burns contended. "The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us," he said. "Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of 1 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."
Burns said his experience trying to get an Iraq visa in Amman, Jordan, also illustrated his point. "Some of my rivals who had omitted to notice that Iraq was a terror state were busy here sucking up," he said. "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." Burns believes there are lessons to be learned from what he saw in Iraq. "There is corruption in our business," he said. "We need to get back to basics. This war should be studied and talked about. In the run up to this war, to my mind, there was a gross abdication of responsibility." At the outset of the war, in March, Burns reported that newly emboldened Iraqis were revealing to the few reporters left in Baghdad that they saw America's military action as their moment of liberation. "Many, many Iraqis are telling us now – not always in the whispers we only heard in the past, but now in quite candid conversations – that they are waiting for America to come and bring them liberty," Burns said in an interview with the PBS News Hour. "Along with all of this apprehension," said Burns, "Americans should know that there also is a good deal of anticipation. Iraqis have suffered beyond, I think, the common understanding in the United States from the repression of the past 30 years."
Meanwhile, CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour stirred controversy over the weekend with her comments on press censorship during the Iraq war. The New York Post reported today Amanpour was taken aside by CNN news chief Jim Walton for a "private conversation" after she accused her network of being "intimidated" in its coverage. "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled," she said in an interview on CNBC's "Topic A with Tina Brown." "I'm sorry to say that, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station, was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News." CNN denied Amanpour's assertion but will not reprimand her, the Post said. Walton told reporters yesterday he respects Amanpour and emphasized she "speaks for herself" and not for CNN. Responding to her comments, a Fox News spokeswoman said: "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than spokeswoman for al-Qaida."
RIM SHOT!
I raise my cup of tea in salute to this unnamed Fox spokeswoman.
Jordan protected Saddam in exchange for a CNN office in Baghdad. He admitted it. Now WHO muzzled WHOM?
Really like to know who this was. I hope he gets outed somehow, and, actually, I think he will be. Presshounds will sniff it out shortly, I'll wager.
Just wanted to point out that this is technically impossible. Even if Christiane Amanpour's sucking ability is as good as the finest turbo-molecular hi-vacuum pump, she would be unable to record more than atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi) in any sucking test conducted at sea level on Earth. If Iraq was located on the surface of Jupiter, she then would have a shot of reaching her full sucking potential of 300 psi or maybe even more.
(steely)
So according to CNN or is it WND(?), the other 99.999% of the population had to remain terrorized all those years because CNN might have missed a story or lost access to a dictator?
So the question begs to be asked - What are we not being told about Fidel?
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.