Replies

Keep thinking what this means.... Peter Arnett was at CNN for all those years...his self-professed claim to fame is that he honestly reports the news. HA! No way was he not plugged in to the policy. Christianne Amanpour was at CNN, (still is). married to Jamie Ruben, who was Madeleine Albright's deputy throughout the Clinton years. No way would Amanpour be unaware of CNN's policy toward Iraqi news, or the stranglehold this guy claims Saddam had on CNN employees in Baghdad. Look at Wolf Blitzer. He had to know what was going on too. I don't see a twinge of conscious on his face. This soul cleansing editorial needs to be studied, dissected, and roundly discussed on all the talk shows. Will that happen? I doubt it. 492 posted on 04/11/2003 5:47 AM PDT by YaYa123

YaYa said it best in #492 above. Think of all who must have known this but played their deception, special pleading game on behalf of Saddam for over a decade.

It's reprehensible. It's straight-up lying propaganda.

If I could think of something to sue them for, I would.

I think The Interview (as I have already come to think of it) bears mentioning again:

The writer clearly doesn't have a clear understanding of the realities on the ground because CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that it's prepared to be forthright; is forthright in its reporting....
We're not reading Iraqi propaganda; we're reporting as an independent news organization....
Well absolutely. I mean we work very hard to report forthrightly, to report fairly and to report accurately and if we ever determine we cannot do that, then we would not want to be there; but we do think that some light is better than no light whatsoever....
We'd very much like to be there if there's a second war; but-- we are not going to make journalistic compromises in an effort to make that happen, being mindful that in wartime there is censorship on all sides, and we're prepared to deal with a certain amount of censorship as long as it's not-- extreme, ridiculous censorship where -- which we've actually seen a number of cases in previous conflicts -- not just with Iraq. But-- sure! We want to be there, but it's --we don't want to be there come hell or high water. We want to be there if we can be there and operate as a responsible news organization.

The transcript does not indicate whether or not his pants were on fire.

YaYa said it best in #492 above. Think of all who must have known this but played their deception, special pleading game on behalf of Saddam for over a decade.

It's reprehensible. It's straight-up lying propaganda.

==============================

I caught CNN reporters today on air talking about the story and telling another reporter to remember to ask the CNN people in the Kuwait bureau about all the other similar stories floating around that office--presumably more murders and tortures covered up by CNN to keep access. So, from top to bottom, CNN has been covering up for Saddam.

(1) What did CNN know and (2) when did they know it?

1. EVERYTHING.

2. FROM THE BEGINNING.

If CNN doesn't fire Jordan ASAP, they should never be believed again!