I have never read a more important article about American journalism since I received my Master's Degree in Journalism from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in the 1970s.
What this man is admitting to violates the key principle of journalism. Just as a doctor is supposed to first do no harm, a journalist is supposed to first, tell the truth.
To me, Mr. Jordan is admitting to a number of journalistic sins. In escalating order of importance, they are:
1. He withheld newsworthy stories. Repeatedly. Over more than a decade.
2. Instead of indirectly alluding to what he felt he couldn't publish directly, he published favorable stories about the terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein.
3. He showed that all of the people howling about bias in the media are RIGHT. If this is done in Baghdad, how can he deny that this is being done in Ramallah and Gaza? Therefore, he brought disgrace to his entire profession.
4. He lied about Iraqi censorship in the interview.
5. He did this for competitive advantage, visiting Baghdad thirteen times (13 times!)to beg for the right to keep his bureau open.
6. By covering up stories about the torture inflicted on his own people, in an effort to protect perhaps ten people, he ignored the journalistic maxim that sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is commonly accepted (and, I believe, true) that people like Shcharansky were kept alive in the former Soviet Union because people knew who they were. By hushing this up, Mr. Jordan contributed to the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of others.
By withholding these stories, he made those people who reported these incredible stories sound like cranks and gadflies. After all, if they were not covered in the major media, how could they be real?
While I believe that other media have made the deal with the devil, this is qualitatively different from CNN. Just as the New York Times (and now the Wall Street Journal)are considered the premier US newspapers and have to hold themselves up as an example, CNN was the premier cable news network for many years. A local weekly, or even a smaller network, could rationalize its collaboration. After all, how much effect could they have? In the case of CNN, this argument does not exist. As they say, "this...is CNN." They should lead by example. If they are the biggest, with the broadest coverage, then they, of all networks, have to remain true to their journalistic principles.
Although I am not a practicing journalist, I'm ashamed for the profession. They didn't have to even pull one fingernail or break one tooth, and Mr. Jordan hewed to the Hussein line for more than ten years.