CNN says its silence on Iraq atrocities had nothing to do with maintaining access

AP ^ | Monday, April 14, 2003

[DannyTN]

A top CNN executive kept quiet about some atrocities in Iraq not because the network wanted to protect access but because it worried about putting lives in danger, CNN said Monday.

Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, revealed the incidents in an op-ed piece in The New York Times Friday headlined "The News We Kept to Ourselves."

[Fifth Business]

Jordan's "confession" was designed to reassure dictators everywhere that CNN can be trusted to keep quiet. If you remember, right before Jordan wrote his article, they had just been accused of being CIA agents.

[ThreePuttinDude]

Oldie but a Goodie

---

[plain talk]

You've nailed it. They could have extricated the person at risk and his family OR they could have at a minimum used this information as "background info" to provide an appropriate context for their other reports on Iraq and made sure their reporting was getting across the idea that the Iraqi regime was scum, tortures its people, etc. They could have reported this in a general way without reporitng the details.

[Howlin]

How close does a "journalist" have to be to Uday for Uday to feel comfortable enough in the relationshhip with the "journalist" to confide in him he intends to MURDER people and be reaonsonably sure that the "journalist" won't REPORT IT???????

[Revolting cat!]

CNN assumes the chutzpah mode. Hey, it just might work!

[Howlin]

Right! Not only did he LIE for access, he now has CONFESSED for access!

[IronJack]

Damage control alert! Damage control alert!

[2right]

The nun who taught me in the sixth grade loved to say that.

[Howlin]

They could have done any number of things, up to and including reporting the unbiased truth, but they consciously chose NOT to.

No amount of "dressing it up" is EVER going to get them off the hook for this.

[The Old Hoosier]

Not one guy--one guy and all of his extended family. Do you think all of these people WANTED to be forced to leave their home, just so that we could know about somebody being tortured? Do you think CNN could have gotten the whole family out without the government noticing something and perhaps detaining and torturing or killing more of them?

This is not nearly as simple as you think.

CNN probably should have left Baghdad in principle, but they could not have reported this story anyway, for fear of retribution against the camera man and his family.

[Poohbah]

CNN says its silence on Iraq atrocities had nothing to do with maintaining access

And President Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

[Howlin]

Well, I have a ruler right here, and I'd be glad to drive to Atlanta and use it.

~~~Howlin, aka The Penguin

[battlegearboat]

It's time to take CNN out.

[LibWhacker]

I'm trying to think of a counterexample that demonstrates CNN doesn't give a whit about saving lives (was CNN there with its klieg lights the night our special ops heroes showed up on the beach in Mogadishu?), but can't at the moment. But I'll bet a person wouldn't need to be all that diligent to unearth more than one case where CNN jeopardized the lives of our own troops, not to mention the lives of others.

[Howlin]

Read what you are saying.

You are saying that ANY country in the entire world can obliterate ANY and ALL reporting their country by THREATENING a weasely reporter.

Never mind all the people who died during those 12 years because CNN towed the Iraqi line that they were not really bad people, that all the reports of torture were just lies by people mad at Hussein or bent on getting his oil.

Why is one lie different from another?

[Wphile]

THAT IS THE QUESTION!

The other thing that totally galls me is how CNN bows at the altar of freedom of the press here in the USA and yet at the same time, is perfectly willing to do the bidding of a STATE OWNED press in despotic regime in order to perserve its special bureau. GOD, it's so disgusting. If they have to report the STATE line then why the h*ll be there in the first place? They should have pulled out of Baghdad with their reporters, Iraqis included, and reported the atrocities. Instead, they stayed and played along to get along.

[Howlin]

but they could not have reported this story anyway

Did you read the original article: this wasn't the ONLY excuse they had, although they would love for you to think that it is.

And yes, they could have left Baghdad, and even if they didn't report THIS one story, they could have NOT slanted all their reporting FOR Iraq and AGAINST this country.

But they didn't.

[LizardQueen]

It sounds like they've hired Baghdad Bob as their PR spinmeister.

LQ

[Howlin]

MamaLucci had THE question the other night.

Imagine the White House telling CNN that they had to abide by their rules about what got reported or they'd be kicked out of the White House pool and cut off their access to ALL government reporting.

How long before CNN went live from the front lawn of the White House with THAT story?

12 years?

12 days?

12 seconds?

[mhking]

A top CNN executive kept quiet about some atrocities in Iraq not because the network wanted to protect access but because it worried about putting lives in danger, CNN said Monday.

Bull.