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."

[AIBC]

Why maintain presence in Bagdad if they can't tell the truth about the regime? I gather they have maintained their access and have been involved with propaganda. All of their broadcasts have been strictly scrutinized and the filter was working only one way: only anti-American, pro-Saddam information was let out. So ,again, why maintain presence there when you can't tell the truth?

ANSWER: "Money, money, money ..." (Abba)

[MonroeDNA]

Homepage = trust? Is that what you are saying?

So if Janet Reno has a good home page, we should let her post at will?

Sorry, but he is outed.

[ex-Texan]

Great find ! Big CNN *BS* Bump!

[Diplomat]

If CNN really had a bout of honesty it would read like this "Our silence on Iraq atrocities had nothing to do with maintaining access, we ally our reporting with all enemies of America. Always have, always will, nothing has changed. We consistently work against the U.S.A. no matter which country we are reporting from. So you see, our silence on evil is standard operating procedure and not because we needed to maintain access to saddam's murderous regime."

Clinton truth.

[alwaysconservative]

Can't you just hear the bigwigs at CNN after the firestorm from Friday? "Ooops! Maybe that was just a little toooo honest!"

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

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.

CNN was worried about putting lives in danger, that's why they kept their people in Iraq instead of pulling out, yeah right. CNN's arguments make no sense.

[The Old Hoosier]

In other words, you don't have anything intelligent to say.

[GrandmaPatriot]

I have that very same bumper sticker on my car. Got it from Israel.

[The Old Hoosier]

But even if one can excuse them for not reporting on the atrocities, what damns CNN is that their reporting/programming/underlying editorial bias was slanted AGAINST Bush's push for regime change.

Now THAT is a fair criticism. But I don't think the "access" charge really holds water.

[Howlin]

Can we still order it from them? I sure want one.

[The Old Hoosier]

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.

That's the one thing you've said that I agree with.

And yes, they could have left Baghdad,

I can't agree with this, though. CNN can't airlift 40 or 50 people out of Iraq, that's just stupid. What, are they going to give them all houses and jobs in the US?

[Howlin]

It's been done before.

And it was 12 years; they could have thought of something.

[F16Fighter]

CNN has been outted as the worst kind of mercenary whore who craves the spotlight at ANY price.

[The Old Hoosier]

Then if anything had happened to him/them, the world would've known who to blame.

That's great...unless you happen to the guy!

Doh!

I don't think anyone ever doubted that Saddam tortures and murders lots and lots of people.

[The Old Hoosier]

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

Did you notice how Fox News didn't have a Baghdad correspondent at the beginning of the war?

[Howlin]

What are you saying, that Fox should have gone along with Saddam to get a reporter in?

Sorry, no news is better than news that was bought.

[The Old Hoosier]

No, I'm saying fox did the right thing. You're arguing my point.

[Howlin]

Well, I don't get your point. Perhaps Fox wasn't there because they didn't buy the rules.

Did you even read the first article about this?

You're fixating on one detail -- the cameraman -- is NOT the only reason they stayed in Baghdad.

Eason went to Iraq 13 times to BEG them to let CNN stay.

And what do you say about a news director who KNEW what was going on -- to the point that he was SCARED to leave -- that KEPT sending reporters in and putting THEM in harm's way without THEIR knowledge.

[The Old Hoosier]

I may be misinterpreting. Here's one of the points we were arguing, and maybe you weren't referring specifically to it, in which case I just misunderstood.

I wrote: ...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.

Then you wrote: "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..."

Then I wrote: Did you notice how Fox News didn't have a Baghdad correspondent at the beginning of the war?

Meaning, of course, that FOX was right not to deal with the regime or get any info from them at all, because of their inability to report such incidents--which I'm sure were not isolated at CNN.

[jwalsh07]

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

I agree, it was all about ideology.