I see you didn't read the link I provided.
And I am not the one being difficult. It's amazing that of almost 200 posts, you seem to be the only one having trouble understanding what is wrong with what they did.
I'd have to say that's because you don't want to.
I read the link. Unlike you, I agree with the author of the post (see his #2) that CNN could have simply emphasized other reports on torture and other abuses by the regime, "indirectly referring" to such incidents in general without directly reporting on what they knew to have happened.
You, on the other hand, in opposition to me and the author of that post, are insisting that they had to get their cameraman killed, or else they were committing some sin against journalism.
But I can't agree with the poster entirely. Publicity did not stop Saddam's son-in-law from being killed, and you can bet it wouldn't have saved this poor schmuck. Publicity also did not stop people from being killed in Stalin's Soviet Union, although it did have an effect there later on, post-Kruschev.