Tom Brokaw scolded CNN's Eason Jordan (On David Letterman Show)

Media Research Center via E-Mail | April 16, 2003 | Brent Baker

[PJ-Comix]

Tom Brokaw scolded CNN's Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive who late last week confessed that CNN withheld specific information he had about Saddam Hussein's brutality and endangerment of Iraqis CNN employed, suggesting he should have kept his knowledge secret since the revelation now casts doubt on anything CNN reports.

On Tuesday's Late Show, Brokaw told David Letterman that CNN "should have worked harder at conveying" what Jordan knew, but that if you "decide to keep that as a secret for yourself to protect those people and to protect the interests of your company, then you probably ought to keep it secret for a long time because it opens them up now, wherever they go, wherever they're stationed, 'well what are they not telling us now?'"

So much for journalists demanding full disclosure.

Brokaw added that when watching CNN's stories from abroad, "you do wonder, what is the deal that they've made to stay where they are when they get there?"

On the April 15 Late Show, Letterman raised Jordan's disclosure, made in a New York Times op-ed last Friday. Brokaw expressed astonishment: "I was, frankly, quite stunned when I read the piece, that he knew as much as he did. I think that they, that they should have worked harder at conveying some of that. There are ways, I mean, you know, the right thing he did was to protect the interests of the people who could have been in jeopardy if he'd said something. But there are other ways that you can find to convey what he was learning there. And I was just frankly surprised he eventually went public with it, frankly, I mean if you decide to keep that as a secret for yourself to protect those people and to protect the interests of your company, then you probably ought to keep it secret for a long time because it opens them up now wherever they go, wherever they're stationed, 'well what are they not telling us now?'" Letterman wondered: "And does it, to the average American watching CNN, does it now make them look softer than maybe they looked heretofore?" Brokaw replied: "I'm not sure that it makes them look softer necessarily. I wouldn't say that. But you do wonder, what is the deal that they've made to stay where they are when they get there? I'm a strong believer in sunshine, you know, you let the sunshine come in and let people in on what you're doing and why you're doing it the way that you are. You run some risk that way, and then people understand. Now we got thrown out of there, you know, the last time around and CNN was able to stay and we knew that. They were able to stay because the regime wanted to see what was going on in America by tuning into CNN. We understood that was part of the deal. But this arrangement, I think, is going to get a lot of discussion."

It certainly should, though from beyond the New York Post, Washington Times and Fox News Channel it hadn't until Tuesday when the first mainstream major media outlet, the Washington Post, weighed in with a condemnatory editorial. See item #2 below.

And what secrets did Peter Arnett hold when employed by NBC?

Previous CyberAlert items on the Jordan matter:

-- Brit Hume's FNC panel denounced CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan for withholding knowledge he had of Saddam Hussein's brutality. Morton Kondracke recalled that last year Jordan had insisted "that CNN never made journalistic compromises to gain access," but that "is a flat lie." Columnist Charles Krauthammer observed: "It's a classic example of selling your soul for the story. He clearly gave up truth for access." Plus, an excerpt from Jordan's op-ed, what he told a radio interviewer last year in maintaining CNN was not at all compromised, a link to Franklin Foer's New Republic story on media outlets trading truth for access and an example from the MRC archive of how CNN's Nic Robertson insisted that Iraqis have "reverence" for Saddam Hussein. See: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030412.asp#5

-- The Fox News Sunday panel, from left to right, castigated CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan for his confession on Friday that he had covered up knowledge he had about Saddam Hussein's brutality. NPR's Juan Williams called Jordan's decision an "outrage," Weekly Standard Publisher Bill Kristal described Jordan's behavior as "just craven" and even NPR correspondent Mara Liasson was troubled: "I think that raises some crucial questions about how media organizations behave in totalitarian governments." http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030414.asp#4

-- More Eason Jordan material: In a memo to CNN's staff, Jordan defended his withholding of knowledge he had about Saddam Hussein's brutality, Franklin Foer penned an op-ed updating his story on how media outlets traded truth for access in Baghdad, on FNC Fred Barnes, Brit Hume and Jeffrey Birnbaum all chided Jordan, and OpinionJournal.com revealed that four years ago Jordan complained about how the U.S. government was an impediment to CNN establishing a permanent Baghdad bureau. Plus, on the very day of Jordan's confession, a newspaper story noted that CNN, claiming it's "independent," refused to mar itself by letting its news be part of a new U.S. government TV channel in Iraq. See: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030415.asp#3

[PJ-Comix]

I received this story via E-Mail. It should be up on the MRC.Org site later today.

[Support Free Republic]

---

"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered

[remitrom]

that's network ethics for you. If you're going to lie, make you sure you cover it up. Thanks Tom.

[GailA]

They were able to stay because the regime wanted to see what was going on in America by tuning into CNN. We understood that was part of the deal. But this arrangement, I think, is going to get a lot of discussion."

This stands out real good.

[aristeides]

Eason Jordan of CNN now taking questions on C-SPAN.

[mewzilla]

So basically Brokow slammed Jordan for outing himself and ruining the place for the rest of the media. Figures. So much for priniciple, Tom.

[uncbob]

but that if you "decide to keep that as a secret for yourself to protect those people and to protect the interests of your company, then you probably ought to keep it secret for a long time because it opens them up now, wherever they go, wherever they're stationed, 'well what are they not telling us now?'"

This is unbelievable

Brokaw doesn't see the contradiction in this premise

[harpseal]

So much for journalists demanding full disclosure.

To the left wing presstitutes like Brokhaw full disclosure is only for those they are against like the American Goverment and the people who support the USA.

[JasonC]

As though CNN reporters need to remain in Baghdad broadcasting Iraqi propaganda, for Iraqis to watch CNN and its reporting from the US? What poppycock. Obviously the Iraqis wanted CNN to stay because it was willing to broadcast Iraqi propaganda, and the Iraqis thought CNN had more credibility than they did directly.

It doesn't. If it ever did, it doesn't any more.

[mwl1]

Big deal, a tut-tut from Tom Brokaw in sad, mournful, quiet tones.

Except for FOX News, they are all trying to gloss over this story as quickly as possible... trying to abet CNN's window dressing on the problem.

[wrbones]

Makes me wonder what the rest of them have been hiding.

At least FOX is up front about it's philosophy. In yer face patriotism.

[LocalT]

That's great being lectured by Tommy who works for an organization that held the Juanita Brodderick interview until after the impeachment vote.

[mwl1]

excellent point.

[ErnBatavia]

what are they not telling us now?

As far as I'm concerned that's already the motto for CNN

[dirtboy]

NPR's Juan Williams called Jordan's decision an "outrage,"

This doesn't begin to describe Juan's comments on this matter. They let Juan go first on this one and he was as livid as I have seen him on that program - normally he has a deer-in-the-headlights look as Brit Hume tees off on him, but he was genuinely outraged at what CNN had done and basically tore them a new orifice. By the time the discussion got to Brit, he had little to add to what had already been said on the matter. Juan also was genuinely glad to see the scenes of liberation and didn't try to spin them away. I guess there are still a few honest liberals out there, and this added Juan Williams to my short list...

[ez]

On Tuesday's Late Show, Brokaw told David Letterman that CNN "should have worked harder at conveying" what Jordan knew, but that if you "decide to keep that as a secret for yourself to protect those people and to protect the interests of your company, then you probably ought to keep it secret for a long time because it opens them up now, wherever they go, wherever they're stationed, 'well what are they not telling us now?'"

So much for journalists demanding full disclosure.

And so much for the people's right to know. And so much for American public opinion.

[Wright is right!]

David Letterman apparently didn't bother to ask Om Rokaw about the same sort of conditions set in place for Ron Allen, who - for months - sat in Baghdad and parroted the Saddamite line for the NBC Nightly News. Allen did all his reports with an Iraqi minder right beside him, and all the reports accepted as fact anything the old regime put out. And NBC never mentioned that his reports were subject to Iraqi censors.

Om Rokaw's remarks were mere opportunism.

Michael

[Free State Four]

full disclosure is only for those they are against like

Really. Maybe we should rewrite the Freedom of Information Act to include the media!