LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Outrage of the Day

Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 9:32:29 am PDT

CNN executive Eason Jordan admits that the network regularly covered up stories of Iraqi torture and atrocities—out of simple fear: The News We Kept to Ourselves.

Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990’s one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government’s ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency’s Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk. ...

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for “crimes,” one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family’s home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein’s regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

But after this, why would we trust anything that comes from CNN? By covering up these stories, CNN helped the evil regime of Saddam Hussein remain in power, for no other reason than sheer cowardice. Jordan seems to think that remaining in Baghdad was more important than anything else, even more important than reporting the truth. Disgusting and shameful beyond all words.

UPDATE: Journalist Bill Hobbs says CNN has blood on their hands.

UPDATE: Novelist Roger Simon says this is greed at its purest.

UPDATE: James Taranto asks, “What are CNN and other news organizations failing to tell us about other thuggish regimes, from communist Cuba to the Palestinian Authority?”

UPDATE: Instapundit points out this interview with Eason Jordan in which he blatantly lies about CNN’s coverage of Iraq:

BOB GARFIELD: I’m sure you have seen Franklin Foer’s article in The New Republic which charges that the Western press is appeasing the Iraqi regime in order to maintain its visas — to be there reporting should a war ultimately break out. What’s your take on that?

EASON JORDAN: The writer clearly doesn’t have a clear understanding of the realities on the ground because CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that it’s prepared to be forthright; is forthright in its reporting.

UPDATE: Matt Welch says news bureaus in totalitarian countries are just “propaganda huts.”

Advertisement

288 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 AT  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:35:12am

yet another reason to tune into Foxnews Channel

2 James  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:35:44am

I'm actually split on this. He has a point, lives were endangered. Maybe CNN was violating journalistic ethics, but they were adhering to higher ethics: humanity. However it does call into question anything they say.

3 Veronica  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:37:38am

At least they claimed to do it because they feared innocent Iraqis would die. But I wonder how many more innocent Iraqis died because people like this sonofabitch kept his goddamn mouth shut instead of standing up and saying "this is wrong, this needs to stop."

4 Dean VanDruff  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:37:39am

Eason's revelations makes my blood boil. I would like to take some of Eason's and his staff's previous Iraqi-coddling reports and ram them down his spineless throat. Oh, we should think him brave and "one of us" now?

Is History so malleable that even his own moral rudderlessness and playing in the hands of the enemy is now his claim to fame?

Liberals like Eason and his crew have no shame. They just wiggle up to appear high-and-morally-mighty for their next big mistake. They come up with a new spin and act like they weren't on the wrong side. Their incorrigibility and chutzpah is so outrageous, it is admirable is a sort of perverted sense.

I am glad Eason feels a bit better having gotten this off his chest. But Eason, you louse, what about your public stance, position, and reporting--WHEN YOU KNEW ALL THIS!

That he knew only amplifies the shame. It in no way assuages it.

5 len  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:39:09am

Deceive the planet so you can spare -- possibly -- the people you know about.

Understandable in a sense; repugnant in a sense.

6 NC  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:39:28am

I hope and expect that Fox will make as big a deal of this story as it can.

Unless Fox is guilty of the same thing.

7 James  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:39:36am

Well hang on a second. It wasn't a secret that Saddam's Iraq was doing these things. All he is saying is that they made a decision not to report things that would get innocent people killed. That seems to me to be proper, even though, of course, we obviously cannot rely on CNN to tell the whole truth.

8 someone  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:39:44am

Remember: Iraq's not the only place. Remember how "news" gets out from the Jordyptinian territories.

9 Alfred E. Neuman  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:39:45am

Fucking coward. My god, I cannot even believe the moral, intellectual, and proessional bankruptcy of these people.

This must be trumpeted around the world for all to see. This kind of behavior is appalling, and those who engage in it must be exposed and derided.

10 kamala  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:39:51am

Amazing that Jordan doesn't even recognize the obvious point that their policy compromised CNN's integrity!

Just last week, every live report from Baghdad was qualified by the phrase "remember that minders are watching us."

Why didn't CNN apply this phrase to every report on Iraq from the last 12 years?

I wonder what Ted Turner will say about this...

11 el Barto  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:39:59am

Wasn't he one of the anit war nuts saying the UN needed more time? Either way I think James has a point, reporting this would have put lives in danger. I suppose he should have called th CIA and let them know what he had heard, but I guess journalist are exempt from morals in order to maintain journalistic integrity.

12 Robert Crawford  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:40:14am

Journalists. As Gary Burbank says, "We adhere to the journalistic credo that your right to know exceeds your right to exist."

13 cba  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:40:41am

I was about to post something along the same lines as James.

If it were his own life he were saving it would be fair to call it cowardice. The lives he felt he was saving were the lives of his staff.

Perhaps CNN could have withdrawn completely from Iraq--but even that would probably have led to the deaths of his then-staffers (although would have protected those not yet hired). Once CNN was there, I imagine it would have been hard to decide which was the least-awful of the awful alternatives. I don't know if he picked the right one, but I can't condemn his choice.

I just hope he makes a big deal of this and that people remember the next time a despicable regime "doesn't sound so bad" on the news.

14 Ron  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:40:59am

I'm with James on this. They didn't hide it because they had a political agenda, they did it because they wanted to protect the people.

It raises the question of what they AREN'T reporting else where for the same reason.

If Fox is willing to sacrifice the lives of natives of places like Iraq for a story are they better? I like Fox and hope they are smart about what they report.

15 Zwicker  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:41:03am

I am not split on this at all. CNN violated both journalistic and human ethics by staying in Iraq. Had CNN left the country, it could have avoided subjecting its employees to torture and death (can we assume that CNN hid the atrocities from their employees as well?). At the same time, CNN would have been safe to tell the whole truth to the world. The bottom line is that the powers that be couldn't resist the image of one of their reporters seen by the world on the spot.

16 Glen Wishard  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:42:34am

I'm told Rush Limbaugh just read this piece on the air, after warning listeners to brace themselves for something really shocking and appalling.

You really have to wonder how CNN could stay quiet while people who worked for them were tortured and literally cut to pieces. Was it because they were Iraqis, and not Arnetts, so they didn't matter much?

17 Korora  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:42:48am

That fits with Sadd*mn's regard for civilians as things to rob, to give to his sons, to use as target practice and guinea pigs, and to play on people's decency with. What an 2@#$hat!

18 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:43:11am

Jordan lied to the American public;

[Link: www.wnyc.org...]

EASON JORDAN: Well absolutely. I mean we work very hard to report forthrightly, to report fairly and to report accurately and if we ever determine we cannot do that, then we would not want to be there; but we do think that some light is better than no light whatsoever....

EASON JORDAN: We'd very much like to be there if there's a second war; but-- we are not going to make journalistic compromises in an effort to make that happen, being mindful that in wartime there is censorship on all sides, and we're prepared to deal with a certain amount of censorship as long as it's not-- extreme, ridiculous censorship where -- which we've actually seen a number of cases in previous conflicts -- not just with Iraq. But-- sure! We want to be there, but it's --we don't want to be there come hell or high water. We want to be there if we can be there and operate as a responsible news organization.

Jordan's main concern was to have CNN be on top, at any cost;

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

When I asked CNN's Jordan to explain why his network is so devoted to maintaining a perpetual Baghdad presence, he listed two reasons: "First, because it's newsworthy; second, because there's an expectation that if anybody is in Iraq, it will be CNN." His answer reveals the fundamental attitude of most Western media: Access to Baghdad is an end in itself, regardless of the intellectual or moral caliber of the journalism such access produces. An old journalistic aphorism holds "access is a curse." The Iraqi experience proves it can be much worse than that.

19 Jay  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:44:12am

In the media, at times, you have to "sit on" a story till it is safe enough to be told. But if one of their camera men was had that happen, I'd have waited to get him free, sent every reporter I had to get as much dirt on Iraq (like that would be hard), then pull everyone. Then spend a week showing the world the truth.

Eason Jordan and his ilk deserve to be drummed out of the media. That violates so many ethical standards of journalism, it is repugnant, but I guess we should expect it, which I think is a very sorry situation.

20 Robert Crawford  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:44:23am
I wonder what Ted Turner will say about this...

"Iraq? Where's that? Is it near Atlanta? Who took my pills?"

21 Neil G  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:45:00am

Its stating the obvious I know but the gloves always came off when CNN was reporting about Israel. Another example of how their "highmindedness" is simply opportunism. Its nice to feel vindicated but the battle for the "roadmap to peace" is just about to begin. Oh well, back to the lame excuses and anti-semitic diatribes.

22 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:45:03am

Note this

being mindful that in wartime there is censorship on all sides,

Jordan felt it was important to remain "balanced" by saying daring to compare "censorship" by the US with that of Iraq

23 kamala  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:46:14am

#2 James, #14 Ron:

The point is that if CNN had any integrity it would have qualified their Iraq reports by saying that for numerous reasons they cannot report the full truth in that country!!!!

It's ok not to report certain things--it's not OK to imply that they are reporting the full/complete/true story when they aren't.

24 Damian P.  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:46:32am

Last fall, The New Republic had an outstanding article about western news organizations in Baghdad. To make a long story short, if you reported anything the regime really didn't like, you could kiss your visa good-bye. That explains all the stories about the Iraqi "election" - you know, the one in which Saddam won 100% of the vote - played perfectly straight.

And lefties have the gall to say CNN is biased against the Iraqis.

25 NC  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:46:53am

I'm sure this cocksucker will be "forgiven," too, because after all he's really sorry and really feels bad about it blah blah blah.

26 Veronica  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:46:56am

#13 & #14: If he were interested in acting morally, he wouldn't be there in the first place. Doing the right thing and turning a blind eye are rarely the same.

27 Robert Crawford  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:47:18am

Just to make my position clear, I agree with Zwicker in #15. CNN had three choices: report lies from Baghdad but be "on the spot", report the truth and get people killed, or refuse to deal with Saddam and be shut out. They chose the slimiest path, the one that gave them short-term gain but which most compromised their trustworthiness.

28 Celissa  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:47:20am

Really, I mean it, I'm just shocked...
SOOOOOOOOOO surprised!
CNN lied?
What is this world coming to?
They put their ratings and their position as a lackey for the Iraqi gov't. above telling the truth to the world?
*sniff, sniff*
I'm freakin' heart-broken.
Wolf, Aaron, Christiane....HOW COULD YOU?
[/sarcasm]

29 AG in Houston  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:47:49am

CNN coddles the dictators of the world and slam Israel at every turn.

What the hell is going on?

I hate CNN and Eason Jordan.

I really, truly hate you.

30 John B  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:48:04am

Re: #7 James

I agree. It was certainly well reported that atrocities were committed all the time in Irag. I expect that other news organizations did the same thing as CNN and let the news out with few specific details.

31 Anthony O'Donnell  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:48:21am

I disagree that the motive here was exclusively cowardice. These mercenary bastards wanted ACCESS, and they were willing to present a distorted picture to the world. That is not journalism, it is some kind of twisted entertainment mongering at the expense of crucial information. It is most certainly not fair and balanced to withold such information from the world. In fact, when the motives range beyond fear into business considerations it's making oneself a kind of accessory to the crimes whose discovery it suppresses.

One has to think of the effect on public opinion this secret knowledge could have had, both in the US and abroad. Considering the diplomatic consequence of these events, this is a deeply scandalous revelation.

Beyond a pure damage assessment, this has to be regarded as truly disgusting from an ethical point of view. CNN should be made to pay, if only in terms of serious revision of its reputation.

32 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:48:35am

#24, here's The New Republic article you mentioned;

HOW SADDAM MANIPULATES THE U.S. MEDIA.
Air War

33 Korora  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:49:09am

#20 Robert Crawford!

I wonder what Ted Turner will say about this...

"Iraq? Where's that? Is it near Atlanta? Who took my pills?"

ROTFLMGMO!

34 Bill Hobbs  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:49:11am

I've posted on this on my blog, from the perspective of a journalist. LINK

35 Susan  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:49:14am

Dud the BBC have a bureau in Iraq when Saddam was in power?

If this is what CNN did, I wonder what kind of stories the (shudder) BBC covered up.

36 cba  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:49:36am

#23 kamala--
You make an excellent point and have convinced me. But I still think that "cowardice" is not quite the appropriate epithet. Come to think of it, the appropriate word is a lot worse.

37 hobgoblin  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:50:10am

He's just covering his company's syncophancy to a brutal dictaorship with the cloak of "concern."

"But we only licked Saddam's bunghole so that he wouldn't kill our employees."

Bullshit.

If this guy knew what was going on, he could have gone to State or the CIA, told them everything, gotten his employees (and their families) safe passage to wherever they wanted to flee, fired everyone from the Baghdad office (symbolically), and then reported the hell out of the brutality.

Eason's cowardice was for one reason, and one reason only. CNN wanted to stay in Baghdad and was willing to rationalize any corruption to do so.

Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Eason's a collaborator as much as any fadayeen.

38 Meryl  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:50:29am

Compare this with CNN reporting of Israel (where reporters have total access they trash Ariel Sharon and Israeli policy) and their coverage of the Palestinian Authority (where they routinely report masacres that never happened.) Do we have to wait for Arafat to die to get an honest reporting?

39 John  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:50:40am

Its just the latest spin. CNN finally realized that the american public is actually for the war, so now they have to explain their vehemently anti-war stance in way that people could identify with and forgive. So they say:

"We HAD to support Iraq, or else our guys would've gotten killed by Saddam!"

And all of a sudden its okay that they have been spewing propoganda and denouncing their home country. I wish i was a fly on the wall in Rupert Murdoch's office today, that man must be laughing so hard right now...

40 RedMoonProject  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:51:01am

Today in the New York times we find that the venerable purveyor of truth and fairness, Ted Turner's Clinton News Network, lied about the events occurring in Iraq for more than 12 years. Yes dear friends, we see once again the actual meaning of journalistic ethics in practice when understood by liberals who don't know what the meaning of the word "is" is. CNN has been quick to call conservatives on the carpet for dishonesty and ethics charges. We remember how CNN talked about Newt Gingrich, Clarence Thomas, George W. Bush, the election of 2000 and the voting in Florida and many other stories. But now we know, as if we needed further confirmation, that CNN cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything and that they know they are lying even as they smile at us from the screen. Where were you guy in the CNN news room while Iraqi citizens were being tortured and killed? Where were you when the children of Iraq were being put in prison for the alleged crimes of their parents? The intellectual bankruptcy of the left and of the Dominant Media Monoculture is clear for all to see.

Now in fairness, the author, Eason Jordan, claims that they could not report many things because it would have endangered their staff members who were operating in dangerous territory. Fair enough. But the why was the underlying barbarity of the Saddam regime not exposed for what it was? If you can't name names, you can still call a dictatorship by its proper name. What was the problem CNN? Was it just cause you hated Bush so much? Or was it just the money?

41 Emmett  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:51:42am

Eason Jordan is full of crap:

...awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

It was to keep their access and to keep getting the story. That's how most reporters think. Journalism is a cutthroat business and if you don't get the story, you are fired.

They could have pulled out, the network could have taken the financial hit, and they could have done the right thing. But that would have meant losing stories, eyeballs, advertisers, and income to the competition. Can't have that, now can we?

Bastards.

42 MarvintheMartian  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:51:49am

This is the network who's former president (after leaving ABC) distributed a memo to the staff forbidding them to use the word "scandal" when reporting on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. not to mention Peter Arnett vetting the story alledging that the U.S. used saran nerve gas on its own POWS in Camobodia. Of course Christian Amanpour states flatly, that there was no Iraqi fire directed at U.S. troops from the Palestine Hotel.......right!

43 Chris  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:51:51am

What use is access if you can't report the truth?

None, of course.

This is truly reprehensible behavior from CNN....and they're too dim to be ashamed. They put this in the NYT?!?!?!?!

44 r  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:52:23am

I read this and didn't think much of it. But, I guess if your job is journalism...staying was facilitating.

What's the point of telling us now?

Is this a weasel attempt to blame it on saddam? Will russia, france and germany next say they let the construction companies build the bunkers because they feared for their people?

It's all about the people...snif, snif

45 Model4  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:53:46am

This is sick, sick, sick, sick, SICK! It is as despicable as fabricating a story to deliberately hide an important story. As soon as it was determined that the whole truth could not be safely reported from Iraq CNN should have refused to generate reports out of the country that implied we were getting the full story. This was deliberate and ongoing, for over a decade.

O0h! Rush just read a letter to 10-20 million saying he bets the same thing is going on in the "Palestinian Authority." :)

46 MB  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:53:51am

CNN has to bear responsibility for keeping the office open in Baghdad. I am sickened by these reports, this is some of the worst state sponsored human behavior ever documented.

What beasts, those dead Iraqi soldiers do not deserve much respect fighting for these worms.

47 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:54:11am

#37
Eason's cowardice was for one reason, and one reason only. CNN wanted to stay in Baghdad and was willing to rationalize any corruption to do so.

It wasn't cowardice, it was greed, again;

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

When I asked CNN's Jordan to explain why his network is so devoted to maintaining a perpetual Baghdad presence, he listed two reasons: "First, because it's newsworthy; second, because there's an expectation that if anybody is in Iraq, it will be CNN." His answer reveals the fundamental attitude of most Western media: Access to Baghdad is an end in itself, regardless of the intellectual or moral caliber of the journalism such access produces.

48 James  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:54:58am

#2 James, #14 Ron:

The point is that if CNN had any integrity it would have qualified their Iraq reports by saying that for numerous reasons they cannot report the full truth in that country!!!!


I think we all have to get real. Whether or not CNN had to be in Baghdad is a valid question. Once they made contact with Saddam and innocent people's lives were endangered they could not get on camera and go "wink, wink". Saddam's goons were not stupid. If they left and reported the truth, these Iraqis working for CNN would still have been tortured and killed.

Does this sound like a situation that could arise from getting involved with the mafia? Exactly!

However CNN did the right thing by not adhering to some code and allowing people to be murdered in the name of journalism.

BUT we obviously cannot trust CNN, no question.

49 blaster  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:55:54am

What else are they afraid to tell us the truth about?

FLOOD THE ZONE.

50 Barking Pumpkin  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:56:20am

CNN = Certainly Not News.

51 NC  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:56:39am

By the way, while we're on the subject of unbelievable outrages, check this out.

52 Colt  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:56:46am

If it was an ethical question, they'd have left in protest. But the ratings aren't as good reporting from Kuwait City.

Fucking pathetic.

53 Joshua  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:56:55am

I believe CNN has a bureau in Cuba, too. When can we expect CNN to reveal the truth about what's happening there?

54 hobgoblin  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 7:59:52am

#47 ElCap

Agreed from the get-go. Small point, but wanted to note: Greed was CCN's motive, cowardice was Eason's moral failing.

Eason lacked the firmness of convictions to (a) quit, (b) refuse to play ball with Sodomite (c) report and let evil do what evil does. Any of these would be preferable to cravenly taking part in covering up horrific torture and abuse.

55 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:00:56am

Good thing a CNN camera crew wasn't stationed outside Auschwitz.

"We're reporting to you live today from a refugee holding center ..."

56 dangermouse  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:01:14am

I have to agree with several others on this thread who believe that this was done more to facilitate continued access than for some kind of humanitarian motive.

Per Chris (#43), "What use is access if you can't report the truth?"

I just want to know in what other countries they have done this. Ever. Any at all? No? Then why the hell now??

The question answers itself.

57 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:01:55am

So, from CNN's perspective a story is just a fairy tale. CNN=CPN. If you watch CNN you can be sure your electrictic service and TV set work, but not much else. I thank them for their confession to their crime, however moral ambiguity is no defence.

58 Happy4LA  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:03:04am

Maybe this solves two additional mysteries, Robert Fisk and Scott Ritter. What horrors were these guys threatened with or subjected to? I think it would make more sense than the drivel and stupidity that comes from these two. Some day we will learn the entire truth.

However, let's not stop there. Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Janeane Garafalo, Ed Asner, et al. These poor people had to be tortured! Let them have our pity as we ignore what they are saying, but nod in knowing what they really hope they could say.

59 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:06:07am

#55. They would be reporting that the smoke from the chimneys was a sign that the power plant was in good working order.

60 Raoul Ortega  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:06:37am

CNN -- Collaboration, Not News

One thing we can learn from this is to not trust any reporting from any other tyranny because the truth is of secondary concern to "being there." Keep this in mind for reports from such places as Cuba, China, Libya, so-called Palestine or France.

61 Elizabeth  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:06:40am

Which brings me to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Honest Reporting gave me Eason Jordan's email address a year and a half ago. I've written to him personally several times complaining about the slanted coverage from CNN on activities in that region. The times again and again when CNN lovingly details the injuries of the Palestinians and then gives an also ran coverage to a bus bombing with school children or seniors; the times they have gone overboard in detailing Israel's sins, i.e. the missile strike in Gaza, when a week earlier there was a horrific bombing by the Palestinians and it was characterized as a 'struggle'.

I never got a reply.

What makes me angry too is CNN's duplicity goes beyond just saving the necks of those who might be in danger; CNN actually twists and shades the news, probably at the behest of Arafat and Saddam.

This is a bloody scandal and I hope it doesn't get swept under the rug. Everyone I know who follows Middle East coverage has been tearing their hair out over CNN coverage for ten years or more, ever since their debut.

What good are they if they're Al-Jazeera lite?

For some time I was whinging on even on LGF about the number of shares held in CNN by the Saudi royal family, thinking maybe THAT accounted for their unaccountable and frustrating bias.

As far as I'm concerned, they've lost all credibility.

There was more to the story. Apparently Brent Sadler uncovered a plot that Saddam was going to have his goons kill some of the CNN staff stationed over there through an attack on their offices in Baghdad. CNN and Eason were astonished and chagrined to find that various men of Saddam's whom they'd trusted were part of the plot to kill them.

Serves them right, if you ask me. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas!

62 Red Herring  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:08:03am

Did any notice that Clinton News Network talking heads (i.e. Judy Woodruff) continue to refer to President Bush as "Mr.Bush" and Saddam Hussein as "President [of Iraq] Saddam Hussein"?

63 Robert Brandtjen  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:08:55am

They didn't keep silent to protect a "few"- they kept silent in order to keep their news sources in there and reporting- i.e. they protected their bottom line at the expense of tens of thousands. The whole US should be aghast at this, this is the same moral relativeism that allows the left to always overlook atrocities commited by those they love.

wittness Castro's latest purge. Knowing full well the IS is occupied elsewhere, he is taking advantage of it to rid himself of some enemies. CNN is disgusting.

64 Ellen  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:10:54am

Count me among those who believe the most important thing about keeping mum about Saddam's abuses was continued access for CNN.

Access=stories=exclusives=ratings=money

Perhaps there were some twinges of conscience about the safety of staffers, but somehow I don't think their lives and safety were of paramount importance.

I don't think I will ever turn to CNN again.

65 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:10:58am

CNN, fourth estate,fifth column.

66 Lively  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:11:47am

CNN is disgusting. While I agree you shouldn't put human lives at risk (your own employees, innocent Iraqi civilians) they should have at least been reporting generalities. Or like someone said above, collect a lot of information then leave, and report, report , report. That's how they could have made a name for themselves....now their name is mud.

67 Robert Brandtjen  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:12:10am

#62

talking heads (i.e. Judy Woodruff) c

Nothing Woodruff says should surprise you- she is formerly of the NPR, PBS crew, home to unemployable lefties world wide.

68 BAM  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:12:16am

Yes Charles, this is indeed outrageous. But I find this even more so:

"The prison in question was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children - toddlers up to pre-adolescents - whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace." - Scott Ritter, Time Magazine.
69 bunuel  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:12:33am

Hobbs is right. (And not only CNN)!

70 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:13:12am

The excuse that it was done to same lives is faulty. How many lives have been lost because Saddam has stayed in power? If reporters and news organizations would refuse to be intimidated, more of the world would know the truth about oppressive regimes (like the PA and Ba'ath party). E. J.'s decision to play by Saddam's rules, to avoid "jeapordizing the lives" of his employees, has helped allow many, many others to be tortured and killed over the years. Absolutely no excuse. This man is an accomplice to Saddam's regime.

71 Robert Brandtjen  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:13:57am

I wonder if Iraqs who lost loved ones can sue CNN for their complicity. It would be wonderful to see that happen.

72 Buckeye Abroad  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:14:32am

Cowardice and unethical? Yes, on all accounts.

CNN was worried about the bottom line, like any business, but going foward who can seriously take CNN acqusations against corporate America (ie. Enron) about unethical business behavior? They did not want to have their office shut down in Baghdad and lose that edge. Possible loss of revenue, hmm what would Ted do if he was still here? They kept their mouthes shut and kept their office.

Ted Turner can give all the money he wants to the UN, it's just blood money passing from one hand to the next in the same organization.

73 T. Jefferson  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:17:06am

Dear Ann:

I have a problem. I have two brothers. One brother is in television, the other was put to death in the electric chair for murder. My mother died from insanity when I was three years old. My sisters are prostitutes, and my father sells narcotics to high school students. Recently I met a girl who was just released from a reformatory where she served time for smothering her illegitimate child to death, and I want to marry her.

My problem is - if I marry this girl, should I tell her about my brother who is in television?

74 slimedog  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:19:58am

Let 'em know what rat bastards they are. Here's my feedback to CNN:


Just read the opinion piece in the NY Times:

(excerpt here)

...and I only have one thing to say: YOU CHICKENSHIT BASTARDS! Not only do I no longer trust anything on CNN, I wouldn't piss on you if I was full of beer and you were on fire.

75 el Barto  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:20:22am

73 That is sick and wrong, and hillarious all at the same time.

76 Jefferson Decendant  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:20:39am

#31

These mercenary bastards wanted ACCESS, and they were willing to present a distorted picture to the world. That is not journalism, it is some kind of twisted entertainment mongering at the expense of crucial information.

Absolutely right.

What is CNN's greatest strength? It's the fact that they are one of the most admired, respected, and believed news organizations in the world. Why did they not tell the world this story! It could likely have stopped the murder from happening. And getting kicked out of Iraq? It would have validated the truthfulness of the story.

Why didn't they use their heads!

77 Chuckg  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:21:39am

First off, let me get my emotional reactions out of the way.

[rage rage froth scream rage rage vomit]

I'm not being sarcastic. That's how I feel.

Now, on to the cold-blooded reasoning stage of how I handle emotional shocks:

God. Damn. It.

How do we spread the word and make sure CNN dies the hideous flaming death that it deserves? We can't trust the media to watchdog itself. Conservative talk radio and the blogophere can only reach those who were already suspecting this anyway(*), and the choir aren't the people we need to start believing this. Only in my dreams will the administration actually hold a press conference to rip CNN the new one it so desperately deserves. And while Fox News is obviously going to go for this for all its worth, far too many people will discount their message as 'merely sliming the competition' or some other such moonbat nonsense.

So how do we make sure CNN's feet is held to the fire? How?

I've got no answers. Dammit.


(*) I'm not trying to incite anything -- I'm just saying that by the time you start using the blogosphere, or talk radio, or Drudge, or similar such sources as your primary news provider, then by definition you've already made the decision not to trust the major news networks. So on this particular matter, we are all "the choir".

78 Yossarian  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:22:29am

OT: Andy Rooney: I Was Wrong, Bush Was Right

CBS "60 Minutes" commentator Andy Rooney has become the first big media personality to admit that he was wrong to oppose President Bush's decision to liberate Iraq...."And I must say that fortunately, he's president and I'm not," the former Stars and Stripes correspondent confessed. "It appears as though he did the right thing and I didn't think he was doing the right thing."
79 r  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:22:51am

this is more Leftist - perception creates reality stuff too,

with the weasel explanation idea mentioned by #39


it's the left with their pravda, this is more of the same, it shouldn't be surprising

to be outraged, is to be naive


this has to be left damage control, they know that whatever explanation they give to the DU crowd it will be swallowed whole, and winked at by the rest

these people are as hilarious as the soviets

last night dennis miller on leno had four categories of anti war types

type two:

bush is hitler
cheney is hitler
ashcroft is hitler

everybody's hitler, except the motherfucker with the moustache who's throwing people in the shreader...

80 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:23:12am

#61   Elizabeth 

I commend you on your persistence.

While you've been ripping into CNN over the years, I've been taking NPR to task over their disgraceful coverage of Israel.

Have NEVER received a reply either.

Never.

Although it was peculiar some months ago when they finally pulled Jennifer Luddon out of Israel, as I'd been sending NPR emails about her in the months previous.

Probably just a coincidence, though.

But I like to fantasize that I played a small part in booting one antisemitic reporter out of Israel!

81 BigBad  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:23:36am

I guess the moral to the story is that if you want to get your side of the story told, threaten to evict CNN from your country. Didn't you all notice how CNN's coverage turned much more pro-israel after Israel threatened to have them removed from cable tv there and replaced with Fox News?

82 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:27:33am

I don't understand the confusion.

CNN is the quite clearly the epitome, the sparkling paragon of "balance."

They balanced the needs of a vicious bloodthirsty dictator ... with their need to make money.

Do you think these guys lost even a single night's sleep over it?

As advertising legend Bill Bernbach once put it, "It's not a principle until it costs you money."

God damn you, CNN.

83 smudge  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:30:04am

NEWSFLASH:
CNN reports that Bagdhad Bob has gotten a job with the Democratic National Committee.

84 Michael Glazer  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:32:35am

This does not surprise me in the least bit.

This does beg the question though:

What else are they hiding?

What are they not telling the truth about the PLO and other arab internationally legitimized terrorists groups?

Don't watch CNN, or buy the NYTimes, or the LATimes.

85 Beth  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:32:48am

At a MIMINUM, the entire CNN news organization is directly responsible for the assassination of Saddam's two sons-in-law, who once defected, but were urged back to Iraq with a promise that all was forgiven.

Now we know that Jordan KNEW that their lives were in danger, well in advance of them returning to Iraq, but didn't lift a finger to tell these poor souls that returning would spell their death.

He's as much responsible for those two lives being brutally snuffed out as if he'd pulled the trigger himself.

And all that for a story...and access.

If this putrid piece of garbage is allowed to continue in his profession, it will forever tarnish the image of foreign correspondents, if that's even possible.

86 someone  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:34:39am

Domestically, all this sucking up to Saddam hasn't kept them from being trounced by Fox News.

So I suppose they're writing the US market off and positioning themselves as al-Jazeera lite for the French and Arab markets.

87 Julesk  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:35:41am

#48 James

I must respectfully differ with your assessment that "However CNN did the right thing by not adhering to some code and allowing people to be murdered in the name of journalism." They did just that! What of the people they interviewed on the street, as, for example, Asrar Qabandi? They couldn't follow them, nor protect them from possible attacks from the powers in Baghdad. Every time they interviewed an Iraqi, they were endangering that person--and they knew it. The circle of potential victims expanded every day they knowingly did business with the butchers in Baghdad.

Every business which does business outside of the golden circle of civilized countries must accept that their employees are at the mercy of whatever government holds power over them. Yet, in the news business, they are in the unique position of endangering total strangers, as well as their own employees.

That CNN willingly complied with this, in order to have a presence in Baghdad, is terrible. In collaborating with Saddam, they also supported an illusion of international legitimacy for the regime. And they did all this so their cameras could be in Baghdad, and at the end they did it so their cameras could catch images of "shock and awe."

88 iowahawk  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:38:53am

Ve vere only following orders.

-CNN

89 MysticMonist  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:41:00am

OT

10 Suspects in USS Cole Bombing Escape From Prison

How come these Muslim tyranies are so good at keeping innocent people in prison for years, but let the criminals escape so easily?

90 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:42:28am

FCC action possible?

91 lawhawk  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:42:47am

I just finished writing a nice letter to CNN, but doubt anything will come of it. However, if everyone takes the time to write a nice, simple, and pointed letter telling CNN they completely screwed the pooch, we might see some public handwringing - and maybe even a firing or two.

Who am I kidding, those folks who are fired will only get picked up by the Guardian or al Jazeera anyhow.

92 Inspector Callahan  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:44:24am

I'm just wondering...

Didn't CNN know that the sh** would hit the fan when this got out?

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall of the editorial board at CNN to see how this all played out.

TV

93 Rock  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:44:45am

Whether it was my e-mail that prompted it or not, I'm glad Charles printed this. People need to know that CNN has blood on their hands. They are accomplices to potentially thousands of murders of both Iraqis and non-Iraqis.

And for what? So they could have "access". They have committed heinous crimes against humanity by acting as Saddam's unofficial PR machine. They supported the anti-war movement. Makes you wonder: did Saddam "encourage" this reporting? Hmm...

This is the same as the New York Times covering up the Holocaust prior to and during World War II. How ironic that CNN would have chosen them as the platform in which to voice their opinion.

And to top it all off, not a single damn apology!

94 seth the zionist occupational governor  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:45:11am

I have started a campaign to have people use the parental lock out feature on there cable boxes to lock out cnn. Its very simple to do so. After you do it write to CNN and tell them about it. I wrote them a lovely letter about how my TV goes from channel 9 to channel 11 without missing a beat.

95 superfly  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:45:17am

#78 Andy also once admitted (I think to larry king) that the media has a liberal bias and the he is a liberal. He tends to be one of the few members of the media who is not reluctant to admit mistakes.

96 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:45:46am

I am absolutely appalled and sickened. It would be bad enough if it was over, but the exact same thing is going on right now in the West Bank.

What the hell ever happened to journalistic integrity? It alone should compel someone to report the truth. When the freedom and futures of entire peoples, and the lives of many, could be affected by dishonest and selective reporting, it becomes even more critical. As far as I'm concerned, EJ's behavior is truly a crime against humanity.

I was the editor of the school newspaper in college, and for a while actually considered pursuing a career in news media. I didn't, and today's the day that I know for certain I made the right decision. Monsters like this could have been my coworkers.

I feel physically sick.

97 Cowgirl Carrie  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:45:55am

Elizabeth:

You got the email address? Might we have a phone number for this rat (no, wait, rats are actually remotely cuddly at some point)...this...I don't even have words...
Well, might we be able to obtain IT'S other contact info, also?

I'd sure love to write to it...what, being a freelance journalist and all...and ask it oh-so-politely if it went to Columbia University's school of Journalism and Ethics...

98 Craig  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:45:57am

CNN wanted to remain in Baghdad so they could continue to have a product to market from there, even if it was a false product. They're not the only ones. We can only wonder what other news organizations kept hidden so they wouldn't get kicked out. What secrets have Peter Arnett and company kept hidden for all these years?

And the same thing does indeed take place on the West Bank and Gaza strip where the PLO practices the same intimidation of journalists. No doubt it's a skill they refined by lessons learned from Saddam's thugs.

99 its jake  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:46:17am

"Until our inspectors return to Iraq, the U.S. has responsibility for maintaining security at this important storage facility," he said in a statement. "As soon as circumstances permit, the IAEA should return to verify that there been no diversion of this material."

-Al Baredei, speaking about a nuke facility that has dangerous levels of radiation and tons of uranium.

As if we would neglect it. Which begs the question: why would Al Baredei say something like that?


[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

100 Elizabeth  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:46:21am

#80 Wild Justice: Good for you. Now I'd like to hear the BBC's excuse.

Actually, after the crew of the Ark Royal asked to ban BBC News from their programming, I'm betting when these guys return home to Britain and start talking to their wives, that the BBC's days will be numbered too--that or there'll be calls for a major house-cleaning of all the old public school Trotsyite poofs who've made their home at the BBC and think the sun will never set on their empire.

That just leaves Canada's old maiden aunt the CBC (same problems as BBC). Once we get a change of government, we'll call for changes at the state funded CBC too.

This war may end up opening a lot of peoples eyes to the hoodwinking we've all been getting.

101 Rock  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:47:25am

#85

I believe that, in the States, if you know someone is going to commit a murder, and do nothing to warn the authorities, you are an accomplice to murder and can receive punishment up to and including the death penalty. Varies by state, but that's a general rule.

CNN is guilty of MURDER.

102 el Barto  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:47:32am

Rock remember liberal means never saying I'm sorry.

103 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:49:08am

Do CNNs reports carry a disclaimer that it is/ was acting as an agent of a forign government? Why not? Are they putting their $100 dollar a day per reporters minders fee in a trust fund until Saddams proven dead?

104 GW  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:49:49am

*48 James
"However CNN did the right thing by not adhering to some code and allowing people to be murdered in the name of journalism." Sarcasm?

I Have to disagree in the strongest sense of the word. By not reporting what was really going on, CNN became an enabler for more torture and murder. He who cannot be named, stated that Mr. Jordan has/had close ties to the Clinton White House. As I've seen stated by Clinton himself, he knew of the torture, rape, murder, etc. He knew what had to be done and maybe, maayybee, was trying to do something about it in 1998. The Jordan/Clinton link would be one source of this. Why did CNN not pull out of Iraq and publish the truth? Jordan stated he didn't want to put the Iraq reporters in harms way. What about those tortured and killed due to the prolonged tenure of the Baath regime? In simply reporting the truth, the Clinton Administration would have had a stronger case for the disposal of the regime.
Jordan states that Uday told him that he had his defecting brothers-in-law in his sights if they came back, along with King Hussein of Jordan. Jordan warned King Hussein but not the brothers-in-law, who were killed by Uday. That makes CNN an accomplice in those murders. Why? So they could stay in Baghdad, make exclusive reports, and pull in the almighty dollars from their advertisers. That's the bottom line. Complicity on a level that the left accuses our President of every single day since Jan. 20, 2001.

105 el Barto  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:50:43am

Journalistic ethics. I believe it is something like the ethics they teach lawyers.

106 MysticMonist  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:52:00am

And you know what is the funniest part?

CNN prostituted their integrity this way, in order to keep some Saddamite mouthpiece operating in Baghdad, and in the end Fox News thrashed them in the ratings anyway.

What was it all for?

107 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:54:55am

#100   Elizabeth

Keep fighting the good fight, gal!

108 Seamus Warren  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:55:21am

Do you think "Operation Freedom" is a "just war"?

I came across this piece on a chat forum:

Let's start with an examination of what a "just war" means. I'll shameless pull a dictionary definition, as that's the easiest place to start:

- Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler.
- Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
- Properly due or merited: just deserts.
- Law. Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
- Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.
- Based on fact or sound reason; well-founded: a just appraisal.

We can dismiss the first, as the US is anything but honourable and fair. Were they honourable and fair, they wouldn't have left the Iraqis to be slaughtered after the previous Gulf War and they'd be fighting using the weaponry as the Iraqi military (as that would be an "honourable and fair" way of doing battle - technological superiority is anything but fair). The fifth also doesn't really apply in this context.

The second, third, fourth, and sixth may still apply under the context of the war. To prove that it's a just war, you need to show all of the following:

- that the US is doing what is morally right;
- that the war is "proper";
- that the war is lawful; and
- that the war is based on sound reason.

I say all of the following, as we're not talking about something as trivial as a jaywalker here. We're talking about what is arguably the most serious action in humanity. As such, the standards should be higher than anything else.

I could have used the following definition:

Conforming or conformable to rectitude or justice; not doing wrong to any; violating no right or obligation; upright; righteous; honest; true; -- said both of persons and things.

But, that immediately means that the war isn't just. There is demonstrable evidence that US has not been honest in its reporting on the evidence found and it has clearly violated both rights and obligations within the context of aftermath of the previous war (as that is directly related to the people) and this one (through violating the right to life of civilians). So, we'll stick with the first set of definitions, as it give you more room to move.

We'll look at them each in turn.

That the war is morally right.

Interestingly, one of the definitions for "morally right" is that it's based on a strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence. Under that definition, the war is moral. However, that immediately implies that detaining people without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is morally correct, which is a clear contradiction to what is perceived as being "morally right" in our culture. As such, we must either conclude that we use higher standards than "morally right" (and thus we must use those standards), or that that definition cannot apply under the context within which we're dealing. Any other conclusion leads to a contradiction. So, we can discount that one.

So, let's turn to the philosophers, as it is they who are normally concerned with matters such as these. To determine whether a particular action is "moral", we need to have a look at normative ethics. We could use the golden rule, but that would immediately preclude your argument, as we should only be able to invade Iraq if we're willing to allow Iraq to invade us. That's clearly not the case. So, let's try another avenue.

We have a choice of three:

- Virtue theory;
- Deontological theory; and
- Consequentialist theory.

Virtue theory, while interesting, is accepted as being too simplistic. It's based on strong rules that we apparently must learn - namely, wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. The theories of Aristotle and Plato, while interesting, unfortunately don't scale well to nations.

If we have a look at deontological theory, Locke would say that we've already voilated our ethical position through killing people without just cause. A "pre-emptive defence" is immoral, as it deprives people of their god-given right to life. If they had actively attacked us first, such an action may be considered moral, depending on the circumstances. However, it cannot be considered moral if they have not attacked first. End of story.

Kant's categorical imperative may offer another path to morality. To be moral, we must treat people as an end, not as a means to an end. Taking the Iraqi's oil and using it to cover the costs of the war violates that principle, as is using the invasion of Iraq to create new commercial markets. The actions of the US would be moral if, after defeating Iraq, they handed over all control to the UN and stepped out completely (including opening up Iraq to full competition for services). There is still a chance they may demonstrate their morality here, but it's highly unlikely, especially given the recent debate in Congress about which US mobile phone network to install. So, that's another one down.

Ross's prima facie duties are also violated, as one core condition for them is that we have a duty to compensate people when we harm them. Again, taking oil from them to compensate us for the cost of the war is in direct violation of that. You could argue that the oil is to be used to rebuild Iraq, but there are other problems. There is also a duty to for nonmaleficence, whcih the pre-emptive defence also violates.

Consequentialism will be dealt with in the next post, but so far, there is no evidence that this war is "morally right". Philosophy, which is the only mechanism for determining whether something is moral or not, suggests very strongly that the war is immoral.

Consequentialism is your strongest hope, as it is strongly the domain of the conservative and economist. Consequentialism states that actions are moral if the results of the action are more favourable than unfavourable. We've got three choices here:

- Ethical egoism;
- Ethical altruism;
- Utilitarianism.

Ethical egoism would require that you be better off for the war. Given that middle east sentiment against the US increasing (and to some extent by proxy Australia too) and that the a downturn in the US economy is likely to increase the probablity of you facing unemployment, you have to conclude that you're worse off for the war. All of the benefits from the war (oil, contracts, etc) will flow to the US, not Australia. It is therefore unethical for us to be involved in the war.

Ethical altruism would require that everyone be better off after the war. That's everyone in Australia, everyone in Iraq, and everyone in the US. It requires you to put everyone else ahead of you. Again, the population of Australia is no better off, and we've increased the probability of both a recession and retaliatory terrorist attacks. So, that one's out too.

Utilitarianism has some fundamental flaws in it, but we'll ignore them for the time being. Broadly, however, the same arguments as above apply with regards to us. So, the war is still unethical.

Social contract theory falls down as well, as we've violated our agreement with other sovereign nations by invading a country without UN approval. So, it's still unethical.

Therefore, at this stage I don't need to go any further. The theories of Betham, Locke, Plato, Artisotle, Hobbes, and Kant would all suggest that this war is immoral, and as such, is impossible to be just.

Whaddaya reckon?

Thank you. :o)

109 zaza  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:55:30am

What I find appalling is not that they kept this secret, but did nothing to prevent it. If they knew their presence there was bound to get people tortured, if they saw that happen repeatedly, why bother keeping the office open at all? To keep silent on that kind of things? The justification doesn't make much sense. What did they report from Baghdad in these 12 years that was so important anyway, nothing, they were controlled, they had to tell what the regime allowed, and they were only getting people into trouble. What's the point in telling this stuff now if they did nothing to stop it for so long?

I wonder if this has to do with the large Saudi ownership of CNN shares rather than with some belated attack of 'integrity'.

110 Ranbutan  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:56:39am

What is this whole silly conversation? CNN would be crucified by AOL-Time Warner if it vacated the very place where it rose to prominance.

The name of the game is profits, market share, beating the competition.

The media is not run by ethical people, but people in the Richest 1%.

Job security for reporters, CNN staff that get run out of Iraq, Africa, China, or the Ummah for reporting accurately but pissing the rulers off?

Zero! ....

Well, the wealthy plutocrats may spare a visible figurehead media celebrity....but the celebrity's producer, writers, roadies, cameramen? The bit reporters starting out in foreign assignments. When the "need" for their employment went away?

A few reassigned. The rest...plus the bosses back in the USA that lost the plum foreign post? Toast.

To save the careers of the crews in the media celebrity's orbits..stories were quashed. Them's the rules and CNN played by them...

Jordan actually had the balls to say stuff about half the people he feared if he was honest in reporting. But naturally, he left out the rich executives and the billionaire stockholders at AOL-Time Warner held in more dread than Saddam's henchmen...ruthless bottom liners who occupy the Richest 1% by more innate rapicity than talent.

In Africa and China stories that would make CNN or other media outlets cause their readers or viewer's eyes to bug out are suppressed all the time out of routine host Gov't intimidation and fear for one's career if the host Gov't complains about or boots a crew.

NPR and BBC are horrific examples....but I would be happy if we had just one government owned media reporting agency serving the US public and our Democracy...under the US civil service rules.....rather than all our international news coming from hired employees of the Richest 1%.

111 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 8:59:55am

I assume that CNN will trot out Paul Begala to make it cristal clear as to whose fault this is and that you should never trust you own lyin eyes. With Begala around Bagdad Bob doesn't stand a chance as CNNs minister of propaganda.

112 Brenda  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:00:34am

#78

Hooray for Andy Rooney. I admire any public person who can admit when they are wrong. When most of us screw up, only a handful know about it, not millions.

When this is all over, we will count such admissions on one hand, I imagine. None of the Hollywood crowd will be saying, "Yep, I was wrong. Bush was right." Won't happen.

Along the same lines, "human shields" who recanted when faced with reality are also to be congratulated. They receive plenty of grief from their moronic peers, I'm sure.

113 JamesW  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:00:58am

Back in the days of the USSR, activists for refuseniks were advised by the Soviets to keep quiet. The refuseniks begged us to keep up the pressure. A name in the Western press was not someone they could murder.

CNN, by keeping silent, enabled the regime.

114 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:04:23am

#108   Seamus Warren 

You'll have to forgive me if I stopped reading your post after the VERY FIRST SENTENCE:

"Do you think "Operation Freedom" is a "just war"?"

Lemme just ask you ONE question.

How did you feel when the doors to the Children's Jail were flung open the other day and the kids (some of whom had been locked up for 5 years) went free?

How "unjust" did that feel to you?

115 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:05:35am

#108,Seamus. You just Kant seem to get it. I am sure Plato had something to say about pissing up a rope. Report back after you find it.

116 Jay Kay  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:05:45am

Oh Israel, the stories CNN should tell about the atrocities they've witnessed by the Palestinians against Israeli's. Come clean CNN and exhonerate Israel of the media bias you forthrightly admit.

Cowards...Liars...CNN

117 Alfred E. Neuman  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:06:49am

They were just talking about this on Fox. I expect Fox to hammer CNN relentlessly on this. Not only does CNN deserve it, they are also a rival.

118 J.D.  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:08:25am

From today's WSJ print edition:
CNN Gives U.S., World Audiences Different Views

"Along with a greater emphasis on the casualties of war on CNN International (including frequent interviews with aid agencies on the "dire situation" at Iraqi hospitals), there is also more coverage of how Arab nations view both the war in Iraq and broader Middle East issues - particularly the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians...

...Even the CNN Web sites vary. Yesterday, CNN's U.S. site had a big picture of Iraqis defacing a mural of Saddam Hussein, while the CNN Europe site had a picture of a distraught Iraqi being comforted.

..."Viewers see and use CNN differently overseas. They don't want to feel that they are getting a classically American sound and presentation," says Frank Sesno, a former CNN Washington bureau chief who is now a professor of public policy and communications at George Mason University.

...Specifically, the gore of war is less likely to pop up in the U.S. then it is abroad. CNNI showed far more of Al-Jazeera's footage of U.S. prisoners of war being interrogated than the U.S. CNN did. "All the American channels are less bloody than most European, Asian and Arabic channels," says Mr. (Frank) Sesno.

...Yesterday morning, CNNI displayed excerpts from an article in the French left-wing newspaper Liberation that read, "The successful military campaign in Iraq can only reassure the powerful U.S. that its vision of the world must be the right one. But its pretext for invading Iraq is being proved wrong. For where are the weapons of mass destruction?"

There's more; I don't have access to WSJ on the web.

119 reaganite  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:10:27am

Charles
This is no 'Outrage of the day' It is the outrage of the decade. How do those shits live with themselves?

120 Korora  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:10:57am

#108 Seamus

Time for the sunlight test, I think. Or are you too afraid you'll turn to stone?

We did not get dire reprisals after every victory in the past.

121 Grognard  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:11:48am

re: 2 James

Maybe CNN was violating journalistic ethics, but they were adhering to higher ethics: humanity.


Maybe? Is there a doubt?

No, they weren't adhering to higher ethics, they were adhering to First Rule of Acquisition: Make Money. If they really had "higher ethics" the first time this happened they would have sent the employee and every relative he had back to the US and then broadcast all the facts. If it happened again, they would have pulled up stakes and left.

122 Julesk  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:15:30am

114 120

Don't wait too long for a response from Seamus. He admits from the start that it's not his own work, so how can we expect him to defend it?

Also, am I the only one who detects a great effort from certain parts to change the topic? Not only on this thread but others?

123 Skirmish  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:16:22am

#108 The war is just for the simple fact that the Iraqi people are no longer being murdered, tortured, or starved. What ever happens from this point forward, they have a chance to improve their station in life.

124 vero  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:16:40am

cannot locate a email addy to email CNN - we are going to use our parental lockout to lock them out of our home

who would ever trust what they have to say? certainly not I

125 MysticMonist  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:16:55am

#108 Seamus Warren

I reckon you're a wanker.

I wish you had been tortured in one of Saddam's prisons then you'd recognise a just war.
Wankers like you deserve it just for being so stupid.


Try this:

A just war is a war that achieves a just result.

e.g. The freeing of the innocent and the punishment/destruction of the guilty.

In this case the innocent are the vast majority of the people of Iraq, whilst the guilty are Saddam and his minions.

Whilst innocents are dying in this war, their numbers are far less than the number that would die if Saddam remained in power.

126 Little JOe  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:18:37am

This sort of crap from the media is nothing new. It was well known during the cold war that journalists often played the game: "You give me a story, and I'll give you one". The rules were that in order to gain "access" for an interview with some communist hack, a reporter would later follow up the interview with a scathing anti-American piece that would embarrass, or in some other way discredit the U.S. This new "revelation" about CNN is not all surprising to some of us old-time skeptics.

127 Pat  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:19:26am

Mr. Warren,

Please ask the family of the woman whose body was delivered in pieces to their doorstep if they agree with the theories of Betham, Locke, Plato, Artisotle, Hobbes, and Kant that this war is unjust.

I'm sure your mom is proud that you are finally using the philosophy degree she paid for, but go show off somewhere else. We aren't buying it.

128 BW  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:21:10am

To tell you the truth I'm sick of nearly the lot of them. It makes you wonder what shit they are all covering up as part of their "Where do you want us to point our camera today, Mr Information Minister"

It's only selected blogs that have kept me sane this last few months.

Not having access to CNN I'll not comment too much on them - their website coverage has been less anti-war than the BBC, strangely enough. But terrestrial UK channels have been a disaster. Incompetent, anti-war bias, anti American.

129 Ron  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:21:41am

Here's my personal philosophy on journalism in general, only strengthened by the cluster-f**k I've seen at MSNBC and CNN over the past month (I didn't even watch CBS or ABC):

I treat all journalists like my own personal intelligence agents -- they collect bits and pieces of info here and there which I chew on and use to make decisions; I am not interested in their analysis, only what facts they can provide me; like useless employees, the moment I decide that they are misinforming me or do not have my best interests at heart, they're fired.

I am the president of my life, the captain of my vote, and journalists are my private CIA. MSNBC got fired when they hired Arnett; CNN is getting fired today.

130 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:23:01am

#126 Little JOe
Not even close to the same thing. Trading an anti-american story for access to an interview, while questionable, is a far cry from deliberately covering up the truth for personal interests.

131 Chuck Pelto  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:24:01am

TO: All
RE: Down! Down! CNN!

I've deleted all my bookmarks to their activities. And I've told them as much.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I've booted BBC as well...just for good measure.

132 MysticMonist  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:24:18am

#108 Seamus Warren

Of course you are quoting someone else's argument,
so if that does not express your own views I withdraw my ad hominem comments in post #125 above and apologise unreservedly.

133 superfly  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:24:42am

#108 it is interesteint that you have to lie and leave out crucial information in order to make your arument that this is an unjust war. Just a few quick lies:

p>

However, it cannot be considered moral if they have not attacked first.

Iraq did attack first. Iraq invaded kuwait. We responded and, after defeating Iraq, signed a condintional cease fire. They have since violated all of the conditions of that cease fire, the most notable violation being that they have not turned over or destroyed all the WMD that they possesed. Iraq has also sponsored terroism against the US and its allies and repeatedly attacked US and allied planes enforcing the no fly zone. To leave this part of the equasion out of your argument is morally despicable and dishonest.

Another lie:

Social contract theory falls down as well, as we've violated our agreement with other sovereign nations by invading a country without UN approval.

There are seventeen UN security council resolutions dating back to 1991 demanding that Iraq disarm its WMD and other various weapons and cease all threatening behavior. Force was authorized if Iraq did not comply. Iraq was in violation of all seventeen resolutions. The UN gave its approval.

Third lie (and last I will comment on for now):

Ethical egoism would require that you be better off for the war. Given that middle east sentiment against the US increasing (and to some extent by proxy Australia too) and that the a downturn in the US economy is likely to increase the probablity of you facing unemployment, you have to conclude that you're worse off for the war. All of the benefits from the war (oil, contracts, etc) will flow to the US, not Australia.

You do not have to conclude that you are worse off for the war and you again leave out crucial information. Now that we have defeated Saddam he will not be able to use nuclear weapons to take over the middle east. A huge gain you leave out. Iraq is free now. A huge benefit you leave out. Saddam will no longer be able to use WMD on the US or our allies. A huge benefit that to most resonable people is worth the shortterm costs of little extra unemployment, or do you think a few thousand jobs today is worth a million lives five years from now?

It is also interesting that you do not mention anything that Iraq has done. You pretend that it is an innocent victim just minding its own business when we attacked. You argument is very ignorant or else very dishonest. It was up to Iraq since they invaded kuwait to prove to the US and the UN that were no longer an agressive country. Iraq did not meet the conditions it agreed to in order to prove this.

134 zaza  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:26:26am

#108 - in the immortal words of Mohammed Saheed Al Sahaf:

"I NOW INFORM YOU THAT YOU ARE TOO FAR FROM REALITY."

135 Genl Sherman  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:28:47am
The theories of Betham, Locke, Plato, Artisotle, Hobbes, and Kant would all suggest that this war is immoral, and as such, is impossible to be just.

None of those learned gentlemen are alive to disagree. I suspect that if they had seen a human being go through a plastic shredder, had seen their wife-gang sodomized, and had seen a prison full of 10-year-olds, they might have felt differently about Iraq.

Regardless, they are dead and cannot be consulted, so the argument is moot. The war is underway. The deed is done. Anybody who thinks Saddam should still be in power is letting their politics govern their reason.

Or they hate the liberators too much to allow any moral quarter under any circumstances.

My vote is for the latter.

136 jes  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:29:45am

news 1. new information, information previously unknown 2. a) recent happenings b) reports of these 3 a newscast

report 1. to give an account of 2. to carry and repeat a message 3. a formal presentation of the facts

Well not CNN has finely admitted that they do neither. Nothing about CNN fits the definition of news, or giving a report.

I hope that the FCC puts them off the air. To claim to be a new network, but not report news, is revolting.

The problem with the TV media outlets is they think they ARE the news, not the events that they are reporting on.

Used to watch CNN, never again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO FOXNEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

137 Laertes  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:30:13am

Quick show of hands: Who is surprised to learn that big media corporations will sacrifice journalistic integrity to preserve ratings and access?

I can't decide which is the more amusing, that this comes as news, or that anyone thinks Fox is immune. (Moonbat alert: If you think I just said that Fox is just as bad as CNN, you're a moonbat. Same kind of whore, but working for a nicer pimp and that makes some difference.)

It's charming. It's like a woman who's sick of getting beaten up by her stupid alcoholic thug boyfriend so she leaves him and shacks up with his stupid alcoholic thug cousin.

You can't "trust" CNN anymore? Boo fucking hoo. You're an idiot if you trusted them to begin with. Everyone's got an agenda. If you're still out there looking for that magical "unbiased" news source, grow the hell up. And if you think you've found it, you're nearly beyond help. Watch what you will, know their agenda, and give a little thought to how they slant what they show you and how they choose what they don't show you.


You know how Fox claims to be "fair and balanced?" They're joking. Seriously. And it's very very funny. It might be good if the 80% of LGFers who get the joke clue in the other 20%.

Noam Chomsky would be laughing his ass off if he read this thread.

(Note: I'm poking fun here at the "omg fuk cnn fox rox" people. The article itself is appalling and, not that he'd give a shit, I applaud Mr. Johnson for shining a light on it.)

138 superfly  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:31:00am

i forgot to mention that we have been in a state of war with Iraq since they invaded kuwait (the same is true with North Korea since they invaded South Korea). We never signed a peace treaty with Iraq. This is not a new war, it is a new invasion in a war that has been going on for over a decade.

139 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:32:46am

Seamus,

When your testicles are hooked up to a car battery ...

When your daughter is gang-raped by 10 thugs ...

When your son is doused in petrol and set alight ...

When your wife is fed feet-first into an industrial
shredder ...

When your father is dropped into a vat of acid ...

When your mother is beheaded on a street
corner and fed to dogs ...

If even ONE of these things comes to pass, it'll be fascinating to hear what you have to say about what constitutes an unjust war.

140 Jack  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:34:10am

Ah, another member of the Walter Duranty School of Journalism. Could have used some improvement though, as Duranty covered up the murder of millions of Russians while Jordan only covered up the murder of thousands. Duranty did receive the Pulitzer (1932) for his lies but I suspect Jordan isn't counting on it this trip.

141 Grognard  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:35:24am

re: 60 Raoul Ortega

CNN -- Collaboration, Not News


Ooooooh, very good. I'm going to pass that one around (with proper attribution, of course).

142 V  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:35:55am

Scott Ritter must be working for CNN


"The prison in question was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children - toddlers up to pre-adolescents - whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace"

Clinton Network News indeed

143 Rock  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:36:47am

CNN was, while not eagerly supportive of Saddam, nonetheless allowed themselves to be held hostage in the name of ratings.

Saddam was a major supporter of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian/Arab propaganda.

I'm putting 2 and 2 together here, and somehow I'm just not coming up with 5...

144 Eva  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:37:00am

Oh. my. god. Mentioned twice, but bears repeating:

"The prison in question was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children - toddlers up to pre-adolescents - whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace." - Scott Ritter, Time Magazine.

From a 9/14/02 Time interview.

I want to wage a f***ing fist to his face.

145 r  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:37:09am

nobodies blamed CNN as being a pack of CIA non-principled bastards...


or wrong principled...

146 superfly  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:38:28am

#137 I agree. I just wish the networks, papers in the US would admit that they biased. Papers used to have names like the Podunkville Democrat, Hicksvile Republican, or Smalltown whig. At least you knew where the papers were coming from. Now they pretend that they are unbiased, which means they are lying. Lying is worse than being biased. Which is why this whole cnn thing bothers me so much. They were willing to leave out a huge chunk of the story in order to keep up ratings and save face.

Fox at least lies with a huge grin on its face to let everyone know it is pulling your leg with the whole "we report you decide" bit.

147 vero  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:38:36am

opps sorry forgot link on the child lover Ritter

[Link: www.time.com...]

axis of dumb-azz

148 Emmett  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:39:25am

I wouldn't bother with 108. He's pitching red herrings and straw men around like bait and sitting back to see who bites so he can have a good laugh. The arguments are specious in today's world.

149 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:39:50am

3132,mystic. You apparently never cited a source for a dissertation or you would be less forgiving of the Seamus. You use it to support your position and you take it as your own and damn well better be prepared to bear the consequences. Sort of like CNN did today in the article at the top of this thread. Don't apologise, you did not err.

150 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:41:05am

#108 Seamus
It's people like you that make most people think philosophy is useless. Please, save those big words for a time when you can use them correctly. Plato, for example, would hang his head in shame if he heard what you had to say.
There are so many things wrong with your (ridiculously long) post that it would take more time than I am willing to spend to correct them. But here's just a taste; many of your premises are wrong. For example:

Ethical egoism would require that you be better off for the war. Given that middle east sentiment against the US increasing (and to some extent by proxy Australia too) and that the a downturn in the US economy is likely to increase the probablity of you facing unemployment, you have to conclude that you're worse off for the war.


Absolutely ridiculous. You give no explanation how "middle east sentiment against the US increasing" would actually hurt us. More importantly, you give no facts to support it, or the idea that the war will hurt the US economically. In fact, many people right in this message thread could not only pose counterarguments, but also provide excellent factual backup for their points. Without support for your premises, your conclusion is incorrect.
So how about you go re-read The Republic before you toss around the name of Plato. Pay special attention to Socrates' use of logic, and also note that he doesn't draw conclusions from unsupportable premises.
Douchebag.

151 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:42:38am

#132,mystic. You apparently never cited a source for a dissertation or you would be less forgiving of the Seamus. You use it to support your position and you take it as your own and damn well better be prepared to bear the consequences. Sort of like CNN did today in the article at the top of this thread. Don't apologise, you did not err.

152 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:43:35am

Sorry for the double post, I erred.

153 Little Joe  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:45:45am

#130 - You're right, there is a big difference. I guess it just goes to show that the "rot" in journalism has only gotten deeper.

154 Rock  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:47:03am

#150

Count me as a fact-armed counter-arguer. :)

Just to double-nitpick the part you pointed out, how about words from Alan fucking Greenspan:


SIMI VALLEY, Calif. -- The U.S. economy showed resilience through the 2001 terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and declining stock prices, and it should weather the war in Iraq as well, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said.



"We will not know what the full effect of this war will be until it's over, but we do know something about the framework of the American economy before entering the war, which was very surprising to me," Greenspan said Wednesday, citing recent examples of its performance.



"We kept absorbing all those shocks, which, in my experience 30 years ago, would have created a major contraction in the economy. We'll come through this effectively with a stable economic system and one prone more to long-term growth and not stagnation."



Greenspan spoke at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. He was appointed by President Reagan as chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve in 1987 and has been consistently reappointed.



Greenspan attributed the economy's flexibility in part to Reagan's economic policies, including the firing of unionized air traffic controllers, which he said bolstered the right of employers, previously not fully exercised, to use their discretion to hire and fire workers.

[Link: www.chron.com...]

Can you tell I loved the part about Reagan? :D

And the "douchebag" comment too. Nice touch. ;)

155 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:49:09am

Troll time.

#6: I hope and expect that Fox will make as big a deal of this story as it can.

Unless Fox is guilty of the same thing.

Hmmm, do any of the self-appointed media watchdogs here know for a fact that their beloved Fox News has not done this, in Iraq or the half-dozen other oppressive regimes around the world where they have reporters?

I bet you your next paycheck they have indeed sat on a story to protect the lives of sources. Or dozens.

And to those decrying CNN's moral degeneracy for not outing each of the stories as they became known: What would you have done - willingly sacrifice the lives of those with whom you've worked, who have in fact helped you get the story?

Right.

This is neither surprising nor as underhanded as it's being made out to be. It is the way it is. If you think that any news reporter for any news organization, regardless of its slant, puts everything he or she knows into print or on the air, you're fooling yourselves.

156 Yossarian  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:49:45am

An aquaintance of mine tried to convince me yesterday that Fox was terrible because it "dramatized everything" & therefore CNN was undoubtably better.

157 UziDoesIt  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:50:30am

I haven't read through this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating anything that's been said earlier.

Charles's point about CNN's failure to report the entire truth (partially) out of fear for the lives of its reporters is a sad truth throughout the Arab world.

In the West Bank and Gaza it plays out as follows: reporters need local help to get to the stories, get things translated, get access to the players, etc. Because their media and society is so controlled, the only assistance an outside reporter can get is from those chosen by Arafat and his thugs. If a reporter publishes anything negative, his life will be in jeapordy and he won't have access again in the future.

This was exhibited during the Ramallah lynching of the Israeli soldiers when cameramen were required to hand in their film of the atrocity, and little reporting of the intimidation of the media got out.

Additionally, the AP, and many other news organizations, routinely uses Palestinian writers who naturally must report the Pali point of view if they want to stay alive and have their families live to the next day.

This business with Jordan and CNN may in fact be good since it hopefully will expose the total lack of objectivity that reporting from these areas requires.

158 Occasional Reader  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:51:56am

I'm glad someone beat me to it in posting the loathsome Ritter quote as a companion piece to this revelation about CNN. Ritter was unwilling to talk about what he saw in a prison for toddlers, because he ostensibly worried that it might strengthen the case for overthrowing the regime that imprisoned them.

Let me repeat: a prison for toddlers. Think about that phrase. Roll it around in your mind a few times, you who declared that you were for "peace".

159 Kina  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:53:02am

Utterly despicable and evil. I hardly ever watch them and now I will never watch them again. I will email them to tell them what pieces of garbage they are. They have absolutely NO credibility.
But what the hell were they thinking letting this out? Was there about to be some expose they wanted to circumvent? Were they were just purging and looking for some "closure"?? I will be appalled if anyone continues to watch their lying garbage. And they knew all of this and still were blatantly anti US in Iraq. Sickening. Peter Arnett does belong with them. They are one and the same.

160 zaza  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:54:17am

#137

Quick show of hands: Who is surprised to learn that big media corporations will sacrifice journalistic integrity to preserve ratings and access?

To the extent of knowingly getting people tortured? That's hugely different from the more "ordinary" maneouvring of the news for greed or whatnot.

The point is not journalistic integrity - I don't care if they kept silent about the regime's crimes, as long as they themselves did not interfere by making those crimes easier. They got people into serious trouble. They did spying work for Saddam, basically. They did not protect the identity of the woman they interviewed, and now they say they just kept doing that, but kept silent about it, because it was all about not endangering 'more' lives?? How twisted is that? It's not an ordinary matter of lack of professional conduct or greed.

161 Steve in BDA  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:54:18am

WHAT FUCKING UNSPEAKABLE BASTARDS!

I thought I was pretty numb to a lot of things after 911, but when I got to the end of that story and read about a women's body parts being left on the doorstep of her family's home, it brought tears to my eyes.

CNN represents everything that is irresponsible, reprehensible, despicable, horrible, abominable and downright evil in contemporary media. They have absolutely no fucking excuse whatsoever for not immediately disbanding their Iraqi offices and leaving the country. While that action may have endangered a small number of people in their offices, their continuing presence in Iraq, and their failure to report the truth of the Iraqi regime's brutality, helped to lend credibility to Saddam, which almost certainly caused many more deaths in the long run. The raging pragmatists that are posting here saying that CNN did the only thing that it "realistically" could need to go out any buy themselves a consciounce.

CNN's behavior violates not only every standard of journalism, but every standard of basic human decency.

I hereby declare that I will never watch any CNN channel ever again.

162 Seamus Warren  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:54:44am

NuclearDionysus,

LOL, :o)

I am actually pro-war! I am being ambushed on this forum by a group of anti-war forum campers and one of them is too nerdy for me. He came out with all this arrogant babble on an issue that is for me a common sense decision to support the Iraqi war.

I am preparing a response and seeking the comments from people who agree with my pro-war view. I am hoping there may be a super-nerd out there to give me a hand. I already pointed out that Plato and so on would have never heard of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The pro-war argument seems a bit thin on hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq but maybe I am looking at the wrong sites or something.

This guys' arrogance is really shitting me so I want to prepare a decent response.

163 Peter Ingemi  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:56:37am

This is a lot like the old Archie bunker line:

they have to give the lie equal time with the truth
164 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 9:59:08am

#157: Excellent points, Uzidoesit. That's how it works - and again, I defy anyone on this board to prove Fox has done it any differently.

165 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:00:27am

#155 Bigal
You're right, lots of other news organizations do this. However, say you're an editor who has a choice: a) let out a story about torture/murder that could cause the death of your sources b) sit on that story, and in doing so, not only allow the toturer/murderer to continue doing so without fear of consequences, but also set a precedent that bullying news organizations to suppress a story works.
Either option is tough, but one is very clearly the wrong thing to do. This guy thought the whole thing through, and on multiple occasions chose option b. The fact that other organizations may have done it doesn't change how awful it is. As for "protecting sources", the FIRST time he made this decision, he enabled Saddam's regime to endanger the lives of his sources and reporters EVERY OTHER time, by setting a precedent that he can be bullied.
We (the consumers of news media) cannot accept this as "the way it is". There is no way to calculate the damage that has been done this way, but it is no doubt considerable. And there is no question it outweighs the damage that would be done if news organizations decided not to appease thugs.

166 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:02:39am

Is CNN going to pull their people out of Iraq to protect them from the dangers of the present lact of civil order that they so recently enjoyed in Bagdad?

167 reaganite  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:04:19am

#164 little al
You ignorant, misguided, lefty slut.

That's how it works - and again, I defy anyone on this board to prove Fox has done it any differently.

You pompous asshole, have you produced anything but your own "opinion" that proves FNC has done the same thing? No? Tool.

168 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:04:52am

#162 Seamus
Oops, missed that. Very sorry. I'm just extremely pissed off right now . . . guess I oughta chill for a bit before posting more.

169 Bruce Lagasse  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:05:08am

Why the NYT as the vehicle of this revelation? Don't forget - they are the newspaper of Walter Duranty, who by his evasions and outright fabrications, was the worldwide enabler of the mass starvations in the Soviet Union during the 1930s in order to retain Stalin's ear; and for which he won a Pulitzer Prize. And now Eason Jordan - so what else is new?

170 Paul  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:06:13am

I went out and bought the NY Times (I've been boycotting it for the past several months) just to read Jordan's article. His mea culpa is about 12 years too late, thousands died during those years while Eason had nice chats with Uday (and why would Uday confide in Eason?). Someone put Eason's conscience in a plastic bag and left it on the doostep of CNN.

171 GW  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:07:25am

#155
If any company or organization I knew of was involved in genocide, as the iraqi regime was, I would speak up. By Jordan and CNN not speaking up, more genocide occured. But not standing by the President in 98 and telling the truth, more genocide occured. By not sitting besides Colin Powell in 2002 and 2003 and stating the truth, more genocide occured and troops were needed to end the regime. As CNN was reporting a 100% vote for Saddam and not telling the truth, more genocide occured.

172 Laertes  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:08:55am

Bigal: It's unfair to demand that the Foxphiles prove that Fox hasn't done the same. The burden of proof rests with the party making the accusation.

Personally, I'd be surprised to learn that Fox sat on first-hand information about Iraqi atrocities under Saddam's regime. Reporting it would be consistent with their pro-administration slant and would play well with their viewers.

They're as biased as any major news outlet, of course, but sucking up to Saddam isn't gonna be how their bias manifests itself.

173 ploome  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:10:15am

.......this is more than outrage....this is criminal..

how many death is CNN responsible for.?

how many OTHER people phoned CNN in Baghdad and are now dead...??

and as Taranto said....How distorted is CNN Israel coverage....??

Hope Israel cuts off CNN..

174 G.I. JOE  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:13:17am

"All the NEWS that we are not too afraid to print"

The NYTimes, LATimes, CNN, BBC, NPR have all aidded and abetted arab terrorism and murder for years.

Any other "NEWS" orgs that I left out?

The building case against the New York times

BBC WATCH

MEDIA BIAS AGAINST ISRAEL

175 zaza  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:13:50am

#170 Paul: why did you have to buy it? you just had to click the link ;)

I couldn't even go further than this:

Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting

Never seen such a pathetic, huge contradiction: working for CNN or just being in contact with CNN was bound to get Iraqis arrested, tortured and killed - BUT we had to keep our office there to tell the truth - BUT we didn't tell it.

So the whole premise of being there went to the dogs and they're still defending it! they used Iraqis and then left them to their fate and didn't say a thing about all that and now think it's all a matter of "ooh finally we can come clean". It's incredible.

176 r  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:15:53am

OT

If you're seeing or have seen the FOX news reports of the state of the art tunnels and bunkers of the country formerly known as Iraq...

this entire episode has to be puckering up a few other middle eastern countrys who have an identical set of secret stuff sold to the by the germans or french or russians, or all

pony up your billions, and it will give you about two or three weeks against the US....my, my, freaken my...

those tunnels must have been expensive...tsk, tsk

177 r  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:16:17am

OT

If you're seeing or have seen the FOX news reports of the state of the art tunnels and bunkers of the country formerly known as Iraq...

this entire episode has to be puckering up a few other middle eastern countrys who have an identical set of secret stuff sold to the by the germans or french or russians, or all

pony up your billions, and it will give you about two or three weeks against the US....my, my, freaken my...

those tunnels must have been expensive...tsk, tsk

178 charles austin  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:17:16am

CNN -- The Collaboration News Network.

179 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:17:21am

#174 GI Joe
Reuters is one of the worst, especially in their Israel-Palestine coverage.
Christian Science News is (duh) incredibly bad, but I don't know how many people would think they're an objective news organization anyway.
Unfortunately, here in Boston one of the major daily papers (the Metro) regularly runs Christian Science pieces. Actually, one was the lead front-page article either today or yesterday, can't remember.

180 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:18:56am

Bigal is back!

The same guy who told us the other day, "There ain't a single one of you on this board who are as concerned with the plight of the poor, repressed Iraqis, and you all know it."

Now he's telling us Fox is guilty until proven innocent.

181 Seamus Warren  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:20:40am

Here is the guy's last condescending paragraph:

"I'll happily address the other points if you can show evidence that this war is "moral". I've only knocked down the first of four so far. However, the burden of proof is higher than just "we're liberating people" - that examines only a small part of the whole picture and is akin to putting blinders on. If you feel the need to continue this, please explain why a particular action is moral and how you came to that conclusion. Morality is a tricky thing, and I'd suggest using the thoughts of those smarter than either you or I to build your arguments, as anything we come up with, they're likely to have already considered. The third and the fourth points are probably the easiest hinge points. I shall say no more on this, however, for fear of giving you something to divert this discussion."

=== === === === === === === === === ===

If someone can direct me to a forum where I can get some assistance please do.

If you want to contribute to the Whirlpool forum yourself go here to view the arrogant guy's posts (and his buddies who are all ganging up on me) or but I am not sure if their "Coffee Lounge" is available immediately for viewing. You may need to join the "Whirlpool" forum: [Link: whirlpool.net.au...] There should be a link to join the forum. A quick and painless process. I just hope the "War in Iraq" lounge is visible immediately upon joining.

Thank you. :o)

182 seth the zionist occupational governor  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:21:10am

Remember evybody just use the channel lock-out feature on your cable boxes or televisions. That way cnn poisoned pen(Camera?) jounalism will not find its way into your house

183 Grognard  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:21:34am

re: 137 Laertes

He may not, as unvalued persons do,
Carve for himself; for on his choice depends
The safety and health of this whole state;
-- Hamlet Act I Scene 3


It's too bad Jordan, as a member of the free press upon which democracy depends, did not understand this, eh?

BTW: Sorry about the "anti-" and "pro-" crap yesterday. It was uncalled for, and I regret it.

184 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:21:41am

#162, Seamus. Missed that critical 2nd line (or forgot it in the heat of reading what followed), which would have prevented me from damaging you unintentionally. Hope you were only slightly wounded by my careless handling of what was not unexploded ordnance

185 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:22:20am

#172: Personally, I'd be surprised to learn that Fox sat on first-hand information about Iraqi atrocities under Saddam's regime. Reporting it would be consistent with their pro-administration slant and would play well with their viewers.

Bullshit. Maybe not since the drumbeat of war began following 9/11, but I guarantee you that prior to that, Fox did exactly the same thing.

You would like to think of your chosen source of news as more virtuous than the others, but they operate in the same way. And while Fox may comment on this, my inkling is that they will not launch a full-blown investigation of it - for, if they did, CNN and other competing outlets might just try and find how much of the practice Fox itself engaged in.

#167: You pompous asshole, have you produced anything but your own "opinion" that proves FNC has done the same thing? No? Tool.

Sorry to burst your bubble, junior. I work in the news biz. I know how it works; what do you know?

Oh, right. Nothing.

186 zaza  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:22:51am

... Sorry, just finished the rest and am even more shocked. They even gave the Kurds more shit than they already had to deal with!? I can't believe the nerve, this guy is proud of telling this, proud he was the first to know from Uday about the assassination plan, see it's all about the exclusive, we were first, we were there, we were not bringing you the news, but we were so big and important that people got tortured for speaking to us. Sick sick sick.

187 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:23:30am

#180: Bigal is back!

Hey, somebody's got to keep you deluded goose-stepping bastards grounded in reality.

188 MysticMonist  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:23:50am

#108 Seamus Warren

Very good Seamus,

You could also bring to the poster's attention that he should not confuse justice and legality.
They are not at all the same thing.
It is perfectly possible to have unjust laws.

In this case we may conceivably be considering a situation where a war can be just, yet illegal under international law (sic).
In that case one simply has to decide which is more important.

I suggest you invite the poster over here to read our responses to his arguments.

189 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:24:59am

#179
Oops, that's Christian Science Monitor. And it's today's Metro that's running one of CSM's articles as the lead story.

190 Paul  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:27:21am

#175 zaza

You're right, of course. I don't know why I spent the $1.00, I guess old habits die hard. Anyway, I've cut out the article and taped it to my fridge as a reminder and as a topic of discussion for my liberal friends.

191 don'tknow  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:28:17am

#81

Good point. I remember when everyone criticized Israel for taking a hard stand with CNN. Nobody said shit about Saddam's bullying, because they didn't know -- except of course CNN!

9/11 Demonstrated our national security system wasn't up to snuff.

The crisis in the Archdiocese of Boston demonstrated that something was wrong with the Catholic Church

The behavior of the media during the war and the relevations of what happened leading up to it demonstrate that yet another institution is messed up in the U.S.

What a frikkin' outrage.

192 Studsup  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:28:58am

Sort of makes you wonder what Dan Rather had to swallow or hide in order to get his interview.

Come on Dan, 'fess up.

193 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:31:00am

You implying we're Nazis, Bigal?

194 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:31:13am

Big Al's mommy just brought him home from nursery school and he's got the keys to the computer again.

195 ElCapitanAmerica  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:31:19am

#185 Bigal 4/11/2003 12:22PM PST

Bullshit. Maybe not since the drumbeat of war began following 9/11, but I guarantee you that prior to that, Fox did exactly the same thing.

If Fox or ANYBODY did the same thing, it's still morally disgusting.

Please don't waste time by doing the "everybody does it", or "why don't you criticize X" distractions.

CNN has admitted this now, and to me, as a viewer of CNN it tains their credibility. That doesn't mean I won't watch CNN again, but it does make them look bad and reafirms what many suspect whenever they report from authoriterian regimes.

Nic Robertson in Afghanistahn. He somehow got in there with the Talibs and was one of the few reporters from Kabul. Yet he always would report how "morale" is high, how people "where behind the Taliban", how tough and ready the Taliban where. Facts disproved everything he said. But, now I wonder, was Nic just parroting what the Mullahs told him to say? Did they torture some more CNN employees there?

Also, if this happened in 90-91, why in the world would CNN keep employing locals and put them in danger?

And it's not news when Uday threatens to kill the 2 dissenters who came back and where killed. Why didn't he warn them. Oh people say, "they should have known", bullshit. Why didn't he tell them? Why?

196 Paladin  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:31:33am

I find it revealing that he never did anything to get his photographer OUT of the hands of his torturers.

For 30 pieces of silver....

197 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:33:28am

#193: You implying we're Nazis, Bigal?

Not everyone, of course. Though based on some of the comments, I suspect a few might have been right at home stringing up 60-year-old Volkssturm members and hanging a cardboard sign around their necks when they refused to take potshots at a Soviet tank with antique Italian rifles.

198 William  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:34:38am

Think the CNN execs gave Eason Jordan the nod to print this? Or is he 'coming clean' on his own, and will now get fired?

This will devastate the network.
 

199 UziDoesIt  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:37:52am

#192

Sort of makes you wonder what Dan Rather had to swallow or hide in order to get his interview.

I wonder WHERE he had to hide it!

200 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:38:54am

Bigal,
You're in the biz, huh? Who do you work for? And if you've seen decisions like this made before, how do you live with yourself?

201 Seamus Warren  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:39:32am


Oops, missed that. Very sorry. I'm just extremely pissed off right now . . . guess I oughta chill for a bit before posting more.

It's not your fault. I should have been more clear from the outset but I did get a few nice responses from people who must know a lot more about the philosophers than I do. I didn't even know there was this whole "just war" theory I had to contend with just to justify my statements the this war is right, or is "just".

My post was not on the topic of this "comments" thread but I was hoping someone could help out or point me to a forum where more people have a similar pro-war view so I can get some assistance maybe. :o)

Please feel free to email me if you come across any items that might help. :o)

Thank you.

202 Gang of One  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:40:39am

Somewhat OT, but I have been listening to NPR (because my favorite Jazz station carries it) and the slant on their newscasts is the looting -- they seem to be taking the position that it is the fault of the Coalition forces. I cannot believe that this is the story being pushed, as if looting by a mob of starved, deprived and half-mad survivors of a murderous regime were some terrible, murderous act. God forbid the leftoid press would look for those elusive Root Causes™ for the looting and ransacking taking place. Also, the descriptions by the reporter of "how I've never seen anything like this before" comes across as just so much idiotic hyperbole. It is almost a laugh, but when I think about it, the leftoid press cannot report a single event without coloring it with anti-American crayons.
Just as infuriating, was the DJ this morning on WBGO who, while describing a photo on the NYT front page showing the bombed out ballroom of one of Saddam's palaces where a battered piano lay, he expressed his thoughts along the lines about what kind of music that piano might have been able to produce. So, the destruction of the piano was more lamentable than the destruction of innocent Iraqi lives at the hands of some Ba'athist bastard who may have tickled those keys from time to time? Did I hear this guy right?

203 patriot  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:44:18am

Saw this article this morning on a little more to the right...this admission is condemning of CNN and completely horrifying.

204 reaganite  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:45:36am

#185 little al

Sorry to burst your bubble, junior. I work in the news biz. I know how it works;

Once again little chirping girl, where's the proof? Got one little fact? I didn't think so Mr. Know nothing.

205 John "Akatsukami" Braue  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:46:04am

Walter Duranty. George Bernard Shaw. Lincoln Steffins.

Eason Jordan. Susan Sarandon. Nancy Pelosi.

The names change, but the attitude never does.

206 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:49:13am

Whoah, hold on there, Bigal.

You work in the news biz, so you "know how it works."

Hmmm.

Well I've worked in the ad biz for 10+ years. I've worked at 7 or 8 agencies on 3 continents. And despite all that experience and exposure there's no way I can come out and say, "I know how it works."

Each place is different, bud.

So lemme ask you: have you worked at Fox?

207 hobgoblin  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:51:41am

#181 Seamus

George Weigel explains how the Iraq war fits in the just war tradition of Augustine

[Link: www.firstthings.com...]

208 Steve in BDA  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:52:23am

Bigal, if a Fox News reporter comes forward with a story like this about the FNC Baghdad bureau, I will have exactly the same reaction of horror.

Instead of berating everyone here for not sharing your complete cynicism wrt news reporting, why don't you tell us what you personally have done to see to it that this kind of behavior is not permitted in your profession?

209 Bill Hobbs  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:56:34am

I tell you what Dan Rather had to hide in order to get the Saddam interview. Read the transcript or watch the tape - he never asks even one question about allegations the regime tortured people. He doesn't bring it up. Doesn't even hint at it. Probably had to promise not to.

210 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 10:59:05am

#204: Once again little chirping girl, where's the proof? Got one little fact? I didn't think so Mr. Know nothing.

And you know, it's the intelligence of the debate on this board that keeps me coming back for more.

#200: You're in the biz, huh? Who do you work for? And if you've seen decisions like this made before, how do you live with yourself?

I work for a newspaper in the Northeast, and let's leave it at that. And no, I or we have never withheld information because it was a matter of life or death, but let me give you an example on a much smaller domestic scale to give you an idea of how the news business really works.

There was this extremely powerful local politician (Republican, don't you know). He winds up getting himself investigated by the FBI on account of his habit of filling his pockets at the public trough, so to speak; at the same time, the Republican leadership was conducting a clandesting investigation of him because they basically wanted him out of the way. They happened to discover that he was shacking up with a sweet young thing in an upscale apartment complex. Of course, his wife knew nothing about this.

We had all of this, on unimpeachable (sorry) sources. How much of it got in the paper? Very little. Reason being that most of our sources were off the record - to the extent of, I'll tell you this for deep background, but if you attribute it I'll never talk to you again. When the source is valuable enough you accept that sort of thing.

There was also the very real possibility of a lawsuit on the part of the politician. And had lawsuits been filed, you can bet that every single source would have backed away at full speed, leaving us to swing in the wind.

End result: We end up publishing some of it. Some other facts come out in other ways. And ultimately, the politician steps down, and to this day, much of the community still isn't clear on what has happened and why. But he is gone - and you could make a case that's a very good thing.

That is the way it works, and my experience is that every news organization operates in a similar fashion. Detestable? Pehaps, but try and gather the news in any other fashion - you might get one good scoop. But you'll alienate your sources and won't get anything ever again.

Why do you think Woodward and Bernstein never named Deep Throat, anyway?

I think it was Molly Ivins (gasp!) who once said, if you really want to know what's happening in your town, don't read the newspaper - go to the bar where its reporters hang out.

211 Wowbagger  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:00:20am

I'm sorry but...

CNN is guilty of Crimes against Humanity.

They have aided and abetted the enemies by not reporting what they knew. There are certain laws which state that preservation of self or friends is not enough when faced with this sort of information. There are laws on the books and the Press is not above the law. CNN is guilty of not only the contituation of one of the most brutal Nazi regimes on the face of the earth, but they are also guilty of castigating us as the enemy when we have tried to do our duty to remove it. CNN flat out lied when it had a clear duty not to do so. And the fact that they did it for sheer profit makes them an accomplice to the regime - a paid mercenary for Saddam.

CNN should fall. There should be an investigation and they should be made to pay the price. CNN and all the others who have done this should pay the heaviest price. Add this to the fact that they did not report any of this during a time of war - a war in which they were stationing people on the other side for profit - without telling the whole truth, is despicable. This also adds treason to their list of crimes. I'm sorry, but this apology is disgusting. It is loathsome. It is horrific. It stands as testimony to the crimes in which they were accomplices. At the very least they should have informed various world bodies privately so that the world could know in some capacity. But their mild and tepid reporting and cover-ups have spawned a debate of a decade or more about what to do with Saddam's regime. had more people known, this action might have been taken a lot sooner than now. Their covering it up and not presenting it to the world might well have cost thousands of lives.

They are guilty.

212 CPT. Charles  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:00:20am

FOX NEWS: 'We report, you decide.'

CNN News: "We decide what you need to know."

I, for one, am DAMN glad I'm not standing in front of the bus that's barreling down on CNN.

You reap what you sow.

213 reaganite  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:03:01am

#210 little al

#204: Once again little chirping girl, where's the proof? Got one little fact? I didn't think so Mr. Know nothing.

Once again, where's your proof? You have yet to offer a single shred. Funny, one of the neighbor's kids (8 years old) tell stories just like Al. Come on Al, just one fact, that's all we ask.

214 oceanguy  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:06:15am

CNN has Saddamized us All

Criminally complicit, I'd say.

215 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:07:24am

#206: Well I've worked in the ad biz for 10+ years. I've worked at 7 or 8 agencies on 3 continents. And despite all that experience and exposure there's no way I can come out and say, "I know how it works."

Each place is different, bud.

So lemme ask you: have you worked at Fox?

No, I have not - but let me turn this around, Wild Justice, and ask you how you think Fox would be able to operate in an environment where it can't promise to withhold the name of some sources and withhold certain information on behalf of others - particularly when that environment is the Middle East.

How many sources, do you think, would be willing to tell Fox reporters the real deal if they knew Fox would name them on the air or otherwise broadcast information that could get them or their families killed?

See Uzidoesit's post at #157. Wouldn't it be just ducky if we lived in a world where a journalist could learn a fact and then turn around and broadcast it verbatim without worrying about the consequences of doing so?

In fact, my educated guess is that the only reason Jordan penned his piece for the NYT is that he knows it's happening elsewhere. Given the competitive environment that is cable news, do you really think CNN would permit such a mea culpa if that weren't the case?

216 reMark  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:07:38am

These are the same people who talked against the war.

217 Selkie  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:07:58am

I just made my own blog and I noted this and of course linked to LGF
[Link: www.littlegiggleglutton.blogspot.com...]

218 bala  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:12:07am

just before 9/11 saira shah of CNN did an expose of the Taliban, doing an undercover of the atrocities that went on there (soccer stadiums for public executions, grisly mass graves, etc.) CNN was eminently capable of similar reporting in Iraq, but chose not to. Abominable.

219 b  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:12:17am

To all of the self-righteous Monday morning armchair quarterbacks......get real! CNN was an enabler to the Iraqi regime? Horsefeathers! The Iraqi regime was a dictatorship and didn't need enabling by anyone to do what they wanted, when they wanted.

Can't trust CNN? Hell you can't trust any media. Ever hear of editors? Their job is to decide what makes in on the printed page or airwaves. Every news organization has one and they choose each day what they want to tell the public. Geez, even FOX does it. You think you get ALL the "truth" from FOX? You get all the "truth" their editors decide to tell you. CNN isn't a party of one on this bandwagon.

CNN hiding the truth. Who in the world didn't know what SoDamn Insane was all about, raise their hand. Anyone? No one? Didn't think so.

Any of you armchair quarterbacks that manage companies, would you kindly list the name of your company? I'll make sure not to seek employment with a company that finds their employees expendable in an effort to get the big scoop.

Sheesh!!! At least CNN had the guts to explain the "rest of the story" when they could.....knowing that they would be criticized. Wait, that is being truthful, isn't it? Let's see if any other network has the same balls?

220 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:13:18am

#210 BigAl
You call that an example? Obviously, in many cases a story will not be released to protect a source. There's nothing wrong with that; you have to weigh that particular story against the future value of that source, as well as the damage that might be done by sitting on the story.
In this case (talking about CNN), the decision was made without taking into account the multitudes of people whose lives would be worsened by CNN sitting on the story. That's what's detestable, and that's what separates it from your little small-town politics story. Lives were at risk, not just somebody's reputation.
Just goes to show, you can be in the biz and still be an idiot.
Get lost, troll. And next time, put up your worthless story first, instead of wasting our time with baseless generalities.

221 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:13:43am

#213: Once again, where's your proof? You have yet to offer a single shred. Funny, one of the neighbor's kids (8 years old) tell stories just like Al. Come on Al, just one fact, that's all we ask.

I tell you what, junior. Why don't you just keep watching Fox News - because you were going to, anyway - and see how big they play this up over the next couple of days. If they make a big deal out of it, I'll accept that maybe they haven't operated in this manner. If they don't, maybe you might entertain the idea that they have.

Ah, but I forgot, that would be impossible - seeing as how you've never been wrong in your life.

222 G.I. JOE  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:15:10am

CNN
NPR
BBC
NYTimes
LATimes
CBC
AP
Reuters
NPR

Are all complicit in conspiring with international terrorist groups to commit murder.

Knowing beforehand about a criminal act such as international terrorism and not reporting it is the legal definition of conspiracy.

Conspiring to aid and abet known international terrorists groups for monetray proift breaks numerous international and national laws that can result in criminal prosecution.

223 dangermouse  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:15:11am

Bigal #210,

"Why do you think Woodward and Bernstein never named Deep Throat, anyway?"

There's a helluva difference between not naming your sources and refusing to report the news, especially when the news is this horrendous.

224 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:17:10am

#202   Gang of One  

Apparently the U.S. Army has a device which uses soundwaves to induce diarrhea in enemy soldiers.

I put it to you, the members of the jury, that NPR uses soundwaves to induce vomiting in its listeners.

I could go on about NPR all day and all night.

Yesterday or the day before, Susan Stamberg mentioned the word LOOTING upwards of 1,000 times in a 20-minute segment.

Yesterday an NPR reporter said, "Some of the people were complaining, 'Saddam was bad, but at least we had order.'"

This morning an NPR reporter quoted an Iraqi: "This isn't liberation; it's anarchy."

Yes, that's right, NPR. The BIG STORY isn't about the end of rape, torture, and murder after almost 30 YEARS.

It's about this temporary state of wildness and celebration and craziness.

The other day, NPR's Anne Garrels was asked by Juan Williams something like, "So are the Iraqis angrier at Saddam's soldiers or the American soldiers?"

And she completely dodged the question!

This morning they did a segment on all the "silly and expensive" security procedures established since 9/11!!!

The nerve. The absolute nerve.

And I could go on and on and on.

I truly detest NPR.

Yes, even you, Terry Gross. You Israel-hating bitch.

225 Laertes  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:19:41am

BigAl: You would like to think of your chosen source of news as more virtuous than the others, but they operate in the same way

*pause while I wipe tears of laughter from my eyes*

Oh dear. My chosen source of news is FNC? Bless.

That howler aside, I think my original point still stands: You wanna say that you think Fox has probably done the same, that's fair. But to demand that those who think otherwise provide proof of a negative proposition when you're unable to provide evidence of the positive is illogical and unfair.

226 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:19:56am

Big Al, the subject of this thread CNN, not your ego, so why don't you amuse yourself by looking up a guy named Dirlwanger

227 T. Lawrence Schmerel  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:21:29am

The emperor is wearing no clothes . . .

and he is not pretty.

228 Wowbagger  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:22:13am

#219,

I used to be an editor at Scripps Howard.

If I would have found out that somebody was going to be abducted and killed or tortured, I would have blown the fucking story in some fucking way, cappice? Fuck you and your fucking attitude. I know what it's like. I've covered the Middle East, I've covered the fucking Lebanese border with Israel, I've covered the "Occupied Territories" and I'd rather like to see YOUR list of fucking credentials.

CNN fucking lied. Jordan FUCKING LIED. Your FUCKING covering for him won't change the fact that they are LIARS, and COMPLICIT IN MURDER AND TORTURE.

You, sir, are a fucking asshole.

229 L.Monkey  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:22:50am

Huh. Thanks, Charles. It's rare when I find something here that really snags my interest, but when I do, it's a doozy.

230 brianstien  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:25:18am

#37 Hobgoblin

He's just covering his company's syncophancy to a brutal dictatorship with the cloak of "concern."

Bingo. More to the point, he recognizes that the light of day is about to illuminate everything about the regime AND its enablers, and hopes to get in front of it by demonstrating his "concern."

231 BigDogDaddy  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:25:47am

#228 Wowbagger

Me too!!! Me too!!! I'm a journalist too! I've been everywhere. I've seen it all. My credentials over yours! Just how are you guys going to prove your credentials in a blog anyway? Brother!

232 The Hessian  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:26:43am

I'm embarassed that CNN is in my town.

For years the have-dope-will-protest crowd ahve been rallying outside CNN, claiming that it's a Bush-propaganda, war-mongering-machine...blah, blah...

Oh, the irony...

233 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:26:54am

#220: In this case (talking about CNN), the decision was made without taking into account the multitudes of people whose lives would be worsened by CNN sitting on the story... Lives were at risk, not just somebody's reputation.

Lemme get this straight - you are going to sit there and tell me that you've just spent three hours interviewing a very nervous Iraqi who has given you gold, extraordinarily valuable information, but has asked you to use it as deep background only.

And you are going to stand up manly and say, Sorry, my little brown friend, but I've got to tell the world... and can you spell your name correctly, along with those of your three small children?

Bullshit you would. But ah, I realize in the world of moral clarity the corners are always cut clean.

234 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:30:56am

Bigal,
That's not the context here. Of course if someone said something off the record, it could not be used. But in the case of the Kurds, and the Saddam in-laws, there were no such restrictions. In fact, there's no mention of any time that there was such a restriction.
Hell, who'd go to CNN to be an informant if they didn't want the story to get out?

235 NuclearDionysus  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:32:30am

Go on, Bigal, continue embarrassing yourself.

236 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:32:39am

Sorry Big AL It's spelled Dirlewanger, go get yourself some moral clarity and see why 7 June 1945 was such a big day in his life.

237 Cowgirl Carrie  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:34:07am

Here's some whiney lefty bunk: CNN stop being Pro-Israel.

It did serve a purpose, though: email addresses!

General:
public.information@turner.com
community@cnn.com

Jordan:
Eason.Jordan@turner.com

238 hun ordained rabbi  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:35:07am

Suckwads, the whole lot of them.
I kicked the cnn links off as soon as I got this (my first) computer.
Dickleaks.
The implications are much more severe than these
Nadbags will ever admit.

From the WSJ article:

When I asked CNN's Jordan to explain why his network is so devoted to maintaining a perpetual Baghdad presence, he listed two reasons: "First, because it's newsworthy; second, because there's an expectation that if anybody is in Iraq, it will be CNN."

I extrapolate that the more newsworthy a story, the less likely it is to be told truthfully by cnn.

Asslicks.

Hey, what's up with this "multicultutural" media group? Anybody here know about them ? Al- Jizsmeara is given a suspicious amount of prominence...
Is it something obvious that I'm going to feel stupid about?


a bright point amid all this is that the administration might feel free to expediate further advances in this war and liberate the citizenry of Dimashq wa Tehrawn without getting too wound up over how those lamefucks
are "covering" it.

239 Grognard  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:35:42am

re: 210 bigal
Your example only addresses part of CNN's treachery. Withholding second-hand information is not the same as withholding first-hand information.

In Uday's case, CNN could technically have been correct to withhold the story because there was no demonstrable "fact" at the time, but Jordan was (and should have felt) morally obligated to warn the intended victims.

In the cameraman's case, CNN knew for a fact that a significant, newsworthy event had occurred and had a moral responsibility and professional obligation to report it.

BTW: If you work for a newspaper in the northeast, you could have printed what your sources told you in complete safety. Fish don't usually read their wrappers.

240 Brian  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:35:59am

I assume that what this man says is true. I believe those things probably did happen. I am also split over what should have been done with this knowledge. Reporting? or raise the BS flag and maybe save lives? raise the BS flag and maybe unleash a wave of death on the Iraqis?

Let's be honest with ourselves shall we. We've known about this type of occurence in Iraq for years and years. I feel that for us to think that a report from CNN while these things were occurring would have sent the US into such an uproar that we would have done something about it is quite self righteous.

Besides, if that is the way you feel, than how could you justify being against what is happening now?

241 ml  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:37:29am

And what is more he warned the king of Jordan about the assassination attempt, but once he did that already putting his translator's life at risk, he didn't warn Saddam's in-laws who he knew for certain were going to get killed if they got back. The translator, was a prisoner of a regime, which might have killed him at any moment anyway, but the in-laws were in the US, where he could have actually saved them. It's accomplice to murder. What's more the rest is extremely patronizing to Iraqis who risked their lives to tell CNN news, but CNN was unwilling to risk their lives to tell it to the world because they thought they knew better than the Iraqis whether truth and freedom were worth risking death. No wonder, they are always in favor of appeasing dictators. Obviously CNN thinks that it is never worth it for anyone to risk their lives for such things as truth or freedom. You have to give them props for hvaing a philosophy that at least looks ethical. I personally prefer "Give me liberty or give me death."

242 Bigal  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:37:38am

#228: If I would have found out that somebody was going to be abducted and killed or tortured, I would have blown the fucking story in some fucking way, cappice?

So how 'bout you tell me how you would have broken it? So c'mon - your credentials trump mine; that must mean you know better.

So tell me - you're Eason Jordan. How, specifically, would you have broken the story?

How many of your sources would have been willing to continue speaking with you after you'd done so?

How would you have prevented your sources from suffering the consequences of speaking with you?

In saving the lives of millions, how many would you be willing to allow to die?

You got the answers - let's hear 'em.

243 The Zymurgist  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:37:45am

Found this quote by "bigAl" interesting:

End result: We end up publishing some of it. Some other facts come out in other ways. And ultimately, the politician steps down, and to this day, much of the community still isn't clear on what has happened and why. But he is gone - and you could make a case that's a very good thing.

This is, of course, the true function of the press. It's not to simply inform the public, no. It is to be wielded as a tool of the left to acheive a desired outcome.

Your words, Schmuck. Let the mask slip a little, didn't you?

244 dhimmi smits  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:38:39am

i used to work in art department at Time magazine; we once had to clone out Prince William's 'naughty bits' which were hanging out of his shorts.

245 really grumpy  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:39:09am

#108 Seamus the Poopie-Head

That's ok, Seamus. What you really need is surgery to drain the crap out of your brain.

Your Columbian Troskyite friends have betrayed you of your common sense and dignity. The surgery is your only hope now.

Good luck.

246 BigDogDaddy  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:42:03am

#234

Do you actually think that if CNN had reported that Saddam's son was quoted as saying he was going to kill his brother-in-laws, CNN would not have been thrown out of the country or it's native staff retaliated against? Really? Seriously? I'd choose the safety of my staff and the ability to continue reporting the majority of the stories over the lives of Saddam's son-in-laws in a heartbeat. It is easy to criticize someone else's decisions when you are not the one who has to make them. Ask Bill (Jerry Springer) O'Reilly, he makes money doing it everyday!

247 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:42:09am

#240, Don't get do you Brian. Your ignorance is singular rather than plural.

248 Gang of One  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:45:00am

Wild Justice #224,

I heard that same diatribe on NPR. I guess it comes with the territory where we find the artists and musicians. It is the price we pay for liking a product made by otherwise ig'nint mcnuggets.
Just now, heard more water and feces from NPR hack who could not disguise the condescension his voice when quoting Rummy's take on the looting as being a 'phase.'

249 BRIAN  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:45:23am

My ignorance to your point is whatever you want to call it. Elaborate a little would you?

250 T. Lawrence Schmerel  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:46:17am

Peter Arnett (who worked in Iraq for CNN for a decade):

"There's a quid pro quo for being there. You go in and they control what you do. ... So you have no option other than to report the opinion of the government of Iraq."

No option?

251 Steve in BDA  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:46:43am

Wowbagger re #228, right on! Thanks for saying what I was too timidly polite to say. Sometimes I forget that you don't need to be quite so nice all the time in these forums.

252 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:49:46am

#245,grumpy. Reread 2nd line of #108 and then #184.

253 Shep  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:50:08am

FOX NEWS!!!!

"Fair and Balanced"

Take stock in this news network folks, they are doing it right in every way!!

254 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:54:16am

Brian, google Dirlewanger.

255 Wowbagger  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:55:26am

It's simple:

I would have stopped hiring Iraqis.

I would have taken those that did work for me across the border into the Amman office.

I would have then blown the story.

Or, I would have simply taken the information and given it to either:

1) Another body to report without naming the source

2) Given it to another to release to several world bodies like the U.N. or others without, again, naming the source. While I believe that the U.N. is a useless piece of crap, it would have served a great purpose here. They know that crimes go on all the time, of course, but if the report came out that not only were there crimes being planned but assassinations as well, that could have caused enough of a row in that "august world body" to actually accomplish something.

The fact is that CNN did nothing when options were available to them. As an editor, I always understood the fact of the bottom line, but not at the cost of people's lives. They insisted on putting lives at risk simply by being a puppet there of the regime. Had they acted differently, they may have gotten kicked out of Baghdad, but things could also have been extremely different. There is no excuse. CNN put lives and honesty behind the dollar mark, and that is inexcusable. I never would have done that - ever. If somebody came to me and told me a story in confidence, I would not have reported it. But if I found out about atrocities planned or committed, then I would have acted in *some way* as a Journalist and not some ass-rimming money whore for a Nazi regime.

This story smacks of the "Nazi Pope" excuse: We were keeping our mouths shut to save lives. Excuse me, but that doesn't wash. Many people around the world have written that this was no excuse. So why should CNN get away with it when a Pope couldn't?

No, I'm sorry. It doesn't wash, stand, or pass the test. It is reprehensible, and it is wrong. Pius XII should have stood up as CNN should have stood up. The two are not distinctly different. They are equal. So I'm sorry, but they are guilty just as he was guilty, no matter how much of a veneer you can try to put on it.

256 BigDogDaddy  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:58:31am

Shep,

Two suggestions. One, tone down the drag queen make-up. Two, tone down the sportscaster delivery. Ok, three. Do more of the J-Lo blow job type slip ups. It keeps the news interesting.

257 PDM  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:58:32am

May I make a humble suggestion for A NEW CNN LOGO?

258 Yokel  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 11:58:43am

So, I wonder what trick Saddam used to keep the BBC complacent. Probably none was neccessary.

259 Brian  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:00:56pm

You are full of shit wowbagger!

You are not, nor have you ever been a reporter. It is as clear as crystal by reading what you've written. Options? What a moron. So, I suppose their was never anybody watching what those people did in Iraq? Sure, we'll just sneak a bunch of people across the border. Right. And I saw Bozo blowing the Easter Bunny on my magic carpet over Sherwood Forest yesterday. Find another site to post your anti-American propagnda fucko!!!!

260 Orson  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:01:08pm
Why do you think Woodward and Bernstein never named Deep Throat, anyway?

Because they made him up.

Woodward, Bernstein, Graham, and Bradlee's personal hatred of Nixon was only eclipsed only by how quickly they'd collectively swoon for any Kennedy.

261 Wowbagger  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:12:26pm

#259,

Anti-American...?

How is criticizing CNN anti-American...?

I'm..confused on that point...

And yes, I was a journalist. I used to cover Washington DC for Scripps Howard as a photojournalist and a reporter, as well as a desk editor for day and night duties. That included White House, State Department, Pentagon, and Congressional coverage.

I also worked as a photojournalist for The Congressional Quarterly on the Washington DC beat.

I used to also cover the West Bank and Gaza as well as the Israeli/Lebanese border for:

UPI
AFP
Reuters
AP

As a photojournalist with my brother in 1992 and 1993.

I also covered the first peace process negotiations for the Middle East with the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Palestinian/Jordanian teams at the State Department - right across from Columbia Towers where I lived in 1991 after the First Gulf War and Madrid Peace Conference.

My tools of the trade were:

Nikon F4
Nikon F3
Nikon 8008s
Nikon N90
Nikon FM2
Leica M3

Lenses were: Vivatar 24mm, 28mm, Nikkor 35mm, 70mm, 70-210mm, 300mm (f2.8), 400mm (f5.6).

Flashes: SB-24, SB-25, Vivitar

Camera bag: Domke (2 and 3 camera model/sand-tan and black)

I still write analysis for SHNS and various other medias.

262 gymnast  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:15:32pm

Brian, are you late to the party or what? your posts have no context.

263 Wowbagger  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:15:49pm

And now, if you'll excuse me, I do have another piece to write. :)

264 hun ordained rabbi  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:22:04pm

Heh
Check out Time magazine's glowing tribute to Al-Jazeera back in 1999.
Heh
You think a few technological upgrades are what's standing between the truth and getting it delivered to Arabs?
Think again.

265 Son of Not Enough Dogs Woman  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:30:40pm

The things that CNN has done are a disgrace to this entire country. Considering the principles on which our nation was founded, it is down right immoral. I might expect to see more of this, if I was living in Cultural Revolution China.

266 William  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:30:40pm

Another CNN story:

The night the US dropped four 2,000 pound bombs on the Restaurant where Saddam and crew were meeting, CNN did not cut to this story for two hours.

Fox News was running clips of a giant crater with people milling around, tractors digging up the rubble, etc.

MSNBC was running similar footage.

CNN's Aaron Brown was jaw-flapping with some 'pundit' about I don't know what.

This went on for two hours.

One of the biggest stories of the war to that point, and CNN felt other stories were more important, while everyone else was running footage of a crater, and discussing what details were coming available, etc.

It was truly bizarre.
 

267 William  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:31:41pm

Another CNN story:

The night the US dropped four 2,000 pound bombs on the Restaurant where Saddam and crew were meeting, CNN did not cut to this story for two hours.

Fox News was running clips of a giant crater with people milling around, tractors digging up the rubble, etc.

MSNBC was running similar footage.

CNN's Aaron Brown was jaw-flapping with some 'pundit' about I don't know what.

This went on for two hours.

One of the biggest stories of the war to that point, and CNN felt other stories were more important, while everyone else was running footage of a crater, and discussing what details were coming available, etc.

It was truly bizarre.
 

268 William  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:32:18pm

Sorry for the double post, server glitch...
 

269 Wild Justice  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:34:40pm

#248   Gang of One 

Artists and musicians.

Well not all of us are that way, but I understand your point.

I'd estimate my field (advertising) is roughly 80% Left, maybe even higher among creatives.

It's kinda lonely in the creative department these days!

My creative director -- rabidly anti-war. My old art director -- rabidly anti-war. The account execs sitting near me -- rabidly anti-war. Our web monkey -- rabidly anti-war. The senior art director -- rabidly anti-war.

It's just me and my current art director who are in full support of the Coalition. And I had to work on him for months!

Amazing how the entire office was silent the day the giant Saddam statue came crashing down in Baghdad. Like a disaster had befallen the Iraqi people.

270 BRIAN(to you WOWBAGGER)  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:41:01pm

WOWBAGGER,
I still don't believe you! And why do you feel it necessary to spew out your resume'. Let's assume, for arguments sake that you were a reporter. I didn't see one bullet on your pseudo, look at me, look at me resume' about the time you spent reporting for CNN in Iraq. Your assumption that you could've just figured out the situation right off the cuff without a moments hesitation is utter bullshit. If you were here in front of me, I would rip your arm off and hand it to you, so it would be easier for you to pat yourself on the back. The fact is, you don't know what you'd be capable of doing in that situation and moreover, I think it's ironic that given your distrust of CNN overall, now that this story comes from a CNN reporter, you lap it up without questioning it's integrity for a second. Another syptom of your flagrant bias and failure to think objectively. Some reporter. No wonder I haven't heard of you.

271 Steve in BDA  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:47:23pm

BRIAN, re #270, go home, take your meds, and come back later, when the foam has stopped dripping from your mouth -- it's most unbecoming.

272 BRIAN  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 12:48:32pm

lick my nuts Steve

273 Alf  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:03:25pm

CNN could have been a voice of truth to the world by revealing Saddam's evil. Instead, they gave credence to the "war protestors" which encouraged thousands of Arabs to flock to Iraq in order to kill Americans and Brits. We are now witnessing one of the darkest eras of liberal politics in Western history.

Unfortunately, at the end of today, these revelations will not phase the Left one iota. The Leftists will remain haters of America and advocates of Socialism and Communism.

274 Leah  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:08:05pm

CNN...interesting. They put out this story so as to get sympathy..only to find that they may be complicit in MURDER..WHAT did they know and WHEN did they know it? And what did they do about it..OR did they only wanna stay in the good graces of the Iraquis..???and compete ..with Fox and MSNBC..etc.

Someone with some time on their hands..OR someone with an advance from a publishing CO..may prove that they knew and could have stopped some terrible behavior. How bout it Publishing Co..s ?? (ones that are not owned by France or Germany with big moneh..from the Saudis) lets get those advances going.

Another subject...How many times did I hear the word "POUND'' as in-- America was POUNDING the Iraquis..I listened carefully and in comparison to how they depict Israel when she is defending herself..CNN was careful NOT to use the word POUND too much. Weasels...They knew people were listening to that issue.

275 fred  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:12:26pm

Wild Justice: If your solitude bother you, why don't you just commit suicide?

276 Seamus Warren  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:13:09pm
207 Hoboblin

George Weigel explains how the Iraq war fits in the just war tradition of Augustine

[Link: www.firstthin......]

Thanks Hobgoblin. I actually used a quote and was chopped down by those damn peace nazis! :o)

Here is what the SOB wrote:

"You're still quoting Weigel out of context. That's a cardinal sin. Without the proof that he's saying is needed, it cannot be a just war. Should you be curious to see how Weigel really feels (and not abuse his statements further), I suggest you go here:

www.the-tidings.com/2001...5/difference.htm

Note especially his first set of criteria that need to be considered before a war can even be considered to be just. For ease of reference, it's the 6th paragraph. Note especially (but not exclusively) the second last question.

Also notice how I don't need to copy and paste the body of the text - the Internet allows (nay, encourages!) linkages.

I agree that he's got a better grasp on the issues than you do. And, he's talking about the concept of the religious just war, not an ethical just war.

But, as always, I'm willing to defend either position, even if you're not willing to answer a challenge. You do realise though, having read that link I provided very closely, that the conditions for ius ad bellum have not been met? Namely, that the "right intention" is highly questionable because of the US interest in oil, that proof cannot be shown that Iraq intended to directly threaten the US or Australia, and that other avenues were still available.

You'll also notice that Weigel is more concerned about discussing whether violence can still be moral rather than whether this exact war is moral. On that point, I don't disagree with him. However, that doesn't lend support to your argument, it only allows that you may have an argument - namely, that a just war can exist, not that this war is just.

You're not even bothering to try and refute here, you're just casting around for any argument you think might help you. We've gone through and systematically destroyed each of your defensive positions (including when you tried to find a moral theologian to support your position, then hopeless quoted him out of context), and yet you persist in trying to divert attention from the true issue.

If you don't want to even acknowledge what the other side is saying, why do you waste your time in a conversational place like this? Why not just go shout at a wall?"

277 Gang of One  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:21:12pm

#269 Wild Justice:

Artists and musicians.

Well not all of us are that way, but I understand your point.

Yeah, I hear you, my friend. I do count myself as one of the anointed (bass player since 1974 [YES, ELP, etc.]) and I have had to deal with the inanities of the artistic-left for a long while. Therefore, it is pleasing to find other creative types who do not fall for the ruse. I am certain that there is more to art and expression than just raw emotion, and that the best art is emotion tempered with knowledge. After all IMHO, the mission of any high art is, by its illusions, to crystalize the emotions of time into the the thoughts of eternity.
What say you?

278 Robert Stevens  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:22:55pm

I thought that this would be appropriate to post considering the furor over the Jordan piece in the NY Times today. This is my rendering of Kevin's report which appeared on CNN around 2:45 pm.

CNN's Kevin Sites And Crew Escape With Their Lives

Kevin Sites reporting in to Wold Blitzer

CNN CORRESPNDENT KEVIN SITES just reported to CNN that he and his crew advanced beyond Peshmerga positions toward Tikrit today and encountered some Iraqis who were waving to them in a friendly manner. Sites and his crew approached and were taken prisoner by what he said were fedayeen.

They were accused by the fedayeen of being spies. They were bound and the fedayeen pointed Kalashnikovs at their heads. The fedayeen discharged a few rounds at their feet.

The fedayeen told them they were going to take Sites and his crew to the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Tikrit but Site’s quick thinking translator talked the fedayeen into taking them to some tribal elders in a nearby village to discuss the situation (can’t recall which village he mentioned).

When they got to the village, Sites' translator "went on the offensive" and convinced the elders that turning Sites and his crew over to the Iraqis in Tikrit would bring retribution upon the elders and their village by the Americans.

Sites said this convinced the Iraqi village elders to release them.

The fedayeen took everything from Sites and his crew (sat phones, computer, cameras and put a few rounds into the engine of their car) and released them.

Sites said if it hadn’t been for their translator they most certainly would have been executed today in Tikrit.

Sites said that the villagers did not bear them any ill will, but that the fedayeen were the ones that posed the threat.

I have been waiting for this to appear on CNN's website. At this point it hasn't.

279 Leah  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:23:48pm

It absolutely positively IS and HAS BEEN going on with the Palistianian Story..What do they know all this time?..When did they first know it?..When did they SET UP the scenes? When did they hire out as PR trainers of the Pals? Who exactly helped with setting up the scenes to appeal to American and Western sensibilities? WHO has been tutoring the Pals in what to say and what NOT to say for the Western Audience? Might as well FOLLOW THE MONEY... So much to ask..hmmm?

It IS all about ACCESS..everyone is right on that..and it is also about predisposition to blame America..and then predisposition to blame..tha Jews..and Israel....

Lets see now..without missin a beat..the Looting in Iraq is AMERICAS FAULT. see and hear..Christiane Amapour. Is Christiane Amapour just a Journalist? or is she something else as well..Can you all say AGENT? of ?????? pick your Arab or European Country. She knows dang well she is good at influencing opinions..Thats called an Agent of Influence..I think she IS..more than just a Journalist or even just an Advocacy Journalist.

280 aphex jim  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:25:49pm

Fellow LGFers...

These past few months have been amazing. The world has been forced to take one side or the other regarding the war in Iraq. And people's stances are revealing their true natures and intentions.
We are wittnessing a full-on historic shakedown / unmasking of the leftist, amoral media; ignorant, emotion-driven "peace" movement; and the devious, underhanded machinations of our so-called friends and allies. All of which are driven by selfishness, either on a personal, institutional, or national level.
This is a historical nexus.
Truth shall indeed conquer all, and we have the internet to thank for much of its desimination. Unfortunately, for much its obfuscation as well.

281 Occasional Reader  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:26:17pm

Wow.

Rarely have I seen so many personal insults hurled around in an LGF thread. Good lord.

Everybody; it's Friday. Go take a nap, or have a drink, or something.

282 ploome  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:30:47pm

#246 BigDOgDaddy.......you say

I'd choose the safety of my staff and the ability to continue reporting the majority of the stories over the lives of Saddam's son-in-laws in a heartbeat.

reporting the majority of what stories...? the lies and fictions, masquerading as 'truth', you would have to print.?

what is the point of being there, if all you can print is lies and fiction.?

283 reaganite  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:31:28pm

#221 little al
Why are you so afraid to produce one fact? You're pathetic. You cast aspersions like they were pearls, yet back it up with nothing but conjecture. Where's the FACTS? I've asked you what, 3 or 4 times so far for just one. Is your argument so weak you can't produce even one?

284 ploome  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:32:20pm

I will have a drink, thankyouverymuch...:)

285 Brian  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:32:35pm

I agree with #281.

If you must vent in a mean and attacking sort of way, go to Indymedia.com!!!

I just love to get a rise out of them. Ya know, while they have time in between picketing marches and bong hits

286 dangermouse  Fri, Apr 11, 2003 1:33:55pm

#284

...may I join you, ploome? ;)

287 gymnast  Sat, Apr 12, 2003 7:38:21am

Saved me a lot of money when sombody turned the lights out when it was my turn to by a round.

288 ploome  Sat, Apr 12, 2003 4:58:43pm

....darn...I dont like to drink alone......*hic***


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Dark Night - Two Week Free Trial
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Now with polemical tangents.


Free Shipping  and up to 30% savings on new Textbooks
Holiday Gift Finder - Save up to 46% on the perfect gift!