This from a chief at CNN, not Fox
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opini ... GOOGLE&x=y
Some truths comes out, Kyou still in denial, film at 11
-
Zygar_ Cthulhukin
- Almost 1337
- Posts: 654
- Joined: September 4, 2002, 9:18 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Ar-keen-saw
Some truths comes out, Kyou still in denial, film at 11
{{{(>.<)}}} (o.o) \\(^o^)// --- I DID IT!!!! -Hiro
i think it is a bit much of you to ask news executives to sacrifice their employees so that you get confirmation of well documented behavior (Saddam's regime's brutality) served to you on a silver platter in a succinct headline.Trek wrote:At least we know we get all the info from our beloved media.
in fact it is patently absurd that you would suggest that anybody in an editorial position is morally obligated to present information to you at the cost of the lives of his colleagues. so if you are looking for another notch on the bedpost to support your opinion of the media, look elsewhere, this isnt it.
I see what you're saying Voro, but what's the point of having them there if they're not going to report the truth?
And they could have atleast let the liberal fags AKA Aaron Brown and Judy Woodruff in on some of these things so they could temper their reporting and maybe have a little bit more truth in there somewhere- fair and balanced!
It also makes you wonder about other totalitarian states like Syria and Cuba, where access hungry reporters may be looking the other way on certain minor issues (people being tortured/slaughtered) in the hopes of having the big scoop on something of a little more importance.
And they could have atleast let the liberal fags AKA Aaron Brown and Judy Woodruff in on some of these things so they could temper their reporting and maybe have a little bit more truth in there somewhere- fair and balanced!
It also makes you wonder about other totalitarian states like Syria and Cuba, where access hungry reporters may be looking the other way on certain minor issues (people being tortured/slaughtered) in the hopes of having the big scoop on something of a little more importance.
Ya ok, lets just leave all our CNN guys there in harms way after knowing they cannot report for fear of death. Its absurd that of you to think there is nothing wrong with this. Is It not ok to embed our reporters with active units and place them in hotels in dangerous areas? I think I would get my crew out of there if I thought they were in danger, of course I hate the media and wish the whole world would take Cuba's lead.Voronwë wrote:i think it is a bit much of you to ask news executives to sacrifice their employees so that you get confirmation of well documented behavior (Saddam's regime's brutality) served to you on a silver platter in a succinct headline.Trek wrote:At least we know we get all the info from our beloved media.
in fact it is patently absurd that you would suggest that anybody in an editorial position is morally obligated to present information to you at the cost of the lives of his colleagues. so if you are looking for another notch on the bedpost to support your opinion of the media, look elsewhere, this isnt it.
-
Keverian FireCry
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2919
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:41 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Seattle, WA
-
Keverian FireCry
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2919
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:41 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Seattle, WA
Here are some more instances of CNN's impartial reporting:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030415-91009640.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030415-91009640.htm
Edit: Put spaces for the paragraphsMr. Eason Jordan's admission that CNN had to suppress the news from Baghdad in order to report it brought back memories for me.
In January 1993, I was in Baghdad as a reporter for CNN on a probationary, three-month contract. Previously, I had been a war reporter for CBS News in Vietnam and East Asia and in Central America for ABC News. I had also made three trips to Baghdad for ABC News before the Gulf War.
Now, Bill Clinton was about to be inaugurated and there was speculation that Saddam Hussein might "test" the new American president. Would the new administration be willing to enforce the "no-fly" zones set up in northern and southern Iraq after the Gulf War?
CNN had made its reputation during the war with its exclusive reports from Baghdad. Shortly after my arrival, I was surprised to see CNN President Tom Johnson and Eason Jordan, then chief of international news gathering, stride into the al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad. They were there to help CNN bid for an exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein, timed to coincide with the coming inauguration of President Clinton.
I took part in meetings between the CNN executives and various officials purported to be close to Saddam. We met with his personal translator; with a foreign affairs adviser; with Information Minister Latif Jassim; and with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.
In each of these meetings, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan made their pitch: Saddam Hussein would have an hour's time on CNN's worldwide network; there would be no interruptions, no commercials. I was astonished. From both the tone and the content of these conversations, it seemed to me that CNN was virtually groveling for the interview.
The day after one such meeting, I was on the roof of the Ministry of Information, preparing for my first "live shot" on CNN. A producer came up and handed me a sheet of paper with handwritten notes. "Tom Johnson wants you to read this on camera," he said. I glanced at the paper. It was an item-by-item summary of points made by Information Minister Latif Jassim in an interview that morning with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan.
The list was so long that there was no time during the live shot to provide context. I read the information minister's points verbatim. Moments later, I was downstairs in the newsroom on the first floor of the Information Ministry. Mr. Johnson approached, having seen my performance on a TV monitor. "You were a bit flat there, Peter," he said. Again, I was astonished. The president of CNN was telling me I seemed less-than-enthusiastic reading Saddam Hussein's propaganda.
The next day, I was CNN's reporter on a trip organized by the Ministry of Information to the northern city of Mosul. "Minders" from the ministry accompanied two busloads of news people to an open, plowed field outside Mosul. The purpose was to show us that American warplanes were bombing "innocent Iraqi farmers." Bits of American ordinance were scattered on the field. One large piece was marked "CBU." I recognized it as the canister for a Cluster Bomb Unit, a weapon effective against troops in the open, or against "thin-skinned" armor. I was puzzled. Why would U.S. aircraft launch CBUs against what appeared to be an open field? Was it really to kill "innocent Iraqi farmers?" The minders showed us no victims, no witnesses. I looked around. About 2000 yards distant on a ridgeline, two radar dishes were just visible against the sky. The ground was freshly plowed. Now, I understood. The radars were probably linked to Soviet-made SA-6 surface-to-air missiles mounted on tracks, armored vehicles, parked in the field at some distance from the dishes to keep them safe. After the bombing, the Iraqis had removed the missile launchers and had plowed the field to cover the tracks.
On the way back to Baghdad, I explained to other reporters what I thought had happened, and wrote a report that was broadcast on CNN that night.
The next day, Brent Sadler, CNN's chief reporter at the time in Baghdad (he is now in northern Iraq), came up to me in a hallway of the al Rasheed Hotel. He had been pushing for the interview with Saddam and had urged Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan to come to Baghdad to help seal the deal. "Petah," he said to me in his English accent, "you know we're trying to get an interview with Saddam. That piece last night was not helpful."
So, we were supposed to shade the news to get an interview with Saddam?
As it happens, CNN never did get that interview. A few months later, I had passed my probationary period and was contemplating my future with CNN. I thought long and hard; could I be comfortable with a news organization that played those kinds of games? I decided, no, I could not, and resigned.
In my brief acquaintance with Mr. Jordan at CNN, I formed the impression of a decent man, someone with a conscience. On the day Mr. Jordan published his piece in the New York Times, a panel on Fox News was discussing his astonishing admissions. Brit Hume wondered, "Why would he ever write such a thing?" Another panelist suggested, "Perhaps his conscience is bothering him." Mr. Eason, it should be.
