Journal GMontag's Journal: Will Pacifica report this CNN confession? 9
CNN is finally confessing to their Saddam propoganda.
April 11, 2003
The News We Kept to Ourselves
By EASON JORDAN
(free regestration required I think)
Odd thing, I kept hearing Pacifica, and others, use CNN reports as gospel. Same with Peter Arnett reports during and after his employ with that network. Now we have 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. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.
If you are still reading you should go read the whole article. One amazing statement in the quoted passage above: The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting.
The rest of the article has plenty of examples showing how CNN lied on air in order to remain in Baghdad. Sorry, it does not sound like CNN made any effort to provide accurate reporting.
The people that were harmed working for CNN may have been duped into thinking that CNN was reporting accurately outside the country, but they were not. Those tortured, disappeared and killed died for the resumes of CNN staff who gave not one thought of selling out to Saddam, for over a decade, in order to have a Baghdad bureau.
Update: Eason Jordan [transcript]
October 25, 2002
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. We wouldn't have a team in northern Iraq right now if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't report on the demonstration if we didn't want to upset the Saddam Hussein regime. We wouldn't have been thrown out of Iraq already 5 times over the last several years if we were there to please the Saddam Hussein regime. So the story was lopsided, unfair and chose to ignore facts that would refute the premise of the article.
Again with the lies huh Eason? How the hell does spewing the Ba'ath party line translate into having a spine? As stated before, the ONLY thing CNN was interested in was keeping their press passes. They could have left and told the truth, but they stayed as mouthpieces for Saddamn and smeared other journalists in the process.
Perhaps Scott Ritter has a future at CNN?
Gentle reminder, please ignor the trolls.
Double Standard (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who constantly espouses "ends justifies the means" rhetoric, I find it interesting that you are holding CNN to an unattainable standard. For gosh sakes, the CNN reporter was trying to balance journalistic integrity with saving someone's life. That particular end justified the means (i.e. not reporting exact, specific details of Saddam's cruelty).
And it's not as if the horrors of Saddam's regime are just coming to light now. As you well know (and have posted on this journal repeatedly) they were widely known and reported. CNN reporters could not provide specific names, instances, etc. for the reasons he stated in his article.
Journalists conceal information all the time for all sorts of reasons - most notably "protecting sources." But calling them a liar because of this is a bit of a stretch.
AND at least the CNN reporter went to warn the King of Jordan when one of Saddam's sons boasted that he was going to assasinate him.
If not for CNN, we had any reporting at all coming out of Iraq before the war - would have been 100% state-run media and Al-Jazeera (as small a difference as there is).
In short "it's easy to criticize."
PS - Pacifica sucks. Saying that they selectively edit their reporting to promote their agenda is just over-stating the obvious. On the other hand, it would be nice if they established their own 24-hour cable news channel if only to balance out Fox News.
Re:Double Standard (Score:2)
CNN was coming off as this organization that was reporting the truth, instead they became a tool of the Iraqi regime. If it is a choice of reporting a complete lie such as "forces destroyed a baby milk factory", or not reporting anything at all, I think the best choice would be to not report anything at all.
Re:Double Standard (Score:2)
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You have no intelligent comments to add, so you take the easy way out and go for the ad hominem. How typical.
I can understand what CNN did (Score:2)
I'm sure they were not the only western media to do this.
The danger of course is that you become a tool of the regime you are trying to protect your people from.
Re:I can understand what CNN did (Score:2)
When it became apparent, somewhere long ago but less than A DOZEN YEARS AGO, CNN could have pulled, say a Christopher Hitchens move and done their own reporting without a "Baghdad Bureau".
My statement still stands, all of those people were tortured merely for the sake of CNN resumes. From their own admission they protected nobody and perpetuated the torture of those that protected CNN slime.
If you did not bother reading the statement, here are the Cliffs Notes: people werre tortured protecting
Re:I can understand what CNN did (Score:2)
CNN had 2 choices that were more honorable than what they did. They could have closed the Baghdad Bureau or they could have simply not reported the lies and put a disclaimer on anything coming from the Baghdad people. (i.e. "this report had to be cleared with Iraqi government officials")
I suspect CNN will turn out to be the only Western media that was quite this slimy.
Re:I can understand what CNN did (Score:2)
My inclination is to agree with you but I am reserving my judgement.
Re:I can understand what CNN did (Score:2)
FOX and ABC will probably turn out to have taken the moral high-ground. Possibly the BBC as well.