The W
Views: 98511428
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.8.14 0521
The W - Current Events & Politics - Why I Don't Trust CNN
This thread has 10 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2095 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1214 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
From Friday's New York Times

The News We Kept to Ourselves
By EASON JORDAN

ATLANTA 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.

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.

We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails).

Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.

I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.

Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

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.

Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN.





Bye bye you son of a bitch...

Promote this thread!
Crip
Mettwurst








Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3839 days
Last activity: 2613 days
#2 Posted on
I've just read the article, why wouldn't you trust CNN?



Stablewars.com - Fantasy Wrestling, It ain't no e-fed.
Hairy Caray
Bauerwurst








Since: 28.10.02
From: Wrigley Field hot dog stand

Since last post: 3638 days
Last activity: 3636 days
#3 Posted on
Part of me wants to condemn all the journalists who failed to blow the whistle on Iraq. Another part wonders what I would do when I knew lives were at stake.

Still another part makes me wonder if any of those journalists had anything but whole-hearted support for the war if they had witnessed atrocities first hand. Those are the ones I wouldn't trust.



Cubs win! Cubs win! Cubs win!
cokeman
Chorizo








Since: 12.4.03
From: nj (back from iraq)

Since last post: 3231 days
Last activity: 3021 days
#4 Posted on
you did not really say why you dont trust cnn. im going to guess cuz they did not say anything to anybody and they just waited for the war to happen. is that why??? or is it somthing i missed???
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3693 days
Last activity: 3163 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on
On the one hand... fear bottles up a lot of things. It's easy to say "Well, well, I'd say something even if I were in danger 'cause I'm brave like that!" and it's another thing entirely to be able to do it.

However...

It's awfully convenient, isn't it? No proof whatsoever found that the WMD we yammered on and on about existed, so we're unable to justify our little invasion...

Ding! Look at all the horror stories! So nice and visible, with visceral and horrible details! Even though he's been like this for years, along with every other two-bit dictator in the world!

That's why I don't trust CNN.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 2 days
#6 Posted on

    Originally posted by Crip
    I've just read the article, why wouldn't you trust CNN?


For anyone who read the article and feels this way (or who asks the same question as Hairy Caray), please read the editorial in today's Wall Street Journal titled "CNN's Access of Evil". If a 'news' network cannot report the truth, then what is the point in reporting 'news' at all? I would argue that it is better to have limited information than inaccurate information or outright lies. Furthermore, in reporting what the Baathist government approved and allowed, they themselves became a tool for pro-Saddam propaganda. In making these trips and ensuring the Iraqi' government approved of CNN's reporting, Mr. Jordan essentially was converting the network into an arm of Iraq's Information Ministry. Additionally, the network is performing a similar task in Syria, Cuba and other places where dictators impose these type of media rules. In short, what price is CNN willing to pay for 'news' or 'journalism?'
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Did any other news agencies behave differently? Or is CNN just the only folks to own up to it?



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, not racist, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, 20% Black, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage, and not a Hipster.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 2 days
#8 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Did any other news agencies behave differently? Or is CNN just the only folks to own up to it?


Other news agencies did do the same thing, but I don't know which ones. I don't know of any other apologies, and the WSJ editorial didn't name other names; it just said that CNN wasn't alone. I would think that any network who had a permanent presence or correspondents in Iraq before the war would be guilty of the same thing, at least to a certain extent. One credit to CNN is that they at least owned up to their role, unlike the other news organizations.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 526 days
Last activity: 141 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on

    Originally posted by Corajudo

      Originally posted by Crip
      I've just read the article, why wouldn't you trust CNN?


    For anyone who read the article and feels this way (or who asks the same question as Hairy Caray), please read the editorial in today's Wall Street Journal titled "CNN's Access of Evil". If a 'news' network cannot report the truth, then what is the point in reporting 'news' at all? I would argue that it is better to have limited information than inaccurate information or outright lies. Furthermore, in reporting what the Baathist government approved and allowed, they themselves became a tool for pro-Saddam propaganda. In making these trips and ensuring the Iraqi' government approved of CNN's reporting, Mr. Jordan essentially was converting the network into an arm of Iraq's Information Ministry. Additionally, the network is performing a similar task in Syria, Cuba and other places where dictators impose these type of media rules. In short, what price is CNN willing to pay for 'news' or 'journalism?'




So are you saying that you would report the the total truth even if it meant the lives of people you know and work with? Not saying that you are wrong, but I personally wouldnt want to have to make that decision. Id probably keep my mouth shut too. I mean what if my own life hung in the balance?



M2A3 and M3A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (BFVS)

The mission of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle [BFV] is to provide mobile protected transport of an infantry squad to critical points on the battlefield and to perform cavalry scout missions. The BFVS will also provide overwatching fires to support dismounted infantry and to suppress or defeat enemy tanks and other fighting vehicles. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle is a fully armored, fully tracked vehicle designed to carry Mechanized Infantry into close contact with the enemy. It possesses sufficient cross-country mobility to keep up with the Abrams Main Battle Tank, medium and long-range firepower capable of defeating any vehicle on the battlefield, and is adequately armored to protect the crew from artillery and small arms threats. During World War II, the vehicle's namesake, General Omar Bradley, was known as the "GI General".

Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 2 days
#10 Posted on
So are you saying that you would report the the total truth even if it meant the lives of people you know and work with? Not saying that you are wrong, but I personally wouldnt want to have to make that decision. Id probably keep my mouth shut too. I mean what if my own life hung in the balance?

I would hope that a news agency would pull their correspondents and reporters out of Iraq (or whichever dictatorship) and out of harm's way before serving as a tool of a totalitarian government and compromising the agency's mission. And, a news organization could do a far better job both reporting the news objectively and helping the people within Iraq if they were not complicit with the Iraqi Information Ministry. The problem is that CNN either did not realize what they were doing quickly enough or that they cared more about access than about truth. Either way, it was a problem that they, and other news agencies, created for themselves.

EDIT: In response to your question, if I found myself in that situation (like if, heaven help CNN, I succeeded the news chief and learned about this), then I would probably keep my mouth shut as well. My point is that it never should have gotten to the point where I am faced with only two options: be a propaganda tool or be responsible for bloodshed. It's not like it was a huge suprise to find out the way Saddam ran his country.

(edited by Corajudo on 14.4.03 1540)
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
or that they cared more about access than about truth.

See also: reporting from Bush White House, problems with.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Michael Novotny, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, not racist, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, 20% Black, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Tom Daschle, Boston, a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage, and not a Hipster.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3777 days
Last activity: 2844 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00


    It's awfully convenient, isn't it? No proof whatsoever found that the WMD we yammered on and on about existed, so we're unable to justify our little invasion...


After the 1991 war, we had 6 thousand inspectors in Iraq that did not find one thing until people defected. As of the last few days, we have had some major captures/surrenders of scientists in Iraq. According to Tommy Franks, their list of places to search includes over THREE THOUSAND sites. We are covering 5-10 per day. This is going to take a while. PLus, WHEN we find the weapons, it's not like you will see it as justification for the war, so citing our lack of WMD finds so far as a reason that this war is unjustified is just a red herring.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3693 days
Last activity: 3163 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by Michrome


      It's awfully convenient, isn't it? No proof whatsoever found that the WMD we yammered on and on about existed, so we're unable to justify our little invasion...


    After the 1991 war, we had 6 thousand inspectors in Iraq that did not find one thing until people defected. As of the last few days, we have had some major captures/surrenders of scientists in Iraq. According to Tommy Franks, their list of places to search includes over THREE THOUSAND sites. We are covering 5-10 per day. This is going to take a while. PLus, WHEN we find the weapons, it's not like you will see it as justification for the war, so citing our lack of WMD finds so far as a reason that this war is unjustified is just a red herring.



Awfully refreshing, having you inform me of what I will and will not believe.

I've never, not once, claimed that Iraq doesn't have WMD. Hell, I know they do. We were their suppliers, remember? They're the ones who've been hinging this whole brouhaha on an arsenal they can't find. If you're going to trumpet something as a smoking gun, you really ought to have that gun in your possession.

The reason this war is unjustified is because it's not about the weapons we sold them, it's not about the human rights violations, it's not about freeing the Iraqi people or stopping terrorism or ANYTHING they've claimed it's about. It's about money, pure and simple. Money from the oil fields we're going to be occupying, money from the reconstruction we're going to be in charge of, money from whatever whacko we decide to install in Hussein's place after the heat dies down and the ADD generation finds something else to bitch about.

And fucking money is no reason to send anyone off to die, or to kill anyone else.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1374 days
Last activity: 282 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
Okay, so you've convinced me that journalists have to make some tough decisions, Grimmis. But I think a news organization can hardly be deemed untrustworthy because they held back on stories that may result in the deaths of their own employees.

Was it the right call? I leave that up to you. But journalists have to make calls every day about the information they get. If Fox News comes out with a similar story in a few weeks, will you not trust them any more?

Also, I totally agree with this statement from Nate:

It's awfully convenient, isn't it? No proof whatsoever found that the WMD we yammered on and on about existed, so we're unable to justify our little invasion...

Exactly. They've been trying out diferent motives for the past several months... Finally found one that fit! Disingenuous? Transparent? Oh, hell yeah!




-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport."
"Was he no-selling?"
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3777 days
Last activity: 2844 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Thank god we have a mind reader on this board that can cut through the B.S. and see exactly what this whole thing is about.

Do you really think we're going to suck out all of Iraq's oil, keep it for ourselves, and leave them with nothing? Iraq's only hope of being a thriving independent country is the sale of its oil, if we were to take it all at a bargain price, Iraq would never be able to thrive. The only true oil benefit from this is that Saudi Arabia won't have us by the short and curlies anymore. If they don't help us in the war on terror, we'll just buy from Iraq, and force them to help us.

Anyways, I don't even get your point. Easan Jordan held this out just incase we needed justification for the war? The New York Times, of all papers, is trying to justify the war? CNN is in cahoots with the administration? It's another vast right-wing conspiracy?

When we find the stuff, I can't wait to see the posts about how the CIA planted it.

(edited by Michrome on 14.4.03 2049)
asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1374 days
Last activity: 282 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95

Ummmm.. who have we already awarded the oil contract to? Haliburton. Does that name ring a bell?

(edited by asteroidboy on 14.4.03 2250)


-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport."
"Was he no-selling?"
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3693 days
Last activity: 3163 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on
    Originally posted by Michrome
    Thank god we have a mind reader on this board that can cut through the B.S. and see exactly what this whole thing is about.

    Do you really think we're going to suck out all of Iraq's oil, keep it for ourselves, and leave them with nothing? Iraq's only hope of being a thriving independent country is the sale of its oil, if we were to take it all at a bargain price, Iraq would never be able to thrive. The only true oil benefit from this is that Saudi Arabia won't have us by the short and curlies anymore. If they don't help us in the war on terror, we'll just buy from Iraq, and force them to help us.



You think we actually give two shits about Iraq as a "thriving independant country"? Wake up, man. We want Iraq to be a US protectorate, a favored trade partner, a foothold in a fucked-up area of the world. It's a strategic location. A thriving, independant Iraq is exactly what we don't want. Then they won't need us any more.

And no, this isn't some "vast right-wing conspiracy". It's just a rather flagrant example of spin-doctoring on a large scale. This shit's been common knowledge for decades. Anyone who pays even the smallest bit of attention knows exactly how nasty a customer Hussein was, that's the job description of a two-bit dictator. The point is, that shit's going to be a lot more visible now, because we need something that actually FITS, and we need it bad. Until we find weapons, we look like a bunch of idiots who went in guns a-blazing, screaming "We will save the world from the big kaboom weapons" and found... pesticide.

And finding it later won't change that. Perception is now. Headline on page one, retraction on page thirty. Discovering evidence after the fact only makes us look incompetant for not being able to find it when we needed it.

(edited by Nate The Snake on 14.4.03 2300)


Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1214 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    Okay, so you've convinced me that journalists have to make some tough decisions, Grimmis. But I think a news organization can hardly be deemed untrustworthy because they held back on stories that may result in the deaths of their own employees.

Granted, I'm not going to blame them for trying to keep their employees alive. However, had they removed their employees from harms way and had down the morally correct thing, then who knows what would've happened. Hell, Eason Jordan sounds like a man who is repetent because he's got blood on his hands from the Hussein regime.


    Originally posted by asteroidboy
    If Fox News comes out with a similar story in a few weeks, will you not trust them any more?

Yes





Bye bye you son of a bitch...

Crip
Mettwurst








Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3839 days
Last activity: 2613 days
#19 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by asteroidboy
      Okay, so you've convinced me that journalists have to make some tough decisions, Grimmis. But I think a news organization can hardly be deemed untrustworthy because they held back on stories that may result in the deaths of their own employees.

    Granted, I'm not going to blame them for trying to keep their employees alive. However, had they removed their employees from harms way and had down the morally correct thing, then who knows what would've happened. Hell, Eason Jordan sounds like a man who is repetent because he's got blood on his hands from the Hussein regime.


      Originally posted by asteroidboy
      If Fox News comes out with a similar story in a few weeks, will you not trust them any more?

    Yes



Can't be bothered to seperate the quote thread, I'll just reply in general.

First off, even if they HAD removed their own operatives, that wouldn't have stopped the regime taking out its vengeance on those Iraqi's (involved or not) that had the fortune or misfortune to cross the CNN teams path.

Secondly, lets suppose they did pull out and reveal this news, that Hussein is a butcher, then what? What excatly were we going to do about it? Invade/challenge/attack Iraq based on the fact that the regime was torturing individuals in the interests of "National Security"?



Stablewars.com - Fantasy Wrestling, It ain't no e-fed.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2775 days
Last activity: 2617 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
The idea is that journalists report truth. If you have to sacrifice truth for access, then you're not really reporting.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Professor/student relationships
Next thread: Smoking Guns -- smoke 'em if you got 'em
Previous thread: PETA BBQ
(2095 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I would suggest reading up on the border dispute too. The border between Labrador and Quebec wasn't really agreed upon untill around WWI (I forget the date right now). Technically speaking, Quebec still doesn't agree with it.
- Fuzzy Logic, So who wants to annex Canada? (2002)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Why I Don't Trust CNNRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.175 seconds.