Originally posted by PalpatineWThe idea is that journalists report truth. If you have to sacrifice truth for access, then you're not really reporting.
Personally, I can't rush to condemn someone for sacrificing reporting in the interest of saving lives. I guess someone in that position has to ask themselves if they're saving more lives in the long run if they blow the whistle. I don't blame them if they felt that they made the right call.
However, who would have had to know if they slipped as much info as possible to the government? I wonder if they offered any info once the eye of the White House was staring at Baghdad.
Did any other news agencies behave differently? Or is CNN just the only folks to own up to it?
No and yes, respectively. "Selective reporting" in exchange for access is simply a given fact of being a journalist, regardless of your ideological bent. Everybody does it, simply on the basis that if the persons forcing you to be "selective" eventually fall from power, you can say that once they're down (as Jordan did in his mea culpa). Any journalist who says they don't is full of shit - this is the sort of thing that gets debated briefly in third-year journalism ethics classes. Heck, the current US administration is notorious for freezing out reporters they feel to be antagonistic to them, which has resulted in a press corps that's largely a bunch of tame lapdogs.
They're insecure over how Americanized our televison viewing is, and so in response made up a bunch of Orwellian laws designed to regulate how much foreign (read; American) shows we watch. Silly, yes. Practical, no.