Oh please!
You people know nothing about the news business. You think CNN broadcasts from every country in the world and is able to disclose details that would make a government look bad? Even White House correspondents that disagree and paint a less than favorable picture are "shut out" by an annoyed president.

It is popular to condemn CNN for telling the news a certain way, especially by conservatives. To accuse them of being "corrupt" and all the other ludicrous accusations is off the scale.

Prove it. Go on. Simply "reading between the lines" is not enough. Thats pathetic.

CNN is not a government organization. Therefore the First Amendment protects them, it does not apply TO them. Whatever their operating principle is they are entitled too it.

Their responsibility is to report the news as best they can without jeopardising their field journalists.

So you do not like CNN? Don't watch. Its that simple.

Why will CNN not be participating in "Towards Freedom" [this is not propaganda?] is because they firstly have the right not to, and secondly they have journalists in every Arab country and Muslim country in the world. ABC and so on do not. Joining in with a US government tv program declares they support US foreign policy and would cause serious problems for them.

How serious? A racing team a few weeks back innocently placed a "Malaysia freedom" sticker on their car for a sponsor. They received death threats from an Islamic fundamentalist group and require protection now.

So please, a little less "Iraqi liberation syndrome indignation".

You can't have it both ways.

David makes some points however he forgets that CNN has claimed that its reports are not slanted by the places where they report.

If they are willing to drop that claim , or if they had never made it then his arguement would be forceful.

Absent such a statement it sound like my kids making excuses for not doing homework

"Don't watch it. It's that simple."
Exactly.
But, of course, CNN will complain of boycotts, of First Amendment issues.
In fact, Mr. Jordan said that CNN cannot be trusted when broadcasting from a tyranny.
So, as the man said, don't watch it.
The disturbing thing is that the dynamics faced by CNN in Baghdad must apply in every detail (except possibly for the choice of employees--who else would hire Peter Arnett?) and so no network with access to a tyranny can be trusted to report on it.

A racing team a few weeks back innocently placed a "Malaysia freedom" sticker on their car for a sponsor. They received death threats from an Islamic fundamentalist group and require protection now.

Not quite. I take it you're referring to the Minardi F1 team, which is partly sponsored by the Malaysian government. At the Malaysian GP in March, they pasted "Malaysia for Peace" on the sidepods of their cars, and recieved death threats as a result.

As I wrote on my weblog, I don't condone death threats - and I certainly don't condone accepting sponsorship from the rabidly anti-Semitic government of Malaysia. (This country banned 'Schindler's List,' for crying out loud.)

I keep waiting for James Earl Jones to demand that his voice no longer be used with CNN, offering up a "CNN sucks" soundbite instead on the Internet.

David,

Why do you believe?

"Their responsibility is to report the news as best they can without jeopardising (sic) their field journalists."

Most news agencies would modify your statement to read;

"Their responsibility is to report the news as best they can"

Do "conservatives” claim that CNN has a “liberal” bias? Maybe, personally I think a lot of American are just tired of reporters personal bias being reported as “news.”

I also think that a lot of Americans –maybe the 70+% that supported the war- are simply tired of being told that the U.S. is always wrong.

The fact that all these “wrong” people live in the wealthiest, most productive, greatest, most free, country in the world probably has something to do with that frustration. In my humble opinion I think that’s why a large number of Americans have started watching Fox, people on Fox NEVER apologize to the world for being Americans!

Finally, if your motivations are mainly because you just hate the current president, I can sympathize; I hated the last one. If, in fact that’s the case here, I can share with you the same knowledge that sustained me for eight years.

The United States is truly a great country, great enough to endure any president for eight years. Hang in there.

"So you do not like CNN? Don't watch. Its that simple."

Point 1. On a cruise ship recently the ONLY news channel I could watch was CNN International (which makes the CNN USA look like Fox).

Point 2. In many foreign countries the ONLY English language television channel is CNN International.

"So you don't like CNN? Try finding another channel, you sucker. It's that simple."

I don't see the CNN mess as a left-right thing at all. The problem with CNN is its ethics, not its bias. CNN would have kissed the Soviets' ass (or the Nazis', for that matter) for access.

Fox is no better. So what if it's open about its biases. It's still too cheesy to watch.

So you do not like CNN? Don't watch. Its that simple.

We're not allowed to criticize an influential news channel? But people have been voting with their feet... err, eyeballs. CNN viewership is down.

I am truly appalled by David K's comments. He says, regarding CNN's complicity with Saddam's propaganda:

"Prove it. Go on. Simply 'reading between the lines' is not enough. Thats pathetic."

David, didn't you read Eason Jordan's piece in which he *admitted* hiding the Iraqi regime's brutality just so CNN could have some "presence"? Or have you read it and decided that shilling for a murderous dictator is equivalent to asking polite questions at White House press briefings so you are not "shut out" by an "annoyed President"? You know as well as I do that the White House is not going to prevent CNN from attending a press conference. At worst, they'll not pick on the CNN reporter if they feel he's been "annoying". But, since you pretend to know something about journalism, then surely you don't equate journalism with "having the opportunity to ask Ari Fleischer annoying questions." Has journalism fallen so far that it is capable only of lapping at the heels of official government pronouncements? Has it lost all ability to independently research and report on the facts? I hope not.

That is why David's moral equivalence just stuns me. I am amazed that we are able to maintain a free and open society at all when there are so many people - like David - who are more concerned with scoring cheap political points against a sitting president than they are with recognizing basic issues of right and wrong. Jordan *admitted* it, David. We don't need to read between the lines.

And, to ice the cake, he writes that the US government's plan to broadcast UNEDITED video feeds from INDEPENDENT networks is "propaganda" - again reflecting either a gross moral equivalence or a willful inability to distinguish the instruments of open, liberal society from those of a murderous tyranny. No, David, the very act of requesting UNEDITED feeds from INDEPENDENT networks shows that the US feels it has nothing to fear from the truth. This is an example of the very best liberal tradition of open governance. But, for David and his defenders here, it is indistinguishable from the rantings of the Iraqi information minister. That, my friends, is a much better example of "pathetic."

By the way, anyone interested in looking into this topic more deeply should visit the group blog http://WindsofChange.net. They've covered the topic in considerable detail. Also, Hobb's online (http://www.hobbsonline.blogspot.com/2003_04_01_hobbsonline_archive.html#92421583) has a good piece as well).

David, are you a CNN employee or own stock in AOLTimeWarner?

Because you "argument" doesn't make any sense at all.

Let's see;

You people know nothing about the news business. You think CNN broadcasts from every country in the world and is able to disclose details that would make a government look bad? Even White House correspondents that disagree and paint a less than favorable picture are "shut out" by an annoyed president.

Are you actually comparing "shutting out" a reporter with torturing employees of the news organization(see Jordan's admission
)? Or trying to kill the news org's employees(again see Jordan's admission of how they tried to bomb them)?

Thing is, in the US, CNN could say whatever they want about the government. They do, and their reporter could sit outside of the White House and ask the president anything, and questing everything. Could they do that in Iraq?

But that's not the issue. The issue is, CNN compromised itself in order to gain access. Simple as that, if you need me to quote Mr. Jordan, please let me know. And if they really cared about their employees, they would have just pulled out. But hey, it's all about money, and that "Baghdad office" is more important than anything.

It is a known fact now that CNN was merely mouthing Iraqi propaganda. There's another article of a reporter basically reading point by point from notes of the then information minister. Also, news orgs in Iraq were expected to file propaganda reports and not quoestion them.

Now the US govt asks CNN if they could help out by broadcasting some of their content. The US hasn't said they want to censor CNN, just use some of their programming. And what does CNN say? They don't want to be compromised.

I used to like CNN, and still watch it, but it's credibility for me has now dropped well below zero.

Well, there we go, maybe if Dubya threatened to kill some CNN staffers and their families they'd toe the line and go along on this one.

David,

I sometimes watch the White House daily briefings and Ari still calls on that blithering idiot Helen Thomas every time, still responds patiently to her stupidly aggressive questions, and still treats her with the cordiality that she refuses to show Ari or the President.

Your arguments won't wash.

>>David makes some points however he forgets that CNN has claimed that its reports are not slanted by the places where they report.>>

Perhaps they need to define what slanted means. Is it within the context that reporting from a place such as Algeria will not be as uncontrolled as England?

>

It is not such an issue. If people switch off they will investigate why when rating drop. Remember also that CNN's biggest audience is not in the United States but around the world. Again, while CNN must apply its own reporting philosophy, the rest of the world may not see things the same way as many in the United States. Even here, on this board there is disagreement: I consider civilians as being part and parcel of a war and others do not.

>>I certainly don't condone accepting sponsorship from the rabidly anti-Semitic government of Malaysia.>>

Any form of ethnic grading is a barnyard mentality belonging to tribal savages. This includes doing things according to racial groups such as we have here in the United States. Minardi clearly have no such ethical issues - and for that matter neither does the US government. The Bush White House is a great friend of Suadi Arabia. And lest we forget, Saudi Arabia funds terrorism and hands out free copies of the "Protocols ....." to official visitors.

>>David, didn't you read Eason Jordan's piece in which he *admitted* hiding the Iraqi regime's brutality just so CNN could have some "presence"?>>

It may be that CNN's operating philosophy stinks. But then what is the alternative to Iraq? Not being there? Risking being assassinated? That is no alternative. They have to weigh up their responsibilities to their stockholders.

>

Asking Ari Fleischer anything is waste of time. This goes for all in his position. The WH journalists obtain their news around IN the WH. Being "shut out" refers to not having that access.

>>That is why David's moral equivalence just stuns me.>>

What moral equivalence?

>>I am amazed that we are able to maintain a free and open society at all when there are so many people - like David - who are more concerned with scoring cheap political points against a sitting president than they are with recognizing basic issues of right and wrong. Jordan *admitted* it, David. We don't need to read between the lines.>>

First of all I do not "score cheap political points" because I have nothing to gain from it. But if you think I do, thats okay with me. I do think that Jordan did what was best for CNN, and he was therefore doing his fiduciary duty. I can see nothing wrong with his actions because he would be risking his own life and CNN's access for doing otherwise. I can see no point in "telling everything" and then being refused entry to the country.

Let us hear you condemn the close relationship between the Bush WH and Saudi Arabia, inviting a despot such as their King to the Ranch. Do you realize that Israel is criticized and admonished while the Bush WH and the US State Department never utter a word accusing Saudi Arabia of anything. THAT is a disgrace. But I guess Israel is only an ally and has no oil.

>>No, David, the very act of requesting UNEDITED feeds from INDEPENDENT networks shows that the US feels it has nothing to fear from the truth. This is an example of the very best liberal tradition of open governance. But, for David and his defenders here, it is indistinguishable from the rantings of the Iraqi information minister. That, my friends, is a much better example of "pathetic.">>

You overlooked my point. CNN would not want to be included in an official US govt program because it is not in its rational self-interest. The United States is not the most popular country in the world today. Unlike the government, it cannot risk altruistic causes. It is a business with interests in every country in the world. They did waht was best for them. That is correct thing to do.

>>David, are you a CNN employee or own stock in AOLTimeWarner?>>

LOL!! No. I am a poor auto-mechanic.

>>It is a known fact now that CNN was merely mouthing Iraqi propaganda. There's another article of a reporter basically reading point by point from notes of the then information minister. Also, news orgs in Iraq were expected to file propaganda reports and not quoestion them.>>

If propaganda is the issue. Was not CNN then simply "mouthing propaganda" when it reported constantly the accusations made on secret evidence still not seen that Iraq was a major threat because of Weapons Of Mass Destruction? Did we not just launch a war based on the word of a President because I have not seen the evidence. Then suddenly it became a "war of Iraqi Liberation". THAT is propaganda too. See how easy it is to condemn the messenger?

>>I sometimes watch the White House daily briefings and Ari still calls on that blithering idiot Helen Thomas every time, still responds patiently to her stupidly aggressive questions, and still treats her with the cordiality that she refuses to show Ari or the President.

It is called public relations. Being nice to Helen Thomas scores points with her friends which are no doubt many amongst the WH reporters. Do you recall the Clinton WH Stephanopoulos debacle when he alienated and literally locked WH reporters out! It does not pay and he lost his job.

Poor ol'Dave's getting treated like a red headed bastard at a family reunion!!

I will say that if Dave believes:

"It may be that CNN's operating philosophy stinks. But then what is the alternative to Iraq? Not being there? Risking being assassinated? That is no alternative. They have to weigh up their responsibilities to their stockholders."

Then there is no moral basis by which to have a dialogue. THAT'S the "moral equivalence" your were asking about Dave.

Most major news outlets understands that you can't equivocate on the truth vs. access because you forever after taint your reputation for honesty.

So the answer to your question is yes, they should have left rather than allow themselves to be as compromised as Peter Arnett.

I find it interesting that the press is scrambling to avoid the whole issue and the Blogs of the world are not letting it die.

David;

It is called public relations. Being nice to Helen Thomas scores points with her friends which are no doubt many amongst the WH reporters.

That might be so, but this is probably more likely that (from slate.com) :

While Bush dislikes Thomas, he and his news managers are still savvy enough to recognize her usefulness to the administration. When Fleischer changed the seating chart in the briefing room last year, he could have exiled Thomas to the back row. Instead, he kept her down front, where he uses her as his foil, addressing her liberally by first name so other White House officials reading the transcript can chuckle to themselves—We're safe! It's another question from that wacky Helen Thomas. When Fleischer calls on her, he hopes she'll heckle him and savage Bush with her eccentric, combative, accusatory, and unreasonably phrased questions—because they're so easily evaded. "We will temporarily suspend the Q & A portion of today's briefing to bring you this advocacy minute," Fleischer responded to a line of Thomas questioning at the Feb. 26 press briefing. The moment of comic relief lifts Fleischer and soils Thomas.
...
She ends up taking the air out of the room for intelligent criticism of the president and helps make the press corps look like a Saturday Night Live skit. You can almost hear Fleischer squealing behind closed doors after the briefings: Thank God for Helen Thomas!

Now, on the subject of Helen Thomas, you avoided the main point however. You tried to show some moral equivalency between snubbing a reporter by the White House to;

David (1st post)

You think CNN broadcasts from every country in the world and is able to disclose details that would make a government look bad?

The reality is that there is no equivalence in these cases. In Iraq, you'd be tortured or just quicked out of the country.

Please answer this is it even reasonable to compare snubbing a reporter at a press briefing to KILLING, TORTURING or CHARGING MONEY so that said reporter can report the facts? Please answer that.

More to come ...

Dave (so much BS to respond to, so little time ...)

You wrote;

It may be that CNN's operating philosophy stinks. But then what is the alternative to Iraq? Not being there? Risking being assassinated? That is no alternative. They have to weigh up their responsibilities to their stockholders.

The alternative is indeed to not being there. As suggested by The New Republic;

TNR : Air War (page 2)

There are alternatives to mindlessly reciting Baghdad's spin. Instead of desperately trying to keep their Baghdad offices open, the networks could scour Kurdistan and Jordan, where there are many recently arrived Iraqis who can talk freely. "Amman is the place to find out what's really going on in Iraq," says ex-CIA officer Robert Baer, who spent the mid-'90s working in and around Iraq. (To CNN's credit, it has sent reporter Brent Sadler to Kurdistan despite Baghdad's furious objections.) Or they could use their access to depict the harsh realities of life under Saddam--even if it means never returning to Iraq. It's a method used by Soler in his documentary Uncle Saddam, to be aired on Cinemax next month. After spending a month ingratiating himself with Saddam's entourage, Soler convinced the Iraqis to grant him camera time with His Excellency's inner circle. His film shows Saddam to be a lunatic, devoid of morality or humanity. It captures images of Saddam's unique style of fishing-hurling grenades into a pond and then sending aides to retrieve the kill. It documents Saddam's megalomania: Iraq's biggest paper features Saddam in a new pose on the cover each day. "I don't need a relationship with Iraq," he explains of his decision to bare all. "It was my one shot. Every day it was how can I push the limits."

From Jordan's article, he said every CNN employee was tought of as a spy, and that his CNN Iraqi employees were in danger. So the solution was not to compromise your credibility by allowing Saddam to be the editor of the news, but to just not have a precense in Baghdad. Is it really worth it, to mouth propaganda to gain access.

Apparently, for Jordan it was (same 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."

Now as to your concerns for the stockholders, that's really nice. I'm not a stockholder but a consumer of news, and I want the truth, not this crap. The stockholders might have temporarely benefit from the lie, just like Enron's did, but now that they can potentially be hurt by this, just like Enron's certainly did.

Is Eason Jordan do his Fiduciary duty when he turns CNN into a moral joke? Nobody will take CNN seriously unless they want to be led. Maybe they are just positioning themselves to be the left lemming leader of the 21st century?

Personally I think CNN did the Iraqis and other Arabs a favor when taking themselves off the list. Now they wont have to watch a network that lies for access.

>>Please answer this is it even reasonable to compare snubbing a reporter at a press briefing to KILLING, TORTURING or CHARGING MONEY so that said reporter can report the facts? Please answer that.>>

I do not understand the question.

a reporter who is "shut out" from the WH for upsetting the President can be damaged professionally because they suddenly do not have access to the assistants of well placed people. No more "leaking" information. And as we all know, the White House is as leaky as a sieve to those it favors.

The head of a news organization must weigh up what to do when the options either way are not ideal.

I think the WH is doing what always happens and it forces reporters to tow the line. How many WH reporters dared question Bush's motives on the war when it suddenly switched from self-defense to Iraqi liberation? None.

Did Jordan do the right thing? Rationally I say yes and I have explained why.

What is noticeable here on this board is the defense and protection of the Bush Admministration. THAT is frightening. AND it does not mean I am a Dem either.

I do not understand the question.

a reporter who is "shut out" from the WH for upsetting the President can be damaged professionally because they suddenly do not have access to the assistants of well placed people. No more "leaking" information. And as we all know, the White House is as leaky as a sieve to those it favors.

I'm sorry but the question is very simple. Is it morally the same to shut out a reporter vs what Iraqi would do with them?

If you can't answer the question, let me know and I'll stop this conversation because we are living in the same plane of reality.

The head of a news organization must weigh up what to do when the options either way are not ideal.

I think the "benefits" of what they were reporting from Baghdad did was not worth risking people's lives and compromising your credibility.

I think the WH is doing what always happens and it forces reporters to tow the line. How many WH reporters dared question Bush's motives on the war when it suddenly switched from self-defense to Iraqi liberation? None.

That's absurd, because the press was always questioning why the war was taking so long, why it was really necessary, etc. etc. Have you ever bothered to watch one of these?

AGain, from the article which I linked, to which you don't seem to have bothered reading;

Thomas to Fleischer: Will you state for the record, for the historical record, why [Bush] wants to bomb Iraqi people? —March 5, 2003

Thomas to Fleischer: [W]hy is [Bush] going to bomb them? I mean, how do you bomb people back to democracy? This is a question of conquest. They didn't ask to be "liberated" by the United States. This is our self-imposed political solution for them.
—Feb. 26, 2003

Thomas: At an earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the president deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world?
Fleischer: Well, Helen—
Thomas: And I have a follow-up.
Fleischer: —I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack in Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the president, as he said in a statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.
Thomas: My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?
—Jan. 6, 2003

This is "towing the line"???

What is noticeable here on this board is the defense and protection of the Bush Admministration. THAT is frightening. AND it does not mean I am a Dem either.

What does anything have to do with you being a "Dem" or not.

Nobody here is "defending and protecting the Bush administration", we're criticizing CNN!!! Wow, what a concept. Or is CNN sacred? Please stick to the arguments.

More "towing the line", this time from CENTCOM briefings;

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/Transcripts/20030324.htm

Q My name's Niebao (sp). I'm from the Xinhua News Agency of China. From the reports of CNN, BBC, people know the Iraqi people are more united than before. For example, the farmers shot down two helicopters. Meanwhile, the Iraqi forces are more strong than expected, because the number of casualties of British and American troops is on rise. Do you think the days ahead will be more tough or more -- mean more casualties for America and Britain?

Q Sir, a few days ago General Franks stood here and said this was a platform for truth, not propaganda. To that end, when will you show us pictures of what happens when precision bombs don't go where they are supposed to, when they fail to hit their designated targets, or if they fail to go off at all? And will you also provide us with a running audit of the effectiveness of these weapons? That is, the number that succeed, the numbers that miss, and the ones that don't go off. And, if you don't doesn't that expose you to the charge that this is more propaganda than truth?

Q -- the troops have abandoned their weapons, the soldiers have gone home. You showed us a picture of troops in the desert -- it wasn't a great picture as far as I was concerned -- I couldn't see much about it. This is a very important propaganda issue -- if Iraqi forces hear through a whole variety of means that the units are just simply melting away.

Q That would be information that would be very useful for you to have imparted by the world's media. What further information, what further evidence can you give us that leads us to accept that probably tens of thousands or many thousand Iraqi troops are simply melting away or going home?

"CNN is not a government organization. Therefore the First Amendment protects them, it does not apply TO them. Whatever their operating principle is they are entitled too it."

In case you've forgotten, Stefan isn't a government organization, either, so the First Amendment protects him, too. CNN's First Amendment right to make a corporate ass of itself does not supersede Stefan's First Amendment right to criticize them for doing so.

>>Is it morally the same to shut out a reporter vs what Iraqi would do with them?>>

Is it moral to shut a reporter out? No. Why? Because doing so may destroy his career.

Is it moral to abide by the threats of a stratocracy and report than not and risking one's life, yes.

>>In case you've forgotten, Stefan isn't a government organization,>>

I was comparing CNN to the government. Nothing to do with Stefan.