Right. Go back and read the thread, with particular emphasis on how CNN lied about the quality of their information. They knew but pretended like they had to rely on defectors.
Personally, I don’t care how hard it is to kiss whatever dictator’s ass you have to kiss to get a bureau in his little hell hole.
If CNN likes defector stories so much, why didn’t they just pull out and rely on them? Instead, they covered up personal knowledge to keep the butchers happy.
Yeah, I seem to remember responding to all of those arguments. So what’s your point? That you continue to disagree with me?
Really? Your memory sucks.
Now, let’s get down to the nitty gritty, since you’ve been nice enough to fall into my little logical trap.
The OP starts out critical of the White House for unspecified intimidation of the media. It proceeds into spewing vitriol at GWB for the unspecified intimidation. Then, calls Fox News “Pravda” for some spokeswoman making an offhanded comment.
Meanwhile, over at CNN some years ago in Baghdad…
A high ranking official in Iraq – hell, one of the highest – told CNN he was planning on killing someone.
CNN… crickets
Back to what you were saying?
Is it just me, or has Beagle gone totally off the deep end?
Just you.
By the way, do you remember what happened when “A high ranking official in Iraq – hell, one of the highest – told CNN he was planning on killing someone”? What happened was that the CNN reporter went directly to the King of Jordan and warned him that Uday was planning to assassinate his two brothers-in-law, who had defected to Jordan.
Wow, taking a threat of violence to the authorities. What a fucking asshole, huh?
This is factually incorrect. Amanpour is totally smokin’.
Coming from you, Brutus, I take that as the highest possible compliment.
Indeed. The correct thing would have been for CNN to ask the hard questions and report the facts they had learned. If this meant their sources faced reprisal, then so be it. The people have a right to know. Attempt to limit the reprisal as much as possible, but get the info out. Bunch of fucking cowards.
Of course they would have lost their White House press passes, or been relegated to “the third row”, their raised hands ignored, and been refused interviews with pretty much everyone in the Administration, but those fucking dictator’s hell holes aren’t worth being in anyway.
Enjoy,
Steven
I don’t think CNN was intimidated by the WH as it was by dat ol’ debbil, money. Like any number of spineless Democrats who stampeded in panic for fear of being seen as unpatriotic, CNN didn’t dare cop an attitude, especially since Faux already has a headlock on the jingo crowd.
Nonetheless, watching Faux News step on it’s dick by rushing to scream “Smoking gun!” everytime somebody found a buried can of Raid…now that was a hoot!
Preferably muzzled, right? Works for me! 
I’d rather hear about Saddam’s atrocities only intermittently than have someone killed to get me that information, but this whining about Bush “intimidating” the news media is crap. Does anybody really think the White House would ever revoke CNN’s credentials, or would refuse to put people on CNN for interviews, or would refuse to respond to their questions? If criticizing Bush were grounds for revocation of press passes, then why is Helen Thomas still there? Surely CNN is no less a player in the news market than Helen Thomas. Fact is that the White House needs CNN as much as CNN needs the White House.
Unfortunately, Christiana Amanpour is resorting to the Dennis Rodman school of self-promotion: say something outrageous to keep your name in the news. And she’s not even good looking.
Actually revoking press passes is pretty rare, and I don’t think they’d do that to Helen Thomas. Here is what they did do
Well, we’ve got evidence that they’ve done at least one of those things. And that is just what I had handy. Maybe some of our more journalistically-inclined dopers has more info. The thread Billdo mentioned was very interesting. Jonathan Chance was once a member of the Press Corps and gave some very insightful input.
Enjoy,
Steven
Respectfully, if that’s what was scaring the beejeezus out of CNN – that they didn’t take a question from Helen Thomas on one occasion, and didn’t take a question from Mike Allen on (gasp!) two consecutive occasions – then it looks to me like CNN has responded to a pretty small threat by falling over and crying for their mommies.
I just remembered that this post is in the Pit. Given our location, and the tenor of the rest of the discussion, should I have replaced “Respectfully” with “Fuck”? I hope I haven’t broken a rule here.
Here’s another.
CNN “took it to the King of Jordan?” That’s some mighty fine spur of the moment half-assed diplomacy by CNN to keep their bureau in Baghdad.
Silly me, I thought something like that would be newsworthy. I did see a wonderful CNN report on Saddam’s birthday from their bureau in Baghdad. That makes all the lying about murder worthwhile to me.
Correct me if I’m wrong minty, but I believe the subjects in question were murdered? Maybe it was tortured and murdered? Anyway, good try CNN.
Can I ask for clarification here:
are people suggesting the ‘not reporting’ of known atrocities (by CNN) is in some way a justification of, or a sign of their support for, the same atrocities?
Is that the position being supported here? Just so I know.
Funny you mention that. There is one paragraph in the link I just posted I SO wish I’d written.
I did, OTOH, say this in that GD thread (sarcasm removed for clarity)…
The journalist agrees with me, by the way.
Once again, my sarcasm may obscure the underlying point… I really have improved on that since then. :smack:
That goes right to the fundamental nature of the regime. They, themselves, were under constant threat.