CNN - you soulless douchecocks

What a prick.

Damn. How some journalists look at themselves in the mirror escapes me. Geraldo being a fucking idiot in Afghanistan and in Iraq is one thing, but this level of intentionally withholding human rights violations is unreal.

Evil is pervasive enough in the world, that it would be kept under an institutional carpet like this is just stunning after all the atrocities that’ve been commited in the world.

I don’t think there’s anything anyone can do, but if anyone deserves to get stripped naked, slathered with bbq sauce and tied in a bag with rabid, crazed, starved wolverines - it’s the bastards responsible for this.

Hmmmmm, I wonder what Fox News knows.

:eek:

My jaw literally dropped when I read this. There are no words to express how horrified I am.

There are two sides to every story. Eason Jordan’s (the chief news executive at CNN) statement about the decisions not to broadcast some of the gathered information in Iraq can be read here. The following is an excerpt from his statement to the New York Times.

Sivaspacem, it is always wise to reserve judgement when an inflamatory pseudo-journalist such as Joe Scarborough attacks anyone, especially when MSfuckingNBC has a vested interest in the defamation of one of their chief competitors.

Besides, you can’t have it both ways. Geraldo was wrong because he did not withold information that would endanger others if aired. Now Mr Jordan was wrong because he did?

Did you not read the whole report?

If it was that dangerous, then why not pull out?

Why not warn the men privately?

Holy fucking shit.

erm, he did warn them. (or at least he warned the man who was giving them asylum). Did YOU read Mr. Jordan’s statement. Hell, I even quoted the part about the warning.

Honestly, what good would the removal of CNN’s entire Baghdad bureau have accomplished? This isn’t a “if a tree falls in the forest” type of thing. Human rights violations would have continued. CNN chose to remain, gather information, air what it could, and quietly warn those who may be affected by what it couldn’t air. To act otherwise would be straying into Geraldo territory*. These things are always tough calls, but life’s a bitch. This way they could at least do some good.

And december… I mean Guin, calling an op-ed piece a “report” is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
*If this mound of sand represents mount Ararat and these two sticks represent the Tigris and Euphrates, Geraldo territory can be found right about here :: points ::.

this post has been Graped by the Grapist!

Ooops-you’re right, it was an opinion piece-I didn’t look too closely. Sorry 'bout that.

That being said, I still think it’s pretty damn disgusting.

Fair enough, but I want to ask you a question. What should a news organization do if put in that situation? If they air it, there will be recriminations against those they got the information from (interpreters, underlings, small government officials, etc) and the despot will likely cut off more of the already limited access he gives to the press. The news organization then won’t be able to find out anything that could help anyone, much less be able to quietly warn people targeted for assasination.

So, to anyone who would criticize CNN over this, please answer the ethical dilemna. What should they have done?

They should have pulled out of their, and privately warned people, I guess.

But by pulling out, they would give Saddam an even greater ability to hide his crimes and would not be able to gather information that could be used against him. If we ever catch Hussein alive, don’t be suprised if his prosecutors call CNN employees to the stand.

Geraldo tearfully receited the Lord’s Prayer, on the air, over the “hallowed ground” where US troops had fallen - when he was actually hundreds of miles away. Bringing him into this discussion would be horseshit, let’s not go there.

As to what CNN should have done - made like a tree and gotten the fuck out of there. If you can’t report the truth, you shouldn’t be pretending too - that’s immoral. Because by keeping the whole bureau there you’re giving the regime legitmacy and a veneer or truth.

Sending reporters in, like most news agencies did, is one thing. But keeping a whole bureau open and knowingly masking tortue in the process is utterly inexcusable.

The case where they didn’t inform Saddam’s son-in-laws when they had defected seems pretty frickin’ inexcusable, but maybe they’re leaving out details which would explain that situation.

I am happy I am getting the Real Deal.

More of “The Real Deal” by Jack Scarborough:

I’m not sure, but I think I may be detecting a small slant in his perspective…chuckle.
sivispacem, you bring up a good point about the possibility that leaving the bureau in Baghdad would give the regime an air of legitimacy. Weighing that against the loss of access is a tough one, and it is a question of access. The bureau allows them that increased access, nut it comes at a price. The regime only gives that access to the news organization to get the air of legitimacy. However, the duty of the press to observe is paramount. If put in a similar situation and the press pulls its infrastructure out, sources will be lost and we may never know what evils occured.

Knowing what was happening inside the regime as it was occuring didn’t seem to matter much of a lick to the world at large, we’d known that there were massive human rights violations for a long time, but stood by. The memories of the people who were tortured, and their familes, aren’t going anywhere - as we’re now learning.

Reagrdless of anyone’s feelings about the OP (and I know this has been done to death), Soulless Douchecocks makes for a pretty damn good band name.

We’ve already done this one in GD. I sided with CNN on page 2.