What a joke. Putting that murderous thug of a dictator (NOT a President) on the air and calling it journalism.
Since when did CBS start doing propaganda work for Saddam?
Perhaps you meant to post this in MPSIMS, or perhaps the Pit?
What does your subject line have to do with your OP? Are you suggesting that if Dan Rather retired, no other major US news outlet would have broadcast an interview with Saddam?
And how long have you been against free speech and free press?
Yah.
So, is it the fact that he interviewed a “murderous thug” that offends you, or the fact that he’s a “murderous thug” who is a dictator? You think there should be a moratorium on interviewing murderous thugs in general, or on interviewing dictators, or on interviewing murderous thugs who are dictators? How do you feel about his interview with Fidel Castro? Should he have been called on to retire then, too?
Are we debating whether Dan Rather should retire? One vote here for “no”, since he isn’t a drooling senile dodderer yet, and I figure, “As long as the harness still fits, let the Old Hoss keep workin’…”
Way’ull, that OP is wetter’n a rooster that got caught in a downpour without his umbreller.
hmmm
Good point…
Maybe I should revive my “Media is too gullible thread”.
:eek: :smack:
He interviewed Saddam Hussein back in 1990, too, and he has also interviewed such problematic folks as Yasir Arafat and Haiti’s Raoul Cedras. Is that a problem for you, too? Were the media “gullible” in featuring those interviews? Do you think we should just never hear the point of view of the Bad Guys, that the media should decide for us who the Bad Guys are and should simply never allow their voices to be heard? Does that sound fair to you? Doesn’t sound fair to me. Aren’t you curious what they might have to say?
Huge question, GOM: Did you personally watch the Dan Rather interview? Or are you just responding to the fact that the interview happened at all, rather than to any particular content? If you didn’t watch it, how do you know it constituted “propaganda work”?
Here’s a transcript of the interview. Please show me which part amounts to “propaganda work” for Saddam Hussein. In what way was Dan Rather “gullible” for doing the interview, and in what way was CBS “gullible” for broadcasting it?
Part 1.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542151.shtml
Part 2.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542152.shtml
Part 3.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542155.shtml
Both. Most dictators are thugs. Don’t give them any free positive publicity. Any of them. Let them die of old age or let their citizens replace them, whichever comes first.
Then the interview questions were a joke.
Plus putting any murderer on the air offends me. What a thrill for Saddam to be on a formerly respected American news network. Nice PR work to show Muslims all around the world. Not much difference, imo, from putting Charles Manson on the air. Except Manson wasn’t able to kill nearly as many people…
Besides, if Rather retired, who’s crazy down-home sayings would I listen to at midnight while watching election returns every two years?
Do you watch Cops, or America’s Most Wanted ? Lots of people enjoy seeing murderers on the air. Why should CBS restrict its coverage to stuff that you find tasteful ?
Yeah. You’re right. Keep him around for the humo(u)r…
GOM, how do you know that Saddam is a murderous thug?
The media, by chance (or have you met him personally)?
If so, how would you know that he is not a murderous thug?
And for how long have you been willing to accede those judgements to members of the media, instead of drawing your own conclusions?
Or was your last post an acknowlegement that you no longer support your OP?
Well, I guess I don’t see a debate here, then. You are convinced that dictators and murderous thugs should never be allowed to speak in public, or otherwise be interviewed, and I am equally convinced that they should be allowed to speak freely so that all the world may see for themselves that they are, in fact, murderous thugs and dictators.
Yes, exactly. Precisely why interviews with people like Saddam Hussein should be broadcast as widely as possible, so people can see for themselves, for one thing, so they can hear him waffle for themselves. From Page 1:
**“Missiles? What missiles?” In my opinion the interview just paid for its own ticket right there.
And how much is it worth to have the Iraqi people hear him say something like this:
**If I were Iraqi, living in Baghdad under Saddam Hussein, I’d be going like this " :rolleyes: " so hard my eyes would be falling out of their sockets. Yes, Saddam the Great Humanitarian.
Bottom line: This was news, and so the media did their job in reporting it. I was very interested to hear what Saddam Hussein had to say and, in truth, feel that it is my duty as an adult to attempt to stay informed and to expose myself to as many points of view as I can. If I am only listening to one voice, I am giving way too much power away.
As an interesting side note, I found listening to the way that Saddam Hussein would avoid answering questions and answer them in vague sound bytes very interesting. In a lot of ways, it was similar to listening to our own politicians dodge issues. As a result of this interview, I found Hussein to be somewhat humanized. I suspect that this is what a lot of people object to.
Thanks. Pretty rough transcripts, especially page 3.
I think it would be much easier to point out which parts of the interview are not propaganda. I’ll see if I can find any…
GOM, do you honestly think that Brit Hume would not have trampled his own grandmother to get an exclusive with Hussein? Interviewing a dictator is not the same as endorsing a dictator> have you ever heard the saying “sunlight is the best disinfectant?” Were you covinced by hussein’s aruments? Did you change your mind about him? Do you think he’s a good guy now? Well if saddams’ interview did not convince you, then why do you think it would convince anybody else? People are smart enough to see him for what he is and make up their own minds.
Members of the media nowdays unfortunately sometimes attempt to make the news instead of reporting the news. You have to be able to unspin the “news” to get just the facts.
If you haven’t been watching Saddam’s track record, including what happened to his own son-in-law, then maybe you could somehow be willing to reject my conclusion that he is a thug. However, since you’re a cowboy, I think you will look at the facts and agree with me.
Here’s a quote, not from the transcript, and not from a media guy…
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
So Dan goes on the air and calls this guy “Mr. President”!
That’s repulsive.
I disagree. Think about the millions of people around the world that will watch this. Some will be sucked in by this pathetic charade.
Btw, I’m not worried about you guys…
For the most part, you are the cream of the crop.
I do not think that media self-censorship is a very good idea in a free society, no matter how unpalatable the topic.
Perhaps GOM would have felt happier if they’d have superimposed a big red clown nose on Saddam, and accompanied everything he said with fart noises, and a big flashing “PROPAGANDA” sign at the bottom of the screen. Just to remind us, you see.
Oh. I get it. Don’t trust the media at all. Trust our government. Never question them. Reminds me of:
From Frank Zappa’s I’m the Slime on Overnight Sensation.
OK. So when did you agree to accede your judgement to Dubya?
And from your response to DtC, should we conclude that you are not so worried about how “gullible” the media is, but how gullible the American public is?
You might be surprised. That depends on the topic.
Anyway, Saddam does not permit a free society in his own country. We should not be so foolish as to allow him access to our media.
.02