I did not have to get past minty’s second article to see how truly insidious CNN’s coverage has been. It’s called “Iraqi defector,” for one thing. By 1998, when the article was published, by Jordan’s own admission, CNN had intimate personal knowledge about Uday’s brutality. Yet, they still report through “defectors.” Of course, everyone accepted what defectors had to say about WMDs in Iraq. That’s just as good as saying, “we personally know that Uday is a murderous bastard.” :dubious:
Seriously. Tell me where they failed to report that Saddam was a brutal s.o.b. If your argument boils down to the use of the word “defector” in a headline, your argument is ridiculous.
And oh yes, please find a positive description of Udai Hussein. The dude has been reported to be a complet homicidal psychopath since at least 1995, and probably before that.
Other than “out of court,” which doesn’t apply, the comparison is valid. CNN presents second hand evidence that Uday is a bad actor: a defector. The first thing I think is, could be true, could be someone harboring a grudge. OTOH, if CNN admits that Uday personally told them he was going to kill someone, that’s big news. REALLY BIG NEWS.
It’s amazing that they didn’t take the big story, instead choosing the access. The last thing I would want is access to those creeps.
But there is quite a difference between CNN letting a victim of Saddam to speak for himself–whether directly or anonymously–and CNN reporting the secondhand story of a victim who does not want his story told because it will result in his slow and painful disemboweling.
CNN did report the big story. They reported that Saddam and his cronies were murderous s.o.b.'s who routinely tortured or murdered anyone who opposed or even displeased them. Your obstinate refusal to acknowledge that fact is fatal to your position.
The big picture is pretty obvious. I don’t remember the 1998 story, nobody really noticed it. This story, in part because it involved CNN being informed of murder plans, is huge and won’t go away. It’s in editorials everywhere. Some of that is natural media competition. Much of it is outraged people like myself thinking that this was only released because the torture chambers were being discovered all over Iraq.
The thing you keep doing is assuming that Jordan’s sob story about protecting his people is valid. This was clearly about preventing a Baghdad bureau shut down by their Iraqi handlers.
Did they want to keep their Baghdad operation open? Of course. And did that require them not to piss off the regime to badly? You betcha. Same thing happened with American reporters in Ye Olde Soviet Union. You didn’t go off poking around military bases and other stories that the Soviets told you not to report on, and you didn’t endanger the lives of sources by reporting things that they did not want reported for fear of life and the gulag. Such is the difficulty of being a journalist in a totalitarian society. The net benefit of being there still outweighs the compromises that sometimes need to be made for the sake of staying there, particularly when you’re still reporting on the bad shit with your reporters who are not in Iraq, as CNN undeniably did. Or maybe you just prefer Al Jazeera’s coverage to be the only thing coming out of Baghdad. That’s your call, I guess.
But where on earth do you get the idea that Jordan’s concern for protecting the lives of sources, subjects, and reporters is anything other than valid? That excuse is utterly plausible. What, Saddam is a brutal thug who kills his own people when it suits your purposes (i.e., going to war) but a big old teddy bear who wouldn’t even think about harming a hair on the head of a person who told the nice American journalist about the naughty things Saddam sometimes does? Come on, I don’t think there’s any real question that many or all of the people Jordan was worried about would be quite dead if they had reported those anecdotes and rumors.
Speaking of distorting the news, your second link, the one with the actual decision not the one from “Sierra News”, indicates that this was not a case against “Fox News”. The litigants seem to have been “New World Communications of Tampa” vs. Jane Akre. While it may be true that this is a Fox affiliate station that is a looooooooong way from being Fox News. Simply put this was a local station, a local news story, and a local reporter. Distorting the news indeed.
bayonette1976 - in the first paragraph of the article from “Sierra News” it states, “The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.” She charged she was pressured by *Fox Television management and lawyers * to lie. Although the actual case was originally filed against the Fox subsidiary who fired her the statement listed above shows beyond a doubt that Fox and their lawyers would be well aware that it is not illegal to distort the news. My point was that if one does not believe that it is not illegal to refrain from reporting a story they should ask the network who proved in a court of law that it is not even illegal to report a story the network knows is false.
"(5). Fox News rBGH Lawsuit. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre v. New World Communications of Tampa, Inc. d/b/a/ WTVT-TV, Docket No. 98-2439 (Florida State Court Hillsborough County FL).
Summary: In 1997, two Fox News television reporters in Tampa, FL (Steve Wilson & Jane Akre) prepared and an investigative report on the potential human health impacts associated with milk and dairy products derived from cows treated with genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). After significant promotion of the story, the Fox News station received threats of legal action from Monsanto the manufacturer of rBGH. Under this pressure, the Fox News station pulled the airing of the rBGH expose and unleashed a chain of internal debates over the story that led to Wilson and Akre rewriting the story 83 times all of which were rejected by the station. The issue culminated with Wilson and Akre refusing to broadcast a story filled with a number of distortions suggested by the station. Wilson and Akre refused to broadcast story because, among other things, airing of the untruthful version would violate FCC law and the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. Ultimately, both reporters were fired by the station. Wilson and Akre brought suit based upon breach of contract and whistle blower retaliation.
On August 18, 2000, a Tampa jury awarded $425,000 in damages after finding the evidence proved that Fox took retaliatory personnel action against Akre because she threatened to blow the whistle to the Federal Communications Commission. The jury did not find for Wilson apparently because they concluded that Fox’s decision not to renew his contract was not based solely on a threat to blow the whistle to the FCC.
The other reason on which Fox based its decision to “not renew his contract” - it is not illegal for the news to lie. This information can be found at the link for the final decision by the Florida Appeals court at http://www.2dca.org/opinion/Februar...3/2D01-529.pdf.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here, are you defending CNN’s decision not to broadcast some stories by saying that a court has found that news networks can lie?
My point isn’t what her sign said. (I don’t remember what it said.) It was that there have in fact been protestors who seemed completely against Hussein’s removal on any grounds, no matter what the facts might be.
I’d also point out that I think she’s on very shaky philosophical ground there. I can think of many excuses for violence.
I’d also point out that I had an extended family member lose his right hand in this war, and I’m not so sure I like that. I’m not a right-wing nut. I’m not commenting on this war in general, because I’m still waiting for the things like the WOMD finds, if any. If we find them, or evidence that they were recently moved or destroyed, I’ll be a lot more easy with this whole thing.
You fail to prove that point. The fact that one evil has been removed in no way shows that something similar, or worse, will not happen.
Which makes you guilty of trivializing the holocaust and the atrocities committed by my country. I don’t think you even have a hint of an idea what you are talking about.
And it is up to whom to pick the date? Those who are complicit in his butchery by preventing an overthrow from within from succeeding? Sorry, but to claim this was happening because of the crimes he was committing against Iraqis is plain and simply a lie. There was a chance in the early nineties to do so, without occupying a country and running away with the coffers.
Hardly. Unlike Iraq, these countries actually demonstrably have weapons of mass destruction at this point in time, including in most of the cases in question nuclear weapons. The fate of Iraq will hardly deter them, since the US has no chance of getting away with merely a handful of casualties.
Shudder… I have this vision of Dubya in fishnet stockings and a bustier singing “Resistance is useless, you fool/ you’re no exception to the ruuuuule…”
But it does kind of mesh with my “Bush made a deal with the Devil” theory.
Whatever George Bush wants, George Bush gets
And hey Saddam, little Georgie wants you
Make up your mind to have, no regrets
Resign yourself, consign yourself you’re through
CHORUS:
I always get, what I aim for
and your oil reserves, are what I came for.
Whatever George Bush wants, George Bush gets
Get off your throne, Don’t you know you can’t win
You’re no exception to the rule,
I’ll wipe your country out, you fool, Give in
(give in, you’ll never win)