On the Eason-CNN business, I'm surprised that the probability hasn't been mentioned that CNN's Iraqi employees in Baghdad were working for Iraqi intelligence (the mukbharat, sp?); likely not by choice, I would guess, but rather by compulsion. Having worked as a correspondent in an earlier life in unfriendly countries, I always operated under the assumption that my local staff were reporting to the secret services.
I'm surprised Terry Smith missed an interesting aspect in moderating the discussion. TV news, as opposed to print, needs pictures to go with a story. Without pictures, TV news often fails to give weight to a story. It may make a headline in the WashPost or NY Times but gets passed over by the TV types (pictures, no story). The New Republic guy tried to make the point that CNN could have gotten the Iraqi story without maintaining a Baghdad bureau. But it would have meant considerable legwork for which, in my view, the TV news types lack the inclination. Smith, once a fine NY Times correspondent, knows well the difference between print news and TV news. But I guess he is too much the gentleman (Red's son) to have entered the debate.
LLL@wireservicesarethefootsoldiersofjournalism.ap |
