Cable News Nazis?
"Ted Turner called Fox a propaganda tool of the Bush administration and indirectly compared Fox News Channel's popularity to Adolf Hitler's popular election to run Germany before World War II," reports Broadcasting & Cable magazine:
Fox wasn't laughing, however. "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network, and now his mind," said a Fox News spokesperson. "We wish him well."
Sounds to us as though Fox was laughing. In any case, one is inclined to dismiss this as mere Angry Left bombast--but it's worth noting that unlike Fox, CNN, the network Turner founded, has a record of collaboration with genocidal dictatorship. In April 2003, just after the liberation of Baghdad, CNN's Eason Jordan described the network's relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime:
I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails). . . .
I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.
In October 2002, The New Republic's Franklin Foer reported on the same subject:
When I asked CNN's Jordan to explain why his network is so devoted to maintaining a perpetual Baghdad presence, he listed two reasons: "First, because it's newsworthy; second, because there's an expectation that if anybody is in Iraq, it will be CNN." His answer reveals the fundamental attitude of most Western media: Access to Baghdad is an end in itself, regardless of the intellectual or moral caliber of the journalism such access produces. An old journalistic aphorism holds "access is a curse." The Iraqi experience proves it can be much worse than that.
This is not to say CNN is, or was, pro-Saddam; the question of access versus truth poses genuine moral dilemmas. But given the degree to which his own network covered up the atrocities of a fascist dictator, Turner ought to be more restrained in throwing around the H-word.
opinionjournal.com
These two are linked in the story above:
tnr.com
nytimes.com |
