Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (92603)	4/12/2003 1:40:33 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Everyone who has a news bureau in whatever area of the world they are reporting, so that the "real" story is hidden for years? CNN took the skeptical editorial position on their pre-war coverage KNOWING what they knew. BTW, what was the relationship between Eason Jordan and Uday Hussein? Why does Uday tell Jordan that the his going to kill the two son-in-laws before hand? How does that happen? Why does Uday trust him with the information? Why does he give him the information? We are at the toilet seat level of this story. Were going into the pool of crap before we are done. CNN underreported the Crisis in Iraq, took an anti-Administration editorial stance and fed it's cleansed view of Iraq to the world. Seeing that CNN had nothing bad to say about Iraq but CNN did have bad things to say about the administration, peope might come to the conclussion that the administration was making a terrible mistake. Hang the bastards! CNN had time for Ramsey Clark no time for the truth from Iraq. They are now the Coldlake News Network. Paul

To: KLP who wrote (92603)	4/12/2003 12:38:03 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John, what similar points does Ken Pollack make in his book? That "everyone does this?" Everyone? Everyone who has a news bureau in whatever area of the world they are reporting, so that the "real" story is hidden for years? No, I was referring to something else, Karen. I thought you were reacting to the revelations of torture in Iraq under Saddam. My point was that everyone with serious views about Iraq should already have known that, at least from reading Pollack's discussion of it. I could easily have typed about other sources--Human Rights Watch, etc. As for the "everyone" does it, I genuinely have no idea. If, on the one hand, you are referring to torture, we do know that it is quite widespread. Again one would have to read Human Rights Watch stuff carefully to discuss that with any care. If, on the other hand, you are referring to governments holding news agencies hostages via threats to employees' lives, I assume that's complicated and not knowable. Funny thought. In the Rumsfeldian universe, I gather that would be one of the things we know we don't know and is unknowable. However, one can assume the threats takes place in other quarters of the world and that media companies respond differently. As I type, it occurs to me that one of the salient outcomes of this revelation is that (a) we might learn more about it and (b) develop a literature which not only helps us understand it but helps the industry develop guidelines. If this is at all the "normal" thing, WHY wouldn't the companies that knew such terrible information report it to the CIA? I, obviously, don't know the answer here. Perhaps they did and are not yet ready to reveal it; perhaps they didn't. That sounds like something we may find out about this case. Dave Winer, who I often quote here, has an interesting take on this entire issue. He uses the phrases that CNN's actions here are "understandable" but "not okay." A bit better reflection of my views than my first take. Here's the full quote from Winer's website. A riveting op-ed in today's NY Times raises basic issues of editorial integrity at CNN and a new window into the tyranny of Saddam's Iraq. Technically there's no doubt that Eason Jordan has admitted a major breach of editorial integrity at CNN. CNN withheld a major conflict of interest, the Iraqi government was torturing and killing their employees and their families. We are told that this did change what they reported. It's understandable that they didn't disclose, but it's probably not okay. It immediately raises the question of what other information is CNN withholding that might color their coverage of news in Iraq and elsewhere. The second disturbing angle on this piece is its historic value that will soon disappear behind the NY Times archive firewall. What was their expense in creating this important bit of editorial? It wasn't written by an employee of the New York Times Company. Sure they probably edited it. That cost something. And someone had to prepare it for their content management system. It's using a little bit of bandwidth. But what a cost, to not have this piece available for everyone to refer to, to re-read and re-consider, over the years. It could save lives. It could serve as an example of how not to do it. It's something every journalism student should study, everywhere, forever. Something to think about.