CNN: keeping the news to itself

[sbp]

An admission by CNN's chief news executive that he kept quiet for years about government atrocities in Iraq -- including those against his own journalists -- raised questions about whether CNN committed an ethical transgression: trading silence for access.

In The New York Times Friday, Eason Jordan wrote that CNN never reported that an Iraqi cameraman working for CNN was tortured because it ''would have almost certainly have gotten him killed and put him or his family and co-workers at grave risk.''

He also wrote that he never reported that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, had told him in 1995 that he planned to kill two of his brothers-in-law who had defected as well as the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. ''I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting,'' Jordan wrote. (He did tell King Hussein, who ignored it, and a few months later Uday ''lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.'')

''I'm disturbed by (Jordan's actions). It really took the wind out of me,'' Bill Kovach, head of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, said Sunday. ''There were probably strategic business decisions about CNN's relationship with the government, but this seems to me to be allowing the ethics of other endeavors to trump the ethics of journalism: to seek the truth and make it available.''

more here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030414/ts_usatoday/5066408)

[sbp]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html

ATLANTA — Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.

We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. 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).

Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.

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.

Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN.

[gear02]

You know...I'm not sure what do think. Should they immediately report what they heard as news? Or were they right in keeping it secret for fear of other Iraqis who were helping them?

I don't know about this. I feel like they were right in doing what they did to protect more lives, but at the same time they were aiding the government in hiding its brutality from the rest of the world for a long period of time.

[NuTs62]

I dunno what to say as well. I don't believe they should have ran the stories. Being an organization, doesn't mean you lose your morals. If you know your actions will lead to someone's death, someone that helped you, would you send them to their death?

I think they should have informed the U.S. government of the matter.. jus my 2 cents

[topane]

Originally posted by NuTs62
Being an organization, doesn't mean you lose your morals.For an organization, that depends on how much cash they'll make.

[Butch]

I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever. News organizations make decisions on what to report ALL the time. There is only so much space in a magazine/newspaper and only so much time in a TV/Radio broadcast to report all the news. They have to make decisions about what to report and what not to report.

I do not believe that these particular stories were so newsworthy that it was imperative for them to be reported. It is hardly a secret that Hussein had a brutal regime. We've known this for years. Would knowing about individual situations have changed anything about how anybody feels? I can't stand so called "human interest" stories that try to put a face to a problem. All it does is pander to people who can't understand a situation without being able to sympathize with an individual.

Finally, protecting your people and your sources is absolutely a responsibility of a news organization. The people under a news chief are there to gather and report stories. If they choose to put themselves in danger to get a story, that is their choice. It is not, however, the role of their news chief to do so.

I also really liked this quote at the end of the Yahoo! article . . .


Harvard media analyst Alex Jones said Sunday that he sympathized with what Jordan went through because dealing with foreign governments -- or dictatorships -- is not easy for any news outfit. ''Protecting your people always has to be the prime consideration.''


Good journalism always has ''tension between judgment and integrity,'' Jones said, and is a ''very hard thing'' for anyone not in Jordan's shoes to ''pass judgment on.''

The one thing I question in all of this is CNNs use of armed guards. While it may help to protect CNNs crew, I think it puts other journalists in danger because it probably changes how threatened Iraqis feel when they see a news convoy.

[johnnymk]

Well, we do have a CIA and an NSA and these people get big bucks. If they didn't know that these things were going on, then let's just get rid of these two agencies!!

[ray]

a decade ago or not, this just further confirms our stance that Iraq is evil in nature. period.

[LPMiller]

I imagine that all news orgs have to make decisions like this. I'm sure Fox, MSNBC, ABC, whatever, all do this to some extent to either protect the lives of their reporters/sources, or to insure they maintain access.

[sbp]

Corruption at CNN (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030415-91009640.htm) by Peter Collins

Mr. Eason Jordan's admission that CNN had to suppress the news from Baghdad in order to report it brought back memories for me.

In January 1993, I was in Baghdad as a reporter for CNN on a probationary, three-month contract. Previously, I had been a war reporter for CBS News in Vietnam and East Asia and in Central America for ABC News. I had also made three trips to Baghdad for ABC News before the Gulf War.

Now, Bill Clinton was about to be inaugurated and there was speculation that Saddam Hussein might "test" the new American president. Would the new administration be willing to enforce the "no-fly" zones set up in northern and southern Iraq after the Gulf War?

CNN had made its reputation during the war with its exclusive reports from Baghdad. Shortly after my arrival, I was surprised to see CNN President Tom Johnson and Eason Jordan, then chief of international news gathering, stride into the al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad. They were there to help CNN bid for an exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein, timed to coincide with the coming inauguration of President Clinton.

I took part in meetings between the CNN executives and various officials purported to be close to Saddam. We met with his personal translator; with a foreign affairs adviser; with Information Minister Latif Jassim; and with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

In each of these meetings, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan made their pitch: Saddam Hussein would have an hour's time on CNN's worldwide network; there would be no interruptions, no commercials. I was astonished. From both the tone and the content of these conversations, it seemed to me that CNN was virtually groveling for the interview.

The day after one such meeting, I was on the roof of the Ministry of Information, preparing for my first "live shot" on CNN. A producer came up and handed me a sheet of paper with handwritten notes. "Tom Johnson wants you to read this on camera," he said. I glanced at the paper. It was an item-by-item summary of points made by Information Minister Latif Jassim in an interview that morning with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan.

The list was so long that there was no time during the live shot to provide context. I read the information minister's points verbatim. Moments later, I was downstairs in the newsroom on the first floor of the Information Ministry. Mr. Johnson approached, having seen my performance on a TV monitor. "You were a bit flat there, Peter," he said. Again, I was astonished. The president of CNN was telling me I seemed less-than-enthusiastic reading Saddam Hussein's propaganda.

The next day, I was CNN's reporter on a trip organized by the Ministry of Information to the northern city of Mosul. "Minders" from the ministry accompanied two busloads of news people to an open, plowed field outside Mosul. The purpose was to show us that American warplanes were bombing "innocent Iraqi farmers." Bits of American ordinance were scattered on the field. One large piece was marked "CBU." I recognized it as the canister for a Cluster Bomb Unit, a weapon effective against troops in the open, or against "thin-skinned" armor. I was puzzled. Why would U.S. aircraft launch CBUs against what appeared to be an open field? Was it really to kill "innocent Iraqi farmers?" The minders showed us no victims, no witnesses. I looked around. About 2000 yards distant on a ridgeline, two radar dishes were just visible against the sky. The ground was freshly plowed. Now, I understood. The radars were probably linked to Soviet-made SA-6 surface-to-air missiles mounted on tracks, armored vehicles, parked in the field at some distance from the dishes to keep them safe. After the bombing, the Iraqis had removed the missile launchers and had plowed the field to cover the tracks.

On the way back to Baghdad, I explained to other reporters what I thought had happened, and wrote a report that was broadcast on CNN that night.

The next day, Brent Sadler, CNN's chief reporter at the time in Baghdad (he is now in northern Iraq), came up to me in a hallway of the al Rasheed Hotel. He had been pushing for the interview with Saddam and had urged Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan to come to Baghdad to help seal the deal. "Petah," he said to me in his English accent, "you know we're trying to get an interview with Saddam. That piece last night was not helpful."

So, we were supposed to shade the news to get an interview with Saddam?

As it happens, CNN never did get that interview. A few months later, I had passed my probationary period and was contemplating my future with CNN. I thought long and hard; could I be comfortable with a news organization that played those kinds of games? I decided, no, I could not, and resigned.

In my brief acquaintance with Mr. Jordan at CNN, I formed the impression of a decent man, someone with a conscience. On the day Mr. Jordan published his piece in the New York Times, a panel on Fox News was discussing his astonishing admissions. Brit Hume wondered, "Why would he ever write such a thing?" Another panelist suggested, "Perhaps his conscience is bothering him." Mr. Eason, it should be.

Peter Collins has more than 30 years of experience in broadcast news, including outlets such as the Voice of America, BBC, CBS, ABC and CNN.

[brainsmile]

Originally posted by lilbigblue
a decade ago or not, this just further confirms our stance that Iraq is evil in nature. period.
:stupid:

[Butch]

Originally posted by sbp


Article Snipped

So one person who wasn't hired by CNN after his probationary period is claiming corruption . . . STOP THE PRESSES! CNN is clearly corrupt!

Sounds like he's just bitter. So he didn't get to editorialize while he was reading the comments for his first time on air . . . it was his FIRST TIME LIVE ON AIR for CNN . . . do you think they're going to give him tons of leeway to editorialize in his first time for CNN?

His only other complaint about how they "censored" his journalism was when he claims Brent Sadler chastised him for hurting their chances of getting the interview with Saddam. Welllll . . . what is more newsworthy? The fact that the US bombed a legitimate target and the Iraqis were trying to cover it up? (Big Surprise) . . . or an interview with Saddam Hussein? Gotta play for the bigger fish there . . . What was gained beyond a little personal spotlight by Collins? It's not like he reported anything groundbreaking . . . he simply got to show his "smarts" on air by exposing a pretty transparent ruse by the Iraqis. Way to go.

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by Butch


So one person who wasn't hired by CNN after his probationary period is claiming corruption . . . STOP THE PRESSES! CNN is clearly corrupt!

Sounds like he's just bitter. So he didn't get to editorialize while he was reading the comments for his first time on air . . . it was his FIRST TIME LIVE ON AIR for CNN . . . do you think they're going to give him tons of leeway to editorialize in his first time for CNN?

His only other complaint about how they "censored" his journalism was when he claims Brent Sadler chastised him for hurting their chances of getting the interview with Saddam. Welllll . . . what is more newsworthy? The fact that the US bombed a legitimate target and the Iraqis were trying to cover it up? (Big Surprise) . . . or an interview with Saddam Hussein? Gotta play for the bigger fish there . . . What was gained beyond a little personal spotlight by Collins? It's not like he reported anything groundbreaking . . . he simply got to show his "smarts" on air by exposing a pretty transparent ruse by the Iraqis. Way to go.

That's a really odd take on that article. It looked more like he was attempting to lend some anecdotal evidience supporting Eason Jordon.

Exposing that ruse is his job, isn't it?

Like I say, I think all the broadcast news guys do this to some extent, so it's funny to hear any of them pointing fingers. They are businesses first, then journalists. At least, that's the direction they are all headed in.

[Butch]

Originally posted by LPMiller


That's a really odd take on that article. It looked more like he was attempting to lend some anecdotal evidience supporting Eason Jordon.

Exposing that ruse is his job, isn't it?

Like I say, I think all the broadcast news guys do this to some extent, so it's funny to hear any of them pointing fingers. They are businesses first, then journalists. At least, that's the direction they are all headed in.

I didn't see the piece as support of Jordan at all. First off, the article is titled "Corruption at CNN," and given that Jordan is Chief News Executive at CNN, that certainly implicates him. Further, the The last line of the piece claims Jordan's conscience should be bothering him for the decisions he made as part of the organization.

As far as exposing the ruse being Collins' job . . . there is a difference between exposing something that is pretty obvious . . . and exposing something with real significance. To use an analogy of the season . . . It's kind of like an adult going to a kid's Easter Egg hunt and finding the eggs before the kids do. Everyone knew the eggs were around . . . everyone knew you could find them . . . but by bringing them all out, sure you showed you're smarter than those kids . . . but what was gained by it? The Easter Egg hunt is ruined.

Nothing was gained by his exposing the Iraqi ruse. He went for the small win for himself instead of holding out for the big, and much more newsworthy, win. Not much of a team player.

Gotta agree with you, however, that news is becoming too much of a business.

[sbp]

First CNN's chief news executive all but admitted certain stories where not reported or softened basically so access to the Iraqi regime could be maintained. Instead of apologizing he comes off as looking for sympathy for his mea cupla. Then a reporter with decades of experience exposes more shenanigans and yet CNN gets a pass?

"The Most Trusted Name In News" your ass. :D

And people believe this "news" service? Will folks wonder what CNN won't be telling and if CNN is full of it in the future?

[gear02]

Originally posted by sbp
First CNN's chief news executive all but admitted certain stories where not reported or softened basically so access to the Iraqi regime could be maintained. Instead of apologizing he comes off as looking for sympathy for his mea cupla. Then a reporter with decades of experience exposes more shenanigans and yet CNN gets a pass?

"The Most Trusted Name In News" your ass. :D

And people believe this "news" service? Will folks wonder what CNN won't be telling and if CNN is full of it in the future?

I used to watch CNN all the time, but now I rather not watch it anymore. It's become really bad with some shoddy reporting and stories that barely pass as news (human-interest stories).

They've either sold out or become really bad. No wonder they're losing share to fox news (which ALSO sucks).

[Butch]

Originally posted by sbp
First CNN's chief news executive all but admitted certain stories where not reported or softened basically so access to the Iraqi regime could be maintained. Instead of apologizing he comes off as looking for sympathy for his mea cupla. Then a reporter with decades of experience exposes more shenanigans and yet CNN gets a pass?

"The Most Trusted Name In News" your ass. :D

And people believe this "news" service? Will folks wonder what CNN won't be telling and if CNN is full of it in the future?

Does a detective reveal all he knows about a drug ring immediately after he finds each piece out? No, he keeps quiet to go after the big fish.

Does a poker player take the small pot he knows he'll win with his 4 of a kind? No, he tries to bluff to draw in bigger bets.

Does an investigative journalist reveal each little detail of a major story as he's working on it? No he waits until he's got the big story nailed . . . then reveals his information.

It's called strategy and taking a risk for a bigger and better result in the end.

Jordan had no need to apologize. He didn't do anything wrong. He is simply now able to say these things without fear of retribution to his people because Saddam is no longer in a position to do anything about it.

It is not as if CNN lied on the air . . . they just decided not to say everything they know on the air . . . EVERY news organization does that.

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by Butch


I didn't see the piece as support of Jordan at all. First off, the article is titled "Corruption at CNN," and given that Jordan is Chief News Executive at CNN, that certainly implicates him. Further, the The last line of the piece claims Jordan's conscience should be bothering him for the decisions he made as part of the organization.

As far as exposing the ruse being Collins' job . . . there is a difference between exposing something that is pretty obvious . . . and exposing something with real significance. To use an analogy of the season . . . It's kind of like an adult going to a kid's Easter Egg hunt and finding the eggs before the kids do. Everyone knew the eggs were around . . . everyone knew you could find them . . . but by bringing them all out, sure you showed you're smarter than those kids . . . but what was gained by it? The Easter Egg hunt is ruined.

Nothing was gained by his exposing the Iraqi ruse. He went for the small win for himself instead of holding out for the big, and much more newsworthy, win. Not much of a team player.

Gotta agree with you, however, that news is becoming too much of a business.

He was supporting the fact that Jordan came out, when others were questioning why he would.

As for exposing something that is 'obvious' as opposed to hidden - give me a break. News isn't about assumption, it's reporting what you know. Considering any story about Ozzy Bin Laden has to end with a reference to 9/11, I find it odd that this guy is getting criticized for reporting the 'obviously' hidden missle base. News has to appeal to the lowest common denominator - it can NEVER assume you know something.


First CNN's chief news executive all but admitted certain stories where not reported or softened basically so access to the Iraqi regime could be maintained. Instead of apologizing he comes off as looking for sympathy for his mea cupla. Then a reporter with decades of experience exposes more shenanigans and yet CNN gets a pass?

"The Most Trusted Name In News" your ass.

And people believe this "news" service? Will folks wonder what CNN won't be telling and if CNN is full of it in the future?

Yes, and Fox is better. If you don't think they all do this, I have some nice land to sell you...sure, it's next to the rendering plant, but you only really notice it when you're downwind.

There is no 'trusted' news source, period.