Remember Chief News Executive for CNN until 2005, Eason Jordan?
"On April 11, 2003, Jordan revealed that CNN knew about human rights abuses committed in Iraq by Saddam Hussein since 1990, but the network refrained from coverage of them in order to gain better access to information on Hussein's government".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eason_Jordan
With that being said, what is wrong about paying people to put positive true stories about the progress in Iraq? Notice, it is people being payed to put positive true stories, not false positive stories.
Because governments aren't supposed to buy stories in a free press, especially when that government is telling the new country how a free press is supposed to work. CNN's editorial decision was one of a free press.Notice, it's a foreign goverment paying to run stories in what is supposed to be a free press.Notice, it is people being payed to put positive true stories, not false positive stories.
I wish we had free press in this country...
The relentless media emphasis on the negative in Iraq obscures the truth
By Jack Kelly
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In his speech at the Naval Academy Wednesday outlining U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush paid tribute to Marine Corporal Jeffrey Starr, killed in a fire fight in Ar Ramadi April 30th. He was 22, on his third tour in Iraq.
A letter to his girlfriend was found on Starr's laptop computer:
"If you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq," Cpl. Starr wrote. "I don't regret going. Everybody dies but a few get to do it for something as important as freedom.
"It may seem confusing why we're in Iraq; it's not to me. I'm here helping these people so they can live the way we live, not to have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark."
In a mammoth article in October taking note of the 2,000th U.S. death in Iraq, the New York Times mentioned Cpl. Starr and his letter, but didn't quote the passages above.
All the Times quoted from his letter was: "'I kind of predicted this,' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. 'A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.'"
The Times' omissions and distortions — which are more the rule than the exception in news coverage of Iraq — explain why so many Americans think we're losing a war we're plainly winning.
"Soldiers clearly feel that important elements are being left out of the media's overall verdict," wrote the Christian Science Monitor's Mark Sappenfield, after interviewing members of the 3rd battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, the Ohio reserve unit which, on Aug. 3rd had suffered the single greatest loss of life in a roadside bombing in the entire war.
"Like many soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq, (Cpl. Stan) Mayer looks at the bleak portrayal of the war at home with perplexity — if not annoyance," Sappenfield wrote. "It is a perception gap that has put the military and media at odds, as the troops complain that the media care only about death tolls."
The vast majority of Iraq vets share the at udes of Cpls Starr and Mayer. Rep. Tim Murphy, a Republican from suburban Pittsburgh, was treated in military hospitals after an automobile accident in Iraq last weekend.
"Every soldier I talked to said: 'Don't pull out. Do not make it so that those who have been wounded and those who have died have done so in vain,'" Rep. Murphy said.
"I regret that stories of success upon success are not reaching my family, friends and coworkers," wrote reserve Army Col. Jimmie Jaye Wells, a Texan serving in Iraq.
The relentless media emphasis on the negative also is illustrated by the differing treatment accorded pronouncements on Iraq by Rep. Jack Murtha, a heretofore relatively obscure Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., who had been his party's candidate for vice president in 2000, and a presidential candidate four years later.
When Rep. Murtha called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, he led the network newscasts. But when Sen. Lieberman — who had just returned from his fourth trip to Iraq — declared Tuesday that "visible and practical" progress has been made, neither ABC or CBS mentioned it on their evening newscasts, and neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post published a word of what he had to say.
Some in the media go beyond omission and distortion to outright fabrication, as Reuters news service did the day after the president's speech.
"Iraqi militants attacked a U.S. base and a local government building with mortar rounds and rockets in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, on Thursday, before holding ground on several streets, residents said," Reuters reported. "They've taken control of all the main streets and other sections of Ramadi."
But Marine Captain Jeffrey Pool, who is stationed in Ramadi, said: "as of 2:00 p.m. there were no signs of significant insurgent activity anywhere in the city. At 9:30 a.m. an RPG was fired at a joint U.S.-Iraqi observation post which in no damages or casualties. That is all. No other attacks."
Capt. Pool said the false report of an al Qaida offensive in Ramadi "is clearly a sign of how desperate insurgents have become." It's also a sign of how desperate Reuters is becoming, as progress in Iraq becomes more difficult to ignore.
Why is there always anger from the left when positive stories from Iraq make the airwaves?? i get it, any positive story will make Bush look good, but any bad story, an american soldier killed will make Bush look bad, and the left under no cir stances can allow Bush to look good in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, bad stories from Iraq will help keep their agenda running.
You mean one just just reflected your views in every.I wish we had free press in this country...
I guess you would support Kim Jong Il paying to run positive North Korean stories here that were factually true
chump.. we've never used propaganda in a war...? yikes... glad you have a firm grasp of history there...
I completely agree the omissions from that soldier's letter was irresponsible. Luckily there are multiple press outlets that didn't omit it, and stories like this -- and the President's own speech and various conservative pundits who repeated it hundreds of times.
And we've been hypocrites before. Firm grasp indeedChump.. we've never used propaganda in a war...? yikes... glad you have a firm grasp of history there..
Irresponsible? You're such a filthy attorney, C'mon Chump. You know better.
It was responsible?C'mon Chump. You know better.
nO it wasn't. quit defending Cnn on this is they haven't sent you a check in the mail. Irresponsibility implies a mistake or accident, this more of a blatant ommission.
No it doesn't.Irresponsibility implies a mistake or accident
It implies irresponsibility.
Call it what you want, it was wrong -- plain and simple.
I will defend a free press, I'll leave the bribery to you.
Wow, it's silly of you to chose when principles really matter. Take for instance, iraq, where if someone was to produce positive news of the war effort, they'd risk their lives. SO in order to have a balanced news diet, we have to pay them off. But here in america where we have the luxury of freedom, we choose to go against our nation freely by distorting news coverage, you should leave that to the iraqi's.
And not for you?Wow, it's silly of you to chose when principles really matter.That's clearly not the case -- there are outlets that print anything positive without payment.Take for instance, iraq, where if someone was to produce positive news of the war effort, they'd risk their lives. SO in order to have a balanced news diet, we have to pay them off.Do you even understand that sentence?But here in america where we have the luxury of freedom, we choose to go against our nation freely by distorting news coverage, you should leave that to the iraqi's.
Your pathetic, First Iraq has many news publications, and there isn't one that has a hegemony on credibility over there.SInce there three distinct type of cultures there they all have their credible news diet.
there's a distinction between paying off iraqi news outlets that couldn't report good news, like the ones in the sunni region, and then screwing our military efforts at home. One endangers troops lives, and the other one doesn't.
Your a waste of time, trying to equate both when they are not the same thing.
So will a news outlet that has been exposed as taking bribes from a Pentagon contractor to influence its content have a better or worse chance of achieving your vaunted hegemony on credibility?there isn't one that has a hegemony on credibility over there
After all, such an exposure is merely the result of a free press, right?
Which begs my original question. Scroll up if you forgot it.
What exposure are you referring to? Becuase i never referred to the Iraqi press as totally free.
IF you think that intentionally discarding half a letter because it's contents were'nt favorable to yours, then that's not irresponsibility but malice. Especially since the news organizations are at full throttle and are vested in defeat of Coalition forces.
You still cannot escape the fact that your excusing a traitorous act. The reporting in our news today is putting our troops in danger.
I expect more from our free press than our military. Atleast the military's main function is an outcome. The press shouldn't be favoring an outcome since they're supposed to be neutral.
NO bannana.
the day the media does the right thing is the day it will snow in cape town, south africa
dodge
A story in the LA Times that anyone in the world can read.What exposure are you referring to?Especially since the news organizations are at full throttle and are vested in defeat of Coalition forces.You still cannot escape the fact that your excusing a traitorous act.I expect more from our free press than our military.
And I suppose you forgot the question about whether planting stories is a good idea. I asked it in the other thread, but I'll ask it again:
Was it a good idea to bribe Iraqis to run favorable stories while giving lip service to creating a free press -- knowing all along that international exposure of the plot was inevitable?
^ the military's job is not to provide a free press but to protect the country. Even you should've caught the distinction and been honest with yourself instead of trying to rack up debate points.
So in the big picture is the military protecting us by entering into such a hypocritical and easily exposed scheme to bribe the very outlets of the media we are training to act as a free press?the military's job is not to provide a free press but to protect the country.
Yes or no?
It's not hypocritical. The middle east does not hold the military in a high regard when it comes to media reporting. It's like expecting a lawyer to have real convictions.
Does the middle east really seperate the US military from the rest of the country?
As a whole? they have a warped view on us, and don't care if we are free. They see us as des ute morally.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
