The News We Kept to Ourselves

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
If you think I'm overstating this, read this

April 15, 2003 Corruption at CNN

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.

published in the Washington times
 

freako104

Well-Known Member
hey gonz it wasnt jsut money. dont forget the goddamn ratings. after you posted the info on CNN i have refused to watch it i thank you for posting that and no your not overstating it its the fucking truth mate. sad but true.
 

markjs

Banned
I said all this in the thread I started but I don't think you read it...so here it is again in your thread......

What good would have been done if they reported all the details? Firstly a lot of people would have been killed, secondly, our government knew all this stuff full well when they supported Saddam at the beggining of the regime...it's not like we'd have gone in to save the poor Iraqis because of the horrible atrocities that only CNN knew about.

If you honestly think we conquered Iraq to end Sadaams oppression, I have beachfront property in North Dakota to sell you. It's about the powerstructure in the region, and us getting our hands on more power.

I can just about guarantee good ol Fox News knew a lot they didn't report too...they just were smart enough nev er to admit it.

Was there wrongdoing by CNN? Of course, but it's far from them being murderous liars.

Oh and another thing....look at Saudi Arabia...another oppressive dictatorship that is despised by its people....they kill their dissidents same as Saddam did, but they are our buddys politically so we look the other way.

Isreal has execution squads and they arn't as surgical and presise as we like to think....a lot of innocent blood is spilled but they're our buds so we look the other way....

it goes on and on...if a nation is politically friendly with the US we turn a blind eye, and our people assume it's all ok....because we'd overthrow the bad guys if they were right?

So being as the US government knows about all manner of oppressive regimes, torture murder and whatnot, and not only are we silent about it but we actively support said governments, aren't we all murderous liars?
 

Squiggy

ThunderDick
I think maybe its time to chime in on this one...gonz, I never did understand why you chose to single out CNN as the murderous liars when the facts have been known that the first invasion did not need to happen at all. The Russians had negotiated the withdrawl from Kuwait by Iraq and sent word to Bush (the read my lips version) that they needed a week. Bush decided he wanted to attack so he refused the offer by giving them 2 days...which was a known impossibility. That would make the first Bush murderously liable for every life lost in that conflict. But you seem to have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to it. Now mini-lips has pretty much done the same and you are praising him for all of his non-accomplishments and touting him as a curall for planet earth. Sometimes...its just plain hard to see where your coming from... :confused:
 

AnomalousEntity

New Member
markjs said:
I said all this in the thread I started but I don't think you read it...so here it is again in your thread......

What good would have been done if they reported all the details? Firstly a lot of people would have been killed, secondly, our government knew all this stuff full well when they supported Saddam at the beggining of the regime...it's not like we'd have gone in to save the poor Iraqis because of the horrible atrocities that only CNN knew about.

If you honestly think we conquered Iraq to end Sadaams oppression, I have beachfront property in North Dakota to sell you. It's about the powerstructure in the region, and us getting our hands on more power.

I can just about guarantee good ol Fox News knew a lot they didn't report too...they just were smart enough nev er to admit it.

Was there wrongdoing by CNN? Of course, but it's far from them being murderous liars.

Oh and another thing....look at Saudi Arabia...another oppressive dictatorship that is despised by its people....they kill their dissidents same as Saddam did, but they are our buddys politically so we look the other way.

Isreal has execution squads and they arn't as surgical and presise as we like to think....a lot of innocent blood is spilled but they're our buds so we look the other way....

it goes on and on...if a nation is politically friendly with the US we turn a blind eye, and our people assume it's all ok....because we'd overthrow the bad guys if they were right?

So being as the US government knows about all manner of oppressive regimes, torture murder and whatnot, and not only are we silent about it but we actively support said governments, aren't we all murderous liars?

I dont know, I always agreed with the "leave them alone unless they are a problem to us" way of thinking. Its kinda like the "prime directive" in star trek..and what can be more ideal than that?

Ill bet there are things about Afghanistan and Iraq that we will never ever know (or at least for 50 years when it becomes de-classified.) that are perfectly reasonable justifications for going in.
 

markjs

Banned
AnomalousEntity said:
I dont know, I always agreed with the "leave them alone unless they are a problem to us" way of thinking. Its kinda like the "prime directive" in star trek..and what can be more ideal than that?

Ill bet there are things about Afghanistan and Iraq that we will never ever know (or at least for 50 years when it becomes de-classified.) that are perfectly reasonable justifications for going in.

OK well then what about the times when we actually create problems? like training death squads in El Salvador, and supporting geurillas that are essentially terrorists in Nicaragua?

I am fully behind our actions in Afghanistan, because that was truly part of a war on terror.

There is no proven connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. On the one hand I think we did a good thing over all there, but we didn't really have right and reason on our side in my opinion
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Squiggy said:
I never did understand why you chose to single out CNN as the murderous liars...

The rest is futile. It happened.

CNN, on the other hand, was a leader in the fight against war in Iraq & they were not doing their job (which, BTW, wouldn't be possible without the 1st amendment). They were covering up important details. They were conspiring with the enemy. They were misinforming the public &/or leaving out important details.

Their job is to report facts, not take sides. They failed.
 

Squiggy

ThunderDick
Gonz said:
The rest is futile. It happened.

CNN, on the other hand, was a leader in the fight against war in Iraq & they were not doing their job (which, BTW, wouldn't be possible without the 1st amendment). They were covering up important details. They were conspiring with the enemy. They were misinforming the public &/or leaving out important details.

Their job is to report facts, not take sides. They failed.

Wow..getting a bit pompous there Gonz....believe it or not, some of those other countries out there in the world don't even have a 1st amendment ....but they still manage to do news reports. And think about what you just said...

Its futile to hold the Bushs accountable for their actions? WTF? :confused:

"They were misinforming the public &/or leaving out important details."...I believe you've declared those actions proper when we complain about the same thing from W...You can't have it both ways . Its either bad or its not.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Its futile to hold the Bushs accountable for their actions?

It's futile because the first war happened. It was sanctioned & endorsed by the UN. It wasn't Bush's deal.

Would there be a (relatively) free press worldwide without the 1st amendment? History says no. Even with one, there aren't many countries that allow a completely free press.

It's the very duty of the press to perform their job without reservation.
 

Squiggy

ThunderDick
Gonz said:
It's futile because the first war happened. It was sanctioned & endorsed by the UN. It wasn't Bush's deal.

Would there be a (relatively) free press worldwide without the 1st amendment? History says no. Even with one, there aren't many countries that allow a completely free press.

It's the very duty of the press to perform their job without reservation.

But its ok for the prsident to lie and deceive? I still don't understand how you hold one accountable but not the other....Do you think the UN was informed that Russia had negotiated a peaceful withdrawl by Iraq and they said it was ok for Bush to undermine it?
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
You think the UN didn't know? I believe that they all knew it wouldn't happen (the withdrawl) and it would give more time to entrech his troops & cause damage.

Admittedly, I don't know about this Russian deal. I'd like more details.
 
Top