 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
Huh? You're the one claiming censorship and then you turn around and make the opposite point. Why did you bring it up at all?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
For those of you who not seen understand the American and, indeed, the Western traditions of the Free Press, what CNN has done here is betray those traditions. A Free Press exists in order to bring to light the truth, to the ferret out the corrupt, whether they are politicians are simply wealthy and powerful people; and to provide a forum for debate. They do this, most of all, by being honest to themselves and honest to their audiences. They protect their sources through confidentiality. They protect their own people by immediately publicizing any attempted at coercion.
Now if CNN had said that every broadcast, every statement, every comment about Saddam and Iraq was being filtered, or biased in Saddam's favor and against the US in order that CNN be allowed access to Iraq, then we may have understood that CNN was feeding us propaganda. But they never told us what they were doing until Saddam fell. This is a travesty. This is travesty not only because they misled the American people and the world thereby causing this country damage and the Iraqi people to suffer because murderers do not like exposure; but they commited fraud for the purpose of fattening their own bankaccounts.
I hope someone brings a RICO action against them.
But even if CNN or any other news media were tell us that they are biasing the stories in a light favorable to the dictators and unfavorable to America, filtering and censoring the news to please those who like to murder and torture in the dark shadows, why in the world what anyone watch such a network for real news knowing what they are being fed is propaganda?
FOX, MSNBC are right to pursue this. I also hope that people directly harmed by CNN's fraudulent reporting soon file suit. Where are the ACLU when we really need them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
Or that portion of it, described in words of the reporter's or editor's choosing, that fits the reporter's or editor's concept of the truth that they should report. (i.e. that portion that is wanted by their constituency). If you haven't seen it, check out Kurosawas' Rashomon.
First of all, facts are objective, truth is subjective, because it depends on scope. If CNN (and many others) had to play ball with the Hussein regime to get access, then you have two choices - play ball, or leave the stadium and say nothing. You're either presenting spun information, or none at all, and in neither case, does "truth" enter into it.
How hard does Fox, CNN, or anyone question this administration? Push hard, and anonymous sources dry up and you lose access. Someone else softpeddles, and they continue getting anonymous "leaks" and official access. "Managing" the press has been an on-going enterprise as long as there has been a press.
And where, BTW, does CNN (or anyone else in the press) "admit that they continue to lie?" - that's your (or Fox's) spin. The "fact" would be nothing more, nor less, than the exact statement made by a CNN representative, not edited, not commented upon, and with full documentation of the context, either textually and/or physically. That's "truth." All reportage is something entirely different - from choosing which details to emphasize (do you really think anything of note in the world can be described "truthfully" in an hour long news format, minus weather, sports, stocks and commercials? :lol , to choosing which words to characterize actions you're choosing to describe.
I don't know where you've been in the last 12 years, but CNN and every other news agency "officially" in Iraq has stated numerous time that they were escorted, that they were taken to specific sites, that they were not able to move with total freedom and ask what they wanted of anyone. Hell, it was all over the news after the first Gulf War - everyone knew (or almost everyone) that that's the price of admission in Baghdad. CNN also repeatedly disclaimed (as did others) that "blah blah blah couldn't be independently confirmed. Lots of statements like "According to the Iraqi government, blah blah blah"
There's been plenty out there openly stated, from multiple sources, multiple times, that US reporters in Iraq did not have freedom of movement and free access. Reporters here in the US don't have it - try to get into a secured crime scene, a closed session of Congress, etc. It's more blatant by many degrees in something like Saddamite Iraq, but the "free" press is more myth than reality, unless you tow the establishment line most of the time. Conditionally free is not free.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
No, doubt, MtG, two viewers of any scene will observe and report something different. I agree that we all knew reports from inside Iraq were managed. But we didn't know that CNN was threatened in order to force them to bias the news as well, and to report exactly what the Information Minister wrote.
I think we need a new law that requires media to disclose attempts by foreign government to intimidate them as a condition of being granted broadcast rights in this country. If the media are too focused on their pocketbooks to tell the truth, the this is the kind of message they need. If they lie, they die.
Last edited by Ned on 19-04-2003 at 06:57
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-04-2003 21:43
Attachment: 
|
