What we now know about CNN is that they kept secret many things they knew that Saddam was doing in order to keep this very Baghdad office open. In at least one instance, this resulted in the deaths of two of Saddam's sons-in-law when CNN failed to warn them that they were to be executed when they came back from the U.S. CNN knew this. They kept quiet about what they knew in order to keep their bureau open. The men came back, they were executed. Here is a link:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/20/1050777161410.html
CNN did this throughout the 90's and up until it was clear that the U.S. was going to overrun Baghdad. At that point the senior editor in chief of the Baghdad news bureau did a preemptive admission. He copped to hiding facts that might reflect poorly on Saddam and the Ba'ath Party so that they didn't incur the dictator's wrath. They needed to stay competitive and to protect their Iraqi staff (didn't other networks have this problem as well?) was the justification. My question was and is, if you aren't going to report the truth, or as much of it as you know, then what is the point of your bureau other than that it provided you with a nice income with bonus hazardous duty pay? What is the point in staying competitive when all you are doing is sending out soft stories that steer clear of the truly horrific stuff Saddam was doing? And what is the point of keeping silent about things you know when life and death are in the balance? I need to ask the same thing the guy asks Michael Keaton's character in this film: How do you sleep at night? One might also wonder, why, once CNN cemented itself in the public's mind as the brave network that stuck when others ran, that it curled up in a corner and became a network that protected its own image rather than report the truth of the outrages of Saddam's horrific rule? Whatever they gained in 1991, they lost in 2003, and not only did they lose the confidence of the public, but since 2003 the other networks' credibility has steadily eroded in the face of the multiple checks on them by pajama-clad Internet bloggers who just don't take the networks at their word anymore. This, as far as I'm concerned, is the best thing that has happened to journalism since the Sixties. This movie seems to me to be CNN trying to remind us all how important they are, but events have overtaken them, and this now looks like a display in a museum.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/20/1050777161410.html
CNN did this throughout the 90's and up until it was clear that the U.S. was going to overrun Baghdad. At that point the senior editor in chief of the Baghdad news bureau did a preemptive admission. He copped to hiding facts that might reflect poorly on Saddam and the Ba'ath Party so that they didn't incur the dictator's wrath. They needed to stay competitive and to protect their Iraqi staff (didn't other networks have this problem as well?) was the justification. My question was and is, if you aren't going to report the truth, or as much of it as you know, then what is the point of your bureau other than that it provided you with a nice income with bonus hazardous duty pay? What is the point in staying competitive when all you are doing is sending out soft stories that steer clear of the truly horrific stuff Saddam was doing? And what is the point of keeping silent about things you know when life and death are in the balance? I need to ask the same thing the guy asks Michael Keaton's character in this film: How do you sleep at night? One might also wonder, why, once CNN cemented itself in the public's mind as the brave network that stuck when others ran, that it curled up in a corner and became a network that protected its own image rather than report the truth of the outrages of Saddam's horrific rule? Whatever they gained in 1991, they lost in 2003, and not only did they lose the confidence of the public, but since 2003 the other networks' credibility has steadily eroded in the face of the multiple checks on them by pajama-clad Internet bloggers who just don't take the networks at their word anymore. This, as far as I'm concerned, is the best thing that has happened to journalism since the Sixties. This movie seems to me to be CNN trying to remind us all how important they are, but events have overtaken them, and this now looks like a display in a museum.