The News We Kept To Ourselves

[aerocontrols]

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


NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html)

The entire thing is worth reading. It makes me ill that CNN (and BBC, and others) were willing to 'put a good face' on the crimes of the Iraqi government in order to be 'free' to report only what Hussein would let them.

I honestly cannot believe this man is saying what he is. When faced with threats like this, isn't the responsible thing to do, to come home and report that Iraq is not safe to report on? To simply say: "The government of Iraq is so brutal, that by reporting what we find there, we put innocent people's lives at risk. When that changes, we will return and report once more."

CNN attempts to send reporters into the Kurdish areas and the Iraqi government responds that they will "suffer the severest possible consequences" Can someone tell me how reporting the Saddam-approved news from Iraq gave more benefit to the world than harm?

I'm physically ill reading this. CNN aided the Iraqi regime. That's what they were doing. If these words are true, every media organization that chose to work through the Iraqi Ministry of Information did so as well.

MattJ

[edit to remove MSNBC because I don't know that they had people in Iraq. Maybe they did, but I'm not sure.]

[aerocontrols]

From a reporter (http://www.mattwelch.com/archives/week_2003_04_06.html#1890) I e-mailed this story to:

This is appalling, though no surprise. The embarrassing Peter Arnett interview on Iraq TV was just a brief public glimpse on what has been a nasty little private “secret” for years -- that “news bureaus” in Baghdad and other totalitarian capitals (Havana, to name one) are actually propaganda huts, churning out what CNN producers call “sanctions coverage” (pieces on the awful humanitarian toll of international economic sanctions), while refusing to report the awful truth. It is possible, though intensely difficult, to do honest journalism in such circumstances. But with this column, I think we have the final proof that CNN will not be the news organization to rise to that challenge. Shame.

Also, I wrote an e-mail to CNN (not sure how much good it will do)

This article makes me sick. Your organization collaborated with the Iraqi regime. Dissidents were trying to get the truth out, and you obediently presented the pictures Saddam Hussein wanted the world to see. When he said 'jump', you f###in' jumped.

Can you please tell me one d### reason why I should trust a single story you tell from ANY brutal regime? After all, if you'll collaborate with one, you'll collaborate with the next.

What other dictators are you doing the bidding of?

Does this bother anyone else, or am I the only one?

MattJ

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I honestly cannot believe this man is saying what he is. When faced with threats like this, isn't the responsible thing to do, to come home and report that Iraq is not safe to report on? To simply say: "The government of Iraq is so brutal, that by reporting what we find there, we put innocent people's lives at risk. When that changes, we will return and report once more."

I think you missed a point here. If he comes home, then he is safe to report, but those who remain in Iraq, including Iraqi employees of CNN, are still in danger and will suffer dire consequences from his reports.

[Denise]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I think you missed a point here. If he comes home, then he is safe to report, but those who remain in Iraq, including Iraqi employees of CNN, are still in danger and will suffer dire consequences from his reports.

Cnn should have sent all their people home and reported the truth.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I think you missed a point here. If he comes home, then he is safe to report, but those who remain in Iraq, including Iraqi employees of CNN, are still in danger and will suffer dire consequences from his reports.

I don't think I missed any point. You recall that they were kicked out of Baghdad? Here is what they said at the time:


I think you were asking about our negotiations to be able to stay, with everything possible, we pointed out it was in everybody's interest and CNN's interest and Iraq's interest and certainly the interest of the world and of the American people to see what was going on in Baghdad and it was very important to have set of independent eyes and ears to report this. That's a point that we've always made to the Iraqi authorities throughout the years that we have been in Baghdad. We certainly made that point last night. In all of the years we worked there, we pointed out we have reported fairly. We followed the rules and it was in their interests, as well as ours.

Now, of course, it was a request by the network for an interview with the president. Interestingly enough, the Iraqis have never, as far as we could tell, taken advantage of the foreign media in the sense that all of the world, for example, the Bush administration, they take advantage of the media, they speak every minute that they can get of air time they take to get their point across to the world. This is done all over the world. The Iraqis, I think, has never taken full advantage of this. And I think it's a great missed opportunity because the world can hear and see what's happening if organizations like CNN are allowed to remain in Baghdad. And a great missed opportunity for everybody.

All this sucking up was in order to stay in Baghdad, after they had been kicked out. No threats to Iraqi media workers for CNN's obeying the 'get out' order.

CNN's (and the rest of Western Media's) actions are indefensible as far as I'm concerned.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Denise


Cnn should have sent all their people home and reported the truth.

The government of Iraq is so brutal, that by reporting what we find there, we put innocent people's lives at risk. When that changes, we will return and report once more.

I don't think it's too much to ask.

[whitefork]

How, then, should reporting about a criminal regime be accomplished? If CNN and the other agencies leave, there's no news except for the government mouthpieces. If they stay, they can't report the truth because their contacts will be tortured.

What's to be done in order to get the truth out?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by whitefork
How, then, should reporting about a criminal regime be accomplished? If CNN and the other agencies leave, there's no news except for the government mouthpieces. If they stay, they can't report the truth because their contacts will be tortured.

What's to be done in order to get the truth out?

I would presume that nobody would believe the government mouthpieces. I believe the principled thing for CNN to do is not lend its credibility to the lies of the Iraqi regime.

[whitefork]

I can't argue with that, but if Iraq remained a closed nation, like North Korea, Kampuchea under Pol Pot, or Burma, what happens to the people who are forced to live there?

Does the news media have a responsibility to report conditions in a place like Iraq, no matter what the cost to its employees? If not, how can it be argued that the rest of the world has an obligation to get rid of a criminal ruler like Saddam?

Who bears the burden of finding and reporting the truth here? There's some moral obligation involved. CNN behaved shamefully, agreed, but what is the right behavior under such conditions?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by whitefork
Who bears the burden of finding and reporting the truth here? There's some moral obligation involved. CNN behaved shamefully, agreed, but what is the right behavior under such conditions?

I've already said (twice) what I believe the correct behavior would have been under such conditions.

[whitefork]

So, there's no obligation to find out and report the truth under such conditions? Is that in fact your position here?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I would presume that nobody would believe the government mouthpieces. I believe the principled thing for CNN to do is not lend its credibility to the lies of the Iraqi regime.

aerocontrols is right when he says that there can be a great deal of danger when one is working for a foreign news service. There have been numerous cases of reporters and/or reporter sources being caught, imprisoned, tortured, and killed.

However, I would say that he is wrong by stating that because of the danger, news organizations should refuse to cover these areas.

The fact is that every government will try to manipulate the media. Some do so in subtle ways, some in not so subtle ways, and some will be downright egregious (i.e. USSR and Iraq).

However, when the foreign press does leave, then there is no other voice except for the government in question.

Therefore, in spite of the problems, the media must stay in place in order for the truth to get out because if they leave, then the truth will never get out.

Also, the job of the press is to report the news and allow the viewers make their conclusions about the data. If news organizations decided not to cover governments that they found reprehensible, then they would be making moral judgements as opposed to reporting the facts.

Further, the US military has benefited from live news from hostile areas, and they do not want to see their valuable intelligence source removed. Case in point, does anyone remember when Dick Cheney said as much during the First Gulf War?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by whitefork
So, there's no obligation to find out and report the truth under such conditions? Is that in fact your position here?

The 'truth' is:

The government of Iraq is so brutal, that by reporting what we find there, we put innocent people's lives at risk.

and you're damn right they had an obligation to report it.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

How is a propaganda detail like

Saddam got 100% of the vote today.

More important to report than what I said?

[Denise]

How is staying in Iraq and only reporting what the regime wants a reporter to report talking about the truth? How many years would they wait to tell the truth? Listening to the interview on CNN I had the distinct impression that if Saddam was still in power, we would not be hearing the truth now.

The news media can get plenty of interviews of people when they leave the country and not have to stay in Iraq and give their compliance to the regime.

By staying in Iraq, they were clearly not protecting anyone. They saw atrocities, they did not report it. They commited the sin of omission so to speak. By remaining silent they showed their compliance with Saddam.

[whitefork]

It sounds like you're saying there are only two alternatives. Stay in Iraq and report lies, or leave and say "the regime is so brutal that there's no way we can remain and report the truth".

I'm asking if there is in fact no middle way here.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by whitefork
It sounds like you're saying there are only two alternatives. Stay in Iraq and report lies, or leave and say "the regime is so brutal that there's no way we can remain and report the truth".

I'm asking if there is in fact no middle way here.

Denise told you the middle way:

Move your people out of the country and interview only people who are willing to contact you from inside. Put at risk only those people who voluntarily choose to put themselves at risk.

This has the unfortunate effect of making CNN's job harder. Boo-hoo. It has the fortunate effect of forcing the Iraqis to choose between having stories of Iraq come only from dissidents and easing up on their police state tactics so that (if such people exist) non-dissident Iraqis can say what they want as well.

What's the problem with this?

MattJ

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The 'truth' is:

The government of Iraq is so brutal, that by reporting what we find there, we put innocent people's lives at risk.

and you're damn right they had an obligation to report it.


I think that you are failing to look at this from the point of view of the CNN office in Iraq. They employed Iraqis who had familes. If CNN was to up and leave, claiming they would return when they were allowed to present the truth, those Iraqi employees and their families would probably be tortured and killed.

From an ethical standpoint you could say that the lives of those innocent Iraqis is a small price to pay for revealing the truth, but on a personal level, would you be able to make the decision to condemn your collegues?

I am sure there are other issues behind their decision, but I am also confident that personal feelings played a legitimate part. I do not think I would have been able to do any differently.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by tjwojo


I think that you are failing to look at this from the point of view of the CNN office in Iraq. They employed Iraqis who had familes. If CNN was to up and leave, claiming they would return when they were allowed to present the truth, those Iraqi employees and their families would probably be tortured and killed.

CNN (and various members of their staff) was kicked out of Iraq multiple times. Each time, instead of staying out, they begged to be let back in. (an example is above)

[Denise]

Originally posted by tjwojo


I think that you are failing to look at this from the point of view of the CNN office in Iraq. They employed Iraqis who had familes. If CNN was to up and leave, claiming they would return when they were allowed to present the truth, those Iraqi employees and their families would probably be tortured and killed.

From an ethical standpoint you could say that the lives of those innocent Iraqis is a small price to pay for revealing the truth, but on a personal level, would you be able to make the decision to condemn your collegues?

I am sure there are other issues behind their decision, but I am also confident that personal feelings played a legitimate part. I do not think I would have been able to do any differently.

I think we should ask the colleagues about this. Maybe they would have wanted to be martyrs to the cause. Sounds harsh but look at what has been happening over there.

It sounds like many reporters were targeted anyhow. CNN would not have been responsible for death and torture, the regime would hold the full responsibility.

In my opinion, CNN should have reported what was happening. They should have reported it over and over and over. They should have gone to congress, they should have shouted it from the rooftops. But they did not because they wanted to keep their reporters in Iraq so that they could keep on not reporting the truth and not give a voice to the voiceless.

[roger]

Yes, kicked out for saying things the regime didn't want reported.

You don't kick out reporters if they are reporting exactly what you want to say.

But, a question - were the Iraqi reporters acting immorally? They worked to get the truth out, but undoubtedly did not report everything they saw, knew, and heard. Should they have just given up too, or gotten out what news they could? (I think the latter).

[Denise]

Originally posted by roger
Yes, kicked out for saying things the regime didn't want reported.

You don't kick out reporters if they are reporting exactly what you want to say.

But, a question - were the Iraqi reporters acting immorally? They worked to get the truth out, but undoubtedly did not report everything they saw, knew, and heard. Should they have just given up too, or gotten out what news they could? (I think the latter).

They were kicked out because some of the Iraqi leaders thought they were spies, not because they were reporting about what was really happening.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by roger
Yes, kicked out for saying things the regime didn't want reported.

You don't kick out reporters if they are reporting exactly what you want to say.

Yes, that's precisely why the Hussein govt. said they were kicked out. I presume you realize the implications of believing it.

Hussein put Tariq Aziz's brother in jail to 'show him who was boss'. Hussein regularly put family members of other people in his own administration in jail for the same.

Every reporter's visa in Iraq was a 2 week visa. If they chose not to renew it, you had to leave. Christianne Ammanpour (sp?) was kicked out and could not return. Jane Arraf was kicked out multiple times. No matter, CNN found more compliant journalists to take their places. What depths would they not stoop to in order to get back in?

Originally posted by roger
But, a question - were the Iraqi reporters acting immorally? They worked to get the truth out, but undoubtedly did not report everything they saw, knew, and heard. Should they have just given up too, or gotten out what news they could? (I think the latter).

They should have gotten what news they could without aiding and comforting the Iraqi regime.

You tell me now: How much will you trust news that comes out of Syria, Cuba, or the PA? Why should I believe anything any CNN reporter says from any of these places?

MattJ

[roger]

Originally posted by Denise
They were kicked out because some of the Iraqi leaders thought they were spies, not because they were reporting about what was really happening.


"Government officials expressed particular outrage over CNN reporting, specifically its coverage this week of an unprecedented anti-government demonstration outside the Iraqi Information Ministry in Baghdad." http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/24/iraq.journalists/

[Denise]

Originally posted by roger



"Government officials expressed particular outrage over CNN reporting, specifically its coverage this week of an unprecedented anti-government demonstration outside the Iraqi Information Ministry in Baghdad." http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/24/iraq.journalists/

Touche, Roger.

But a quote from the article..
Jordan added that "while CNN remains committed to reporting to the extent possible from Iraq, CNN will not compromise its journalistic principles in exchange for CNN access to any country."

[aerocontrols]

Jordan added that "while CNN remains committed to reporting to the extent possible from Iraq, CNN will not compromise its journalistic principles in exchange for CNN access to any country."

LOL!

Edit: Initially, I laughed. On reflection, it is not funny. This is just one more way in which CNN added legitimacy to the false version of life in Iraq that Hussein allowed them to broadcast.

This is a claim that when they get back into Iraq, they will be broadcasting the 'truth' again.

[roger]

Ya, I know Denise, that is a funny quote. :)

Look, I understand where you and Matt are coming from, and I'm not looking for a fight. Clearly the news organizations were not reporting everything that happened, but that never happens, even here in the states. Everyday there's a Post or NYT reporter sitting in a congressman's aides' office listening to "this is off the record, but..." Yes, big difference between that and Saddam. But I haven't seen where CNN has reported deliberately false information. I understand I am only getting part of the story in any report. That doesn't lead me to think that what they _do_ report is false.

I think that if I was in that position, I would do the same thing - report as much as I could get away with, try to get back in when I got kicked out, and when I knew something that I couldn't report myself, I pass it on to a reporter stateside and see if they can't find an independent source for the info. That way you can report on it w/o jeprodizing your sources. I think I could live with myself.

Oh, just a thought - I have no direct quotes, but I recall during this war coverage the reporters repeatadly saying that they had a government minder with them, that their access was limited. It was clear to me then that not everything was being reported. I'm okay with that, you're not. There's no hard feelings or a fight from this end about that. :)

Roger

[Denise]

Roger, yes we will have to agree to disagree here.:)

[aerocontrols]

What Denise said.

[aerocontrols]

Here's another journalist's take (http://www.hobbsonline.blogspot.com/2003_04_01_hobbsonline_archive.html#92421583) on it. He has some comments, then some suggestions. (to answer your questions about what they should have done)

What should CNN have done? Stopped hiring locals, for one. And if that wasn't possible, CNN should have closed its Baghdad bureau and stopped putting Iraqis at risk by being there. But mostly, CNN should have told the world what is going on. CNN Iraqi staffers were tortured while CNN stayed silent. It's ludicrous after-the-fact corporate ass-covering to suggest the speaking out would have put its Iraqi staffers in danger. They already were in danger. Reporting that to the world might well have pressured the regime to change its ways. But we'll never know because CNN was more interested in keeping its prestigious Baghdad bureau open than in fully reporting the horrors of the regime that hosted them there.


Some will whine and prattle on about the need for journalistic neutrality, but journalists are not exempt from the responsibility to make moral choices, and neutrality in the face of evil isn't neutrality at all. At best, it is cowardice. At worst, it is aid and comfort to the evil. I can't watch CNN anymore.

MattJ

[Mel]

I have to agree with Roger.

IMO, it ia always, always better to have a presence than to have a total void. Just by BEING there forces the other side to make all kinds of adjustments to his game plan.

It's silly to think that reporters in ANY Muslim country are allowed to report freely and when watching ANY news source (or even Pentagon news briefs) it's very important to learn to read between the lines.

[aerocontrols]

Best of the Web (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/) points to this article (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021028&s=foer102802) in the New Republic where Eason Jordan is asked why CNN puts up with Iraq's strictures:

When I asked CNN's Jordan to explain why his network is so devoted to maintaining a perpetual Baghdad presence, he listed two reasons: "First, because it's newsworthy; second, because there's an expectation that if anybody is in Iraq, it will be CNN." His answer reveals the fundamental attitude of most Western media: Access to Baghdad is an end in itself, regardless of the intellectual or moral caliber of the journalism such access produces. An old journalistic aphorism holds "access is a curse." The Iraqi experience proves it can be much worse than that.

and about someone who did real journalism in Iraq:

There are alternatives to mindlessly reciting Baghdad's spin. Instead of desperately trying to keep their Baghdad offices open, the networks could scour Kurdistan and Jordan, where there are many recently arrived Iraqis who can talk freely. "Amman is the place to find out what's really going on in Iraq," says ex-CIA officer Robert Baer, who spent the mid-'90s working in and around Iraq. (To CNN's credit, it has sent reporter Brent Sadler to Kurdistan despite Baghdad's furious objections.) Or they could use their access to depict the harsh realities of life under Saddam--even if it means never returning to Iraq. It's a method used by Soler in his documentary Uncle Saddam, to be aired on Cinemax next month. After spending a month ingratiating himself with Saddam's entourage, Soler convinced the Iraqis to grant him camera time with His Excellency's inner circle. His film shows Saddam to be a lunatic, devoid of morality or humanity. It captures images of Saddam's unique style of fishing-hurling grenades into a pond and then sending aides to retrieve the kill. It documents Saddam's megalomania: Iraq's biggest paper features Saddam in a new pose on the cover each day. "I don't need a relationship with Iraq," he explains of his decision to bare all. "It was my one shot. Every day it was how can I push the limits."

To be sure, after screening his documentary for film festivals and Iraqi opposition groups in the U.S., Soler found red paint splattered on his Los Angeles home, his trash can set on fire, and a death threat in his mailbox. But with the film he smuggled out of Iraq via courier, Soler gives more psychological insight into Saddam than ten years of American TV reportage.

'having a presence' vs. 'total void' is a false dilemma.

MattJ

[BobK]

Has CNN been around longer than Saddam has been in power?

If not, they must have started out with this crappy arangement.

What other networks have been there in the past few years?

[Denise]

Originally posted by Mel
I have to agree with Roger.

IMO, it ia always, always better to have a presence than to have a total void. Just by BEING there forces the other side to make all kinds of adjustments to his game plan.



Apparently it didn't stop Saddam from torturing and killing people. How did they help by being there?

[schplurg]

From CNN:
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.
Why?

I've heard this several times, and people seem to just accept it. Why would this guarantee the death of this employee? If CNN reports that there is torture going on (shocking the world), then why would Iraq start killing people to retaliate? That just makes them look even more evil to the world. Obviously they care at least a little about their "image" or they would let CNN report the torture. Perhaps torture is more heinous an act than murder, but if that's true, then the employee would have been better off dead, following that logic anyways. ;)

Suppose they risked reporting of the torture, and they guy was indeed killed. The story would outrage the world, and more focus would be on Iraq. I'm not saying that would be worth a man's life, but I wonder how many people died because of what they didn't report?

I don't buy this poop from CNN, at least not yet. I remain open minded on this, but I need more convincing.