CNN chief exec accuses US military of targeting and killing journalists

Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
The links on this, unfortunately will have to come from a blog. Why? Because the MSM seemingly won't touch this with a ten foot pole (Must be all those conservative owners not wanting to expose liberal Eason's bias), even though it's documented and was videotaped as well.

http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/01/do_us_troops_ta.html

This fiery topic became a real nightmare today for the Chief News Executive of CNN at what was an initially very mild discussion at the World Economic Forum titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?".

At a discussion moderated by David R. Gergen, the Director for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, the concept of truth, fairness, and balance in the news was weighed against corporate profit interest, the need for ratings, and how the media can affect democracy. The panel included Richard Sambrook, the worldwide director of BBC radio, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Abdullah Abdullah, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan, and Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN. The audience was a mix of journalists, WEF attendees (many from Arab countries), and a US Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd.

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters.

Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real "sh--storm". What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military.

To be fair (and balanced), Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it. But when pressed by others, he seemed to waver back and forth between what might have been his beliefs and the realization that he had created a kind of public mess. His statements, his reaction, and the reaction of all in attendance left me perplexed and confused. Many in the crowd, especially those from Arab nations, applauded what he said and called him a "very brave man" for speaking up against the U.S. in a public way amongst a crowd ready to hear anti-US sentiments. I am quite sure that somewhere in the Middle East, right now, his remarks are being printed up in Arab language newspapers as proof that the U.S. is an evil and corrupt nation. That is a real nightmare, because the Arab world is taking something said by a credible leader of the media (CNN!) as the gospel, or koranic truth. What is worse is that I am not really sure what Eason really meant to communicate to us, but I do know that he was quite passionate about it. Members of the audience took away what they wanted to hear, and now they will use it in every vile and twisted way imaginable.

To me, what was said can not be put back into the genie's bottle. So here is my request as a U.S. citizen, and really only a minor, minor player in the whole WEF scheme of things: Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd, you both seem like good and honest men, and Congressman Frank especially seems like someone with a bit of courage (I'm sure Senator Dodd is brave as well). Clear up this mess, use your power and authority as elected leaders, and make transparent what really happened. You must do this to respect the 12 journalists killed and let the world know how and why. Here is another challenge, and this one is for the CNN and the BBC: What the hell happened? Is Eason right or is he wrong? Good journalism calls for digging into and revealing all of the facts (or was everything that was said in the mild part of the discussion about fair coverage and seeking the truth just verbage?).

If what Eason originally said was true, exactly what happened and why needs to become known to the American public and world at large. If it is not, it is an example of how "news" is created by the heat of the moment, without any bearing to reality. If it is true, we need to know if it was official or if it was just some random disgruntled soldiers. The dark scenario, what the rest of the world would love to believe, is that the U.S. is sinister and evil and this is just another example of Darth Bush. Is this the same U.S. that I know and love, or was this just someone accidentally becoming swept up in the anti-U.S. feeling that is all pervasive in Davos (but they love us too, especially Clinton).

The cherry on the whipped cream of this cowpie sundae was poor Abdullah Abdullah, a shining new, fresh scrubbed member of America's grand experiment to export democracy to the Middle East. Here is someone who seemed to be idealistic, full of hope and vigor. What is he thinking about all of this? What kind of role model are we presenting to the fragile new democracies of Afghanistan and Iraq? What we can do, what we must do, is show them how democracy works, and how in an open and free country the truth will get out, and those responsible will be held accountable. The U.S. makes no claims about being perfect - we only make claims that we are open enough to correct our problems, and to admit freely to ourselves and the world if we are wrong.

As a last note, I think that this article is a good pointer to the future of the news: average people, freely saying what they want, as they saw it, for anyone to see. To me, that is freedom of the press.
Has CNN lost so much market share in the US that their execs have to pander to the foreigners, tell them what they want to hear in order to demonstrate they are not a pawn of the man in the US and to jack up their international ratings? It's this kind of crap that gets repeated ad naseum until it eventually becomes accepted as fact in liberal circles and apparently, that's what has happened here.

Now Eason is backpedaling furiously trying to deflect any damage that may arise from his ludicrous statements. And the supposedly non-liberal MSM is taking a hands-off approach to providing any visibility to this story whatsoever. They are letting it slide, which seems a bit like cronyism at its finest.

But, hey. Liberal media. What liberal media?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Are you trying to suggest one case of a "liberal" journalist shows the media as a whole is liberal?
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
We have targeted journalists, just ask Al-Jazeera. We bombed their Baghdad at the start of the war.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Now Eason is backpedaling furiously trying to deflect any damage that may arise from his ludicrous statements. And the supposedly non-liberal MSM is taking a hands-off approach to providing any visibility to this story whatsoever
Perhaps because this is a non-story?

Guy makes claim
Guy gets called to task on claim
Guy backpedals and recants



Where's the story?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Now Eason is backpedaling furiously trying to deflect any damage that may arise from his ludicrous statements. And the supposedly non-liberal MSM is taking a hands-off approach to providing any visibility to this story whatsoever
Perhaps because this is a non-story?

Guy makes claim
Guy gets called to task on claim
Guy backpedals and recants

Where's the story?

Somehow the chicken logic works something like this:

Journalist makes anti-military claim. Claim is false. There is a liberal media.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
The U.S. military targeted the Baghdad hotel journalists were staying in.

Bush wants "imbedded" journalists only -- makes the control of information much easier.

Dead journalists are acceptable to Bush as well. They don't report much news either.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Now Eason is backpedaling furiously trying to deflect any damage that may arise from his ludicrous statements. And the supposedly non-liberal MSM is taking a hands-off approach to providing any visibility to this story whatsoever
Perhaps because this is a non-story?

Guy makes claim
Guy gets called to task on claim
Guy backpedals and recants



Where's the story?
Story is Guy is Chief News Executive at CNN.

Suppose the Chief News Executive at FoxNews claimed that MSM journalists were working with Insurgents to setup ambushes. How would that go over?
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: SViscusi
We have targeted journalists, just ask Al-Jazeera. We bombed their Baghdad at the start of the war.

Yeah, I remember that. Blew that one reporter away, right? "whoops"
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists in Iraq. But the U.S. military has killed several journalists in Iraq in cases of mistaken identity. The reason the word "targeted" came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of "collateral damage." Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the "collateral damage" statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists -- not all -- killed in Iraq were indeed targeted.


Spring 2002
http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Spring02/jordan.html
We're working two very, very big stories right now that have a couple of things in common. One is they're enormously costly, but more importantly or more worrying is that they're both exceptionally dangerous, because we've seen something in both places that I thank God happens very rarely, and that is that in both places journalists are not only being killed but they're being targeted. There are combatants in both of these conflicts who are trying to kill journalists, and that is unusual and a very nightmarish situation.


BTW, don't see how this proves CNN is a "liberal media" member.

Heck:
http://www.matrixmasters.com/blog/speecharchive/2002_07_01_archivespeech.html
Damage Control at CNN
(Arabia.com, June 30, 2002)
Although Turner himself has no role in CNN's coverage of any news items, uproar ensued against CNN immediately, with the network's Jerusalem bureau being flooded with hate mail and threats from Israelis. Local Israeli cable channels have decided to air Fox News instead, and threatened to take CNN off the air for supposedly being "biased" against Israel. Apparently, if the Israeli army bulldozes Palestinian homes, or kills unarmed Palestinian civilians in cold blood using tank shells (usually labeled a "mistake" by the Israeli army), reporting on such actions is deemed "biased," "anti-Israel," and "pro-terrorist." . . . CNN immediately flew its top executive to Israel after Turner apologized in an interview with Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, and the network hastily compiled a weeklong series focusing on the victims of Palestinian terror. An apology was also issued because an interview with the family of a Palestinian suicide bomber received more programming time than interviews with the family of two of his victims. According to Eason Jordan, CNN's president of newsgathering, this was "rectified. by airing extensively the interview with the [victims'] family." . . . In a final insult, yesterday's "analysis" of George W. Bush's "peace plan" for the Middle East was moderated by a panel consisting entirely of right-wing figures known for their anti-Arab stances. . . . The panel highlighted CNN's desperate attempts to pick up the mess left by Ted Turner, with a lunge to the far right to avoid being abandoned for Fox News in Israeli cable markets. Eric Alterman of MSNBC states clearly, "when the Israelis and their most right-wing supporters rule the roost. nobody even notices the egregious bias in the presentation." . . . CNN deserves congratulations for stooping to a new low in unethical journalism. It proves what we've known all along: that Israel's influence on US media and foreign policy are so great, they can distort and hide any semblance of the truth.
 

broon

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,660
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
The U.S. military targeted the Baghdad hotel journalists were staying in.

Bush wants "imbedded" journalists only -- makes the control of information much easier.

Dead journalists are acceptable to Bush as well. They don't report much news either.

I'm glad someone has such insight from the president.

All the journalists should know what kind of danger they're going to be in when the go. If they were told they need to leave town or run the risk then they've been warned. You can't go into a combat zone with a camera and say "Don't shoot, I'm a reporter" and expect to live.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Now Eason is backpedaling furiously trying to deflect any damage that may arise from his ludicrous statements. And the supposedly non-liberal MSM is taking a hands-off approach to providing any visibility to this story whatsoever
Perhaps because this is a non-story?

Guy makes claim
Guy gets called to task on claim
Guy backpedals and recants



Where's the story?
The story is on the CNN cheif executive making this ridiculous accusation, not once but multiple times during the course of these talks (before finally being called on it, then backpedaling in a lame and obfuscating manner). Not only that, but he's made similar claims the months before when nobody could call him on it. This is the same Eason Jordan who admittedly coddled Saddam Hussein and spewed his propaganda just to get CNN access to Iraq and an interview iwth Saddam Hussein.

This pr!ck sold out this country and journalistic integrity (if that could be claimed of CNN) for his 15 minutes of fame and nightly ratings.

Oh, but that's not news and you don't care. It's what I'd figure from the Saddam apologists.

Infohawk, get a life, creep.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
the US military only started doing that in retaliation for geraldo giving away troop positions
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Wow...someone pissed in TrollsLikeChicken's Wheaties today.

Hey, TLC, how about you read my later post above? And, let up on the BS, too. It's really smelly in here now.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Wow...someone pissed in TrollsLikeChicken's Wheaties today.

Hey, TLC, how about you read my later post above? And, let up on the BS, too. It's really smelly in here now.
It's a hoot and a half hearing you call anyone else a troll. Got any more lame trolls about Bush being a closet homo? Yuck, yuck. :roll:

And it smells just fine where I am. Maybe it's a localized problem? You should probably check.

 

JimKiler

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2002
3,561
206
106


This is the same Eason Jordan who admittedly coddled Saddam Hussein and spewed his propaganda just to get CNN access to Iraq and an interview iwth Saddam Hussein.

That was my first question after reading this, is this the same guy at CNN who propagated Saddam's lies to gain access.

I even remember they said CNN pushed a saddam tour guide to show CNN somethign they should not have. CNN never saw that tour guide again. So for CNN to claim US troops kill reporters when they have innocent IRaqi blood on their hands is disturbing.

Granted the military might be killing journalists intentionally but it is far fetched.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
The media reports on what is sensational so they can make the most cash possible. That's all it is...
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: BBond
The U.S. military targeted the Baghdad hotel journalists were staying in.

Bush wants "imbedded" journalists only -- makes the control of information much easier.

Dead journalists are acceptable to Bush as well. They don't report much news either.
Oh look, BBond not providing the full story. What a surprise. :roll:

So why was that Baghdad hotel indirectly targetted? Why, perhaps because Saddam's regime had possibly constructed a bunker for the elite beneath it, knowing how amusingly easy it is for some people to jump to stupid conclusions and conspiracy theories...
Then the phone rang. It was the office in Sydney with a message that was well-sourced and frightening: "Get out of the Al-Rasheed - it is a high-value target." Jon Lee Anderson was furious - we had got the suite only the previous day and he had been working all night, so he hadn't even slept in his bed.

But then we got that warning phone call. It seemed that those we had initially relied on for advice about Saddam's rumoured special communications bunker beneath the Al-Rasheed were wrong.

I decided that we could not walk out of the hotel without giving the staff one last warning. When I explained it all to Hamid, at the cashier's desk, he became troubled as he pondered what it meant: "We can go to the bunker in the basement?"

No, I explained that the US was likely to use a very powerful bunker buster bomb that would pass through the shelter used by staff and guest to get to Saddam's hideout even deeper under the hotel. "Oh," he said. "We will have to go into the garden."
Try to match your rantings to the facts sometime, will ya?