April 15, 2003

CNN Exec's Staff Memo on th...

CNN Exec's Staff Memo on the Baghdad Controversy:

Posted by at April 15, 2003 11:44 AM
Comments

It's a commendable defense. I think it would take a detailed study of CNN's actual coverage to come to a valid conclusion on whether CNN compromised itself.

I still have a problem, however, as I posted in my blog, with quoting people who can't speak freely, and if you do report from within a dictatorship not constantly reminding viewers of the active censorship going on.

Posted by: Howard Owens at April 15, 2003 04:16 PM

I'm not sure the decision was properly CNN's one way or another; the decision properly belonged to the sources who told them the stories. If those sources gave CNN permission to quote them, or quote them "on background" (both would have been equally dangerous, apparently), then CNN would have had an obligation to air the news (it was surely newsworthy). If the sources did not give permission to CNN to quote them, or quote them on background, then I don't think CNN could have run the stories. Same principle, in other words, as journalists apply in every situation. The decision belongs to the source, not the reporter.

Posted by: RobertNAtl at April 15, 2003 05:23 PM

the memo mentions the 3 options he had. I think the 4th option would be to not cite the name of the person but report the violations anyway. And the network should have been cognizant of what they were doing and the impact it had on their reporting. CNN's access to stories in Iraq depended in part on not reporting atrocities. No amount of explaining away will distract me from that critical fact.

Posted by: Abu Hamza at April 16, 2003 03:33 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






://mattwelch.com/warblog/archives/week_2003_04_13.html#001000">Kaus Has an Update/Clarific... »

April 15, 2003

CNN Exec's Staff Memo on th...

CNN Exec's Staff Memo on the Baghdad Controversy:

Posted by at April 15, 2003 11:44 AM
Comments

It's a commendable defense. I think it would take a detailed study of CNN's actual coverage to come to a valid conclusion on whether CNN compromised itself.

I still have a problem, however, as I posted in my blog, with quoting people who can't speak freely, and if you do report from within a dictatorship not constantly reminding viewers of the active censorship going on.

Posted by: Howard Owens at April 15, 2003 04:16 PM

I'm not sure the decision was properly CNN's one way or another; the decision properly belonged to the sources who told them the stories. If those sources gave CNN permission to quote them, or quote them "on background" (both would have been equally dangerous, apparently), then CNN would have had an obligation to air the news (it was surely newsworthy). If the sources did not give permission to CNN to quote them, or quote them on background, then I don't think CNN could have run the stories. Same principle, in other words, as journalists apply in every situation. The decision belongs to the source, not the reporter.

Posted by: RobertNAtl at April 15, 2003 05:23 PM

the memo mentions the 3 options he had. I think the 4th option would be to not cite the name of the person but report the violations anyway. And the network should have been cognizant of what they were doing and the impact it had on their reporting. CNN's access to stories in Iraq depended in part on not reporting atrocities. No amount of explaining away will distract me from that critical fact.

Posted by: Abu Hamza at April 16, 2003 03:33 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body> ents_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body> e { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body>