General discussion

CNN Slimes Our Troops

Michelle ******
Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2005
One of the most common complaints I hear from our troops is that the media rarely report on the military's good deeds.

A simple column I wrote last month lauding the humanitarian efforts of our men and women in the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, for example, resulted in an avalanche of mail from military members and their families expressing astonishment and relief over a bit of positive press.

"I cannot tell you how much that it meant to myself as well as several of my shipmates to be praised," wrote Mariano Gonzales, a member of Strike Fighter Squadron 151 aboard the Lincoln. "Sometimes it seems that in today's world, it is just not

Discussion is locked

Reply to: CNN Slimes Our Troops
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: CNN Slimes Our Troops
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
I don't know why the media seems so

reticent in reporting of positive news. I don't think the war effort is or has been singled out in this respect. There's just nothing like a good disaster to get our adrenalin flowing and nothing more "ho-hum" than the commonplace of the US or it's citizens doing good things. Maybe if we were surrounded by disaster so much that it became the norm, we'd learn a different respect for just a good 'ol boring day of happy accomplishments.Happy

- Collapse -
Compare two stations

Station A's news program covers puppies and teddy bears and other good new much more than B's. Station B follows the traditional 'if it bleeds it leads'.

You get one guess as to which station is going to get more views.


- Collapse -
Dan, you said nothing

that I did not already lament.

- Collapse -
Henceforth, Mark, let us refer to that service as al-CNN,...

...or alternately the American branch of Jihad TV. Also, let us resolve to never again give it so much a one minute's viewing time.

- Collapse -
That's the same idea everybody else has for CNN!
- Collapse -
"According to several eyewitnesses"...

.... doesn't hack it for me.

As it was said that the event happened on January 27th, I would think that other media would have hopped on the story, like the past one of Dateline falsifying the gas tank explosion, Dan Rather's false reporting, etc.

I recall CNN being accused of using an old video which showed Palestinians dancing in the streets.


click here to email

- Collapse -
What did CNN's chief really say at Davos? I was there

What did CNN's chief really say at Davos? I was there.

Thursday, February 10, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Did Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN, actually say the American military has deliberately killed journalists covering the conflict in Iraq?

It's a serious question, at least to judge by the heat it's generated. Google "Easongate" and you get 2,500 results. There is an Web site, on which more than 1,000 petitioners demand that Mr. Jordan release a transcript of his remarks--made recently in Davos--by Feb. 15 or, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, face serious consequences. Sean Hannity and the usual Internet suspects have all weighed in. So has Michelle Malkin, who sits suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.

There's a reason the hounds are baying. Already they have feasted on the juicy entrails of Dan Rather. Mr. Jordan, whose previous offenses (other than the general tenor of CNN coverage) include a New York Times op-ed explaining why access is a more important news value than truth, was bound to be their next target. And if Mr. Jordan has now made a defamatory and unsubstantiated allegation against U.S. forces, well then . . . open the gates.

By chance, I was in the audience of the World Economic Forum's panel discussion where Mr. Jordan spoke. What happened was this: Mr. Jordan observed that of the 60-odd journalists killed in Iraq, 12 had been targeted and killed by coalition forces. He then offered a story of an unnamed Al-Jazeera journalist who had been "tortured for weeks" at Abu Ghraib, made to eat his shoes, and called "Al-Jazeera boy" by his American captors.
Here Rep. Barney Frank, also a member of the panel, interjected: Had American troops actually targeted journalists? And had CNN done a story about it? Well no, Mr. Jordan replied, CNN hadn't done a story on this, specifically. And no, he didn't believe the Bush administration had a policy of targeting journalists. Besides, he said, "the [American] generals and colonels have their heart in the right place."

By this point, one could almost see the wheels of Mr. Jordan's mind spinning, slowly: "How am I going to get out of this one?" But Mr. Frank and others kept demanding specifics. Mr. Jordan replied that "there are people who believe there are people in the military" who have it out for journalists. He also recounted a story of a reporter who'd been sent to the back of the line at a checkpoint outside of Baghdad's Green Zone, apparently because the soldier had been unhappy with the reporter's dispatches.

- Collapse -
The piece Mark cites goes on to say:
I'll leave it to others to draw their own verdicts, but here's mine: Whether with malice aforethought or not, Mr. Jordan made a defamatory innuendo. Defamatory innuendo--rather than outright allegation--is the vehicle of mainstream media bias. Had Mr. Jordan's innuendo gone unchallenged, it would have served as further proof to the Davos elite of the depths of American perfidy. Mr. Jordan deserves some credit for retracting the substance of his remark, and some forgiveness for trying to weasel his way out of a bad situation of his own making. Whether CNN wants its news division led by a man who can't be trusted to sit on a panel and field softball questions is another matter.

Remember: This is the same Eason Jordan who admitted that prior to March 2003, al-CNN's Baghdad bureau routinely spiked stories it had regarding the activities of Saddan Hussain because it feared that it would be evicted from Iraq. I submit that given the consistently anti-American tone of that service's prior work in the Mideast and elsewhere, Mr. Jordan's explanations ring hollow. Would not the whole world been better off knowing - if only for a brief time - the totally of Saddam's brutality and corruption prior to American military intervention? I think so, and the fact that the world did not know was solely due to the nonactions of al-CNN.

CNET Forums

Forum Info