CNN a tool for Propaganda ?

[ledhed]

What do you think , I am undecided if it helped show us why we are fighting or if CNN is a tool and a propaganda lapdog because of the context of NEWS they placed on it .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301088.html

A Republican lawmaker has asked the Pentagon to bar CNN reporters from traveling with U.S. military units in Iraq because the network showed insurgent snipers shooting at U.S. troops.

The footage, aired last week on CNN, does not show the death or wounding of any service member. In one instance, the tape shows a service member milling around a public area. A shot is fired, and the tape fades to black

I wish it would have been a Democrat....but ....meh... ( NOT SHOT but reporting to congress)

for contrast...same video...but NOT a US station says its propaganda...but the US network doesn't ?


Just me or is this a WTH moment ?

 

[Solid Fro]

I could not have said it better: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/23/this-is-cnn-2/

It's propaganda and CNN knew it.

 

[Swift]

CNN is a complete tool.

What can this possibly do except help the democrats with their push about how Iraq was a mistake.

Oh, and of course showing the death of Americans.

This video was recorded by the insurgents! Why would we put something from them showing OUR soldiers die on OUR TV's?

 

[YSSMAN]

I watched that report air on "Your World Today" last week... That would be a part of CNN International that airs here in the US during our lunch hour (12PM-1PM). I'm not sure if I personally would have classified it as propaganda, but certainly something that peaked my interest in what is going on in Iraq, something that I had not heard about as of yet.

...CNN International made it clear that it was risky airing that report, and although I'm not sure if the content of it was good for the afternoon news, they were reporting it nonetheless...

But this isn't the first time that CNN has been in hot water over what they have showed on television in reguards to Iraq (correct me if I'm wrong). It often seems that CNN and MSNBC report news that seems a bit more negative, and clearly anti-Bush than that of Fox News and even ABC to some extent. All news companies are certainly prone to some form of bias if it be domestic or not. I often enjoy coverage done by the foreign press (particularly the BBC and The Times), but I don't take everything they say word for word.

...What it comes down to is that you are going to have to decide for yourself what you belive and what you do not. I'm not completely sure if CNN did the right thing by airing that report, but I'm not sure that if the Pentagon's actions are indeed necessary either. It is another case of "we will see" I suppose, but I'm a bit on both sides here...

 

[wfooshee]

CNN is exactly the sort of entity described in Viper Zero's sig.
I wish my cable was a la carte so I could remove them. As it is, their channel is deleted from my programmed lineup.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't like CNN, but their International channel doesn't seem to be too bad. But when you've got "Crazy Ted" running the show, they are bound to screw up once in a while!

 

[Tornado]

CNN is trash for far more reasons than there political views, and I personally view the rediculous coverage the Iraq war has been getting as the least of the problems the network has.

 

[YSSMAN]

Cetainly. They don't give fair coverage to the other side of the spectrum, that being the conservatives, etc. I can't stand Wolf Blitzer or Larry King, although Anderson Cooper isn't a bad guy.

...But the only show I ever watch from start to finish on CNN is "Your World Today," mainly because it covers stories that the American press does not...

 

[Mike Rotch]

If I want to watch what the US Gov wants the American public to watch and hear about Iraq, then i skip over to CNN.

If I want a watered down version of that, targetted at British folk, I watch Sky.

Its the same everywhere though. Even the local news here is full of BS about local government.

 

[FoolKiller]

You know, when CNN got called out for kind of saying what Saddam wanted in order to keep their bureau in Iraq (being the only American network to do so) I felt they were being unethical, but I could understand the idea behind it from a business standpoint. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it was a business decision, but I no longer trusted their reporting.

However, now seeing that they would air something biased that could lose them their access to military coverage it suddenly strikes me as less about business and more about bias. Over time my suspicions grew as to what was business and what was bias as Fox News gained more and more audience numbers with the opposite bias in their commentary and CNN kept up their same old rhetoric.

So not only has CNN gone on to show that they are biased, but they are revealing that business has nothing to do with it and bias has everything to do with it. Well, if they lose their military coverage maybe they will give Wolf Blitzer another hour to ramble on like a complete tool. That or Anderson Cooper will get more pretty face time.

 

[vladimir]

you guys have a very weird understanding of the news media it seems...

not showing what is going on in iraq would be censorship and in fact propaganda. i expect unbiased TV to show what is actually happening.

 

[Flame-returns]

I feel that CNN has every right to report the sniper shot. Its not propaganda, its reporting, I challenge any news network to declare that the event didn't take place so why not show it happening? The last time I checked freedom of the press was all about reporting unsanitised facts and allowing people to make their own minds up, refusing to cover the story because it could lower morale is propaganda.

I dont know all of the facts nor have I seen the full segment so I am unaware of what context the video was shown in but showing the video (while acting with responsibility) is somthing I am fully behind. CNN has a duty to show everything (even beheadings and terrorists) and leave the public to make up their own minds.

Yeah sure CNN has contact with insurgents but I thought that the media was supposed to be impartial, impartiatlity involves covering both sides which requires contact with both American forces and the enemy.

 

[FoolKiller]

you guys have a very weird understanding of the news media it seems...

not showing what is going on in iraq would be censorship and in fact propaganda. i expect unbiased TV to show what is actually happening.

Um, I think you missed the issue here,

CNN issued a statement saying that the decision was "a difficult one, but for a news organization, the right one. Our responsibility is to report the news." The video was delivered to the network through a contact with an insurgent leader.

Two points here:

1) They are in contact with people who are trying to kill Americans and hiding that contact.
2) They are showing a designed propaganda film from the enemy, not something they filmed themselves.

They had a history of reporting whatever the Iraqi government, under Saddam, told them to say, even to the point of firing a reporter who refused to do the report because he knew it to be a false story. Now they have communications with insurgent leaders and are displaying propaganda footage created by those leaders.

One could argue removing embedded reporters simply because enemy leaders are in contact with someone that has detailed information of American troop movements. Even if it is by accident CNN personnel could endanger American troops.

 

[Pupik]

Isn't just another hassle for the the armed services to worry about a reporter that's going to get shot at or blown up? Seriously, doesn't the military have enough to worry about?

As much as we want to hear and see what's going on (no matter what an individual's bias is towards the war), it seems to create more problems than solutions, in my opinon.

I dunno, CNN just seems to be a scare-mongering network lately; I expect that from my local news affiliates, but it's downright embarassing from a national standpoint. If it's not scaring you, it's jamming entertainment news and buffoonery down my throat.

[changes channel]

 

[Flame-returns]

Isn't just another hassle for the the armed services to worry about a reporter that's going to get shot at or blown up?

I consider that the reporter's risk. HM Armed Forces do not practice embedding, thats a strictly American policy, ie it was the decision of the military. Most British correspondents are either embedded with the US or working in Iraq without armed support.

I dunno, CNN just seems to be a scare-mongering network lately; I expect that from my local news affiliates, but it's downright embarassing from a national standpoint. If it's not scaring you, it's jamming entertainment news and buffoonery down my throat.

[changes channel]

Sure its crap but is it dangerous crap?

 

[Pupik]

I consider that the reporter's risk.

Yes, but if the "enemy" can get a hold of the journalist's records and information, it's also something the military must protect.

 

[Pako]

Two points here:

1) They are in contact with people who are trying to kill Americans and hiding that contact.
2) They are showing a designed propaganda film from the enemy, not something they filmed themselves.

They had a history of reporting whatever the Iraqi government, under Saddam, told them to say, even to the point of firing a reporter who refused to do the report because he knew it to be a false story. Now they have communications with insurgent leaders and are displaying propaganda footage created by those leaders.

One could argue removing embedded reporters simply because enemy leaders are in contact with someone that has detailed information of American troop movements. Even if it is by accident CNN personnel could endanger American troops.

And because of these points, why is CNN (or the CEO's and Managers there in) not being charged with treason?

 

[vladimir]

1) They are in contact with people who are trying to kill Americans and hiding that contact.

isn't that exactly what independent media is supposed to do?

one could of course argue that they would endanger american lifes if they wouldn't report insurgents they had contact with.
however, i expect independent journalists to make contact with both sides because thats what they're supposed to do. if they would just report what the us forces told them and only go to the places the us forces allow them to go they could just stop working and let the forces do the news.
furthermore the media is not the CIA or some kind of police, its not their job to fight the insurgents. i am sure that if they got knowledge of a planned attack they would have reported it to the forces immediately.

2) They are showing a designed propaganda film from the enemy, not something they filmed themselves.

and they did not mention that?

They had a history of reporting whatever the Iraqi government, under Saddam, told them to say, even to the point of firing a reporter who refused to do the report because he knew it to be a false story. Now they have communications with insurgent leaders and are displaying propaganda footage created by those leaders.

i'm sure they also report what the US gov. tells them. thats what the media does, they report things that governments say. they should, however, make it clear where they get such information from. from my knowledge of cnn world, they do that.

imagine you would run a company and one of your workers wouldn't do what you want him to do, what would you do? especially if you were under the impression that you were right and he was wrong. maybe the reporter was right, but its nothing new that people make mistakes...

i heard about cnn being very dramatic often, but fox isn't renown for being very reliabe either...
i'm thankful for our public TV network.

One could argue removing embedded reporters simply because enemy leaders are in contact with someone that has detailed information of American troop movements. Even if it is by accident CNN personnel could endanger American troops.

that would be there good right, nobody can force them to drag reporters along with them...

 

[Danoff]

If I want to watch what the US Gov wants the American public to watch and hear about Iraq, then i skip over to CNN.

Sorry Mike, that's just too conspiracy-theory for me to swallow. Let me guess, you hate America, you hate George Bush, you hate Capitalism, you hate the rich, and you hate big business.

Did I sum it up pretty well?

 

[exigeracer]

Why would we put something from them showing OUR soldiers die on OUR TV's?

Because that is reality.

People are dying. If someone fighting for my country dies, I'd like to know about it.

1) They are in contact with people who are trying to kill Americans and hiding that contact.

I'm completely with Vlad here. As he pointed out, not reporting both sides of the story would be the most biased form of journalism possible.

 

[FoolKiller]

isn't that exactly what independent media is supposed to do?

Actually a reporter spent time in jail for refusing to reveal her source in a CIA leak investigation. When you endanger the security of your own country it becomes something more than just protecting your source.

Setting aside wartime propoganda issues there are ethical and legal issues that have been debated in journalism for years. Do you protect a serial killer just to get an exclusive interview? The end result has been that the journalists are not lawyers or doctors, thus this is not a client/lawyer or doctor/patient confidentiality issue and it has put journalists in jail.

one could of course argue that they would endanger american lifes if they wouldn't report insurgents they had contact with.
however, i expect independent journalists to make contact with both sides because thats what they're supposed to do. if they would just report what the us forces told them and only go to the places the us forces allow them to go they could just stop working and let the forces do the news.

I wonder how many lives could have been saved if Dan Rather had let the military use his access to Saddam Hussein for his exclusive interview. The US allows embedded reporters so that there can be honest reporting of the war from the battlefield, but the news agencies are not airing US military produced pro-war propaganda films.

furthermore the media is not the CIA or some kind of police, its not their job to fight the insurgents. i am sure that if they got knowledge of a planned attack they would have reported it to the forces immediately.

Or better yet let the CIA know that they have an informant meeting them so that the CIA can track the informant and find the insurgent leaders. That would not only prevent one attack but all others to be made by those men in the future.

and they did not mention that?

I didn't see the original airing of the story so I can't say.

i'm sure they also report what the US gov. tells them. thats what the media does, they report things that governments say. they should, however, make it clear where they get such information from. from my knowledge of cnn world, they do that.

However, I don't see US Armed Forces produced propaganda films either.

imagine you would run a company and one of your workers wouldn't do what you want him to do, what would you do? especially if you were under the impression that you were right and he was wrong. maybe the reporter was right, but its nothing new that people make mistakes...

A mistake is not firing an employee for making the ethical decision and sticking to the purpose of your business. A mistake is not purposely reporting false information so that you can keep an office open. What is the point of a bureau in Iraq if it doesn't give actual news?

i heard about cnn being very dramatic often, but fox isn't renown for being very reliabe either...

The only comment anyone said about Fox News was by me and that was:

Fox News gained more and more audience numbers with the opposite bias in their commentary

that would be there good right, nobody can force them to drag reporters along with them...

It is definitely NOT a right to endanger troops. If I recall Geraldo was kicked out of Afghanistan for revealing troop movements on the air. When you put people's lives at risk you overstep the bounds of news and wander into a gray area between idiot and treason.

And because of these points, why is CNN (or the CEO's and Managers there in) not being charged with treason?

The best I have understood is that the legal definition of treason somehow doesn't quite cover this. They would have to actually go and give up information with teh intent of having US soldiers killed in hopes of causing teh Us to lose teh war to be tried for treason. You may also have to be a military/government member. I'm not sure on the last point though.

 

[Swift]

Well said FK. I'm glad you're on my mass-debating team. 👍

 

[vladimir]

Actually a reporter spent time in jail for refusing to reveal her source in a CIA leak investigation. When you endanger the security of your own country it becomes something more than just protecting your source.

Setting aside wartime propoganda issues there are ethical and legal issues that have been debated in journalism for years. Do you protect a serial killer just to get an exclusive interview? The end result has been that the journalists are not lawyers or doctors, thus this is not a client/lawyer or doctor/patient confidentiality issue and it has put journalists in jail.

thats exactly what i dicussed in my last post.

I wonder how many lives could have been saved if Dan Rather had let the military use his access to Saddam Hussein for his exclusive interview. The US allows embedded reporters so that there can be honest reporting of the war from the battlefield, but the news agencies are not airing US military produced pro-war propaganda films.

you make it sound as if rather just hailed a cab and visited his friend saddam at home...

"Once the 2003 interview was granted, Rather and producer Jim Murphy were put in a car with curtained windows and driven away from their hotel.

They drove for 45 minutes, in different directions, and switched cars on two separate occasions to keep Hussein's position secret. The interview was held at the Republican Palace. Neither Rather nor Murphy were allowed to bring their own tape recorders. Hussein supplied his own translator, and CBS approved the translation of the recording. Rather and Murphy were treated well in the course of the interview, with Hussein even offering Rather coffee at one point."

do you think saddam really trusted rather?
thats how it works and thats why dan rather is of no real use to the military.

and as for the embedded reporter telling what is really going on. yes, they do that. but of course only in places where the military wants them and thus its far from an unbiased view.

Or better yet let the CIA know that they have an informant meeting them so that the CIA can track the informant and find the insurgent leaders. That would not only prevent one attack but all others to be made by those men in the future.

thats not their job. they're there to report, not to save lifes. i wouldn't trust a journalist who takes an active part in the war.
you might imprison someone for not revealing a security leal, but not for meeting someone who knows a terrorist.

However, I don't see US Armed Forces produced propaganda films either.

but the media does cover military press conferenes, or not?

the propaganda films are made to certain lenghts by embedded reporters all by themselves, you don't even need to force them to report propaganda because its really everything they can to from that position.

A mistake is not firing an employee for making the ethical decision and sticking to the purpose of your business. A mistake is not purposely reporting false information so that you can keep an office open. What is the point of a bureau in Iraq if it doesn't give actual news?

how do you know it was purposely?

The only comment anyone said about Fox News was by me and that was:

i know...so whats left, then?

It is definitely NOT a right to endanger troops. If I recall Geraldo was kicked out of Afghanistan for revealing troop movements on the air. When you put people's lives at risk you overstep the bounds of news and wander into a gray area between idiot and treason.

erm, thats what i said. i said that the forces do not need to drag reporters around with them...

 

[Pako]

When CNN has been known for years for delivering left wing politics, how could this be an unbiased act of reporting?

 

[FoolKiller]

Well said FK. I'm glad you're on my mass-debating team. 👍

Now if I would just quit typing "teh" instead of "the" when I am in a hurry.

you make it sound as if rather just hailed a cab and visited his friend saddam at home...
.
.
.
do you think saddam really trusted rather?
thats how it works and thats why dan rather is of no real use to the military.

So switching a few cars will fool the CIA but they can tell me every phone call I made my entire life and the topics of each discussion or they can show me a picture of my VIN taken from space?

and as for the embedded reporter telling what is really going on. yes, they do that. but of course only in places where the military wants them and thus its far from an unbiased view.

Well, I am sure the military would be happy to send them in with the Ghost units or a few other places but it might hurt the mission. The reporters are allowed to pretty much move about the country from what I can see. At least when Nightline went in they drove around without government escorts, bought illegal gas, had their injectors get clogged, and asked a barber about the lack of electricity while he used an electric razor. They even got caught up in battles when they were where they shouldn't have been.

thats not their job. they're there to report, not to save lifes. i wouldn't trust a journalist who takes an active part in the war.

Showing propaganda video, intended to recruit new members, isn't an active role?

you might imprison someone for not revealing a security leal, but not for meeting someone who knows a terrorist.

No, but we tap their phones and gather what information we can.

but the media does cover military press conferenes, or not?

And when Iraq still was under Saddam we saw every press conference Baghdad Bob gave with US tanks rolling by in the background.

The difference is that these are not people working under a sovereign government, but are equivelant to a criminal. If this were someone like the unibomber or Timothy McVey (sp?) before Oklahoma City the reporter would be served with a subpoena and put in jail if they refused to reveal the source. What is the difference between a homegrown terrorist and a foreign terrorist that allows this to be legal?

the propaganda films are made to certain lenghts by embedded reporters all by themselves, you don't even need to force them to report propaganda because its really everything they can to from that position.

So, why is it news when it is produced by insurgents or terrorists (you don't need to see the video to report that a soldier died) but it is propaganda when it is a news story made by an embedded reporter?

how do you know it was purposely?

Because when other news sources called them out on it a few executives got fired for allowing it.

i know...so whats left, then?

The issue at hand is about CNN and not Fox News and your comment sounded almost like you were saying, "Yeah, but look at what Fox News does," which would be a distractionary tactic. I could have been mistaken.

erm, thats what i said. i said that the forces do not need to drag reporters around with them...

While I agree, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that just because the military offered them a courtesy that they had been asking for for decades it does not mean they get to reject all sensibility and put the soldiers in danger. Doing so can either be attributed to idiocy or treason.

 

[vladimir]

So switching a few cars will fool the CIA but they can tell me every phone call I made my entire life and the topics of each discussion or they can show me a picture of my VIN taken from space?

i thought the CIA was aware of the fact that saddam at least occasionally was to be found in his palace. so in what way could mr. rather have helped them?

Well, I am sure the military would be happy to send them in with the Ghost units or a few other places but it might hurt the mission. The reporters are allowed to pretty much move about the country from what I can see. At least when Nightline went in they drove around without government escorts, bought illegal gas, had their injectors get clogged, and asked a barber about the lack of electricity while he used an electric razor. They even got caught up in battles when they were where they shouldn't have been.

i did not object that. i just stated that embedded reporters do the propaganda job for them because in all their embeddedness they are unable to do anything else.

Showing propaganda video, intended to recruit new members, isn't an active role?

they did not show the complete video. and even if they did, as long as they would mark it as being a propaganda video and would discuss it later, they could show the whole video as a document.

No, but we tap their phones and gather what information we can.

i didn't object that.

And when Iraq still was under Saddam we saw every press conference Baghdad Bob gave with US tanks rolling by in the background.

The difference is that these are not people working under a sovereign government, but are equivelant to a criminal. If this were someone like the unibomber or Timothy McVey (sp?) before Oklahoma City the reporter would be served with a subpoena and put in jail if they refused to reveal the source. What is the difference between a homegrown terrorist and a foreign terrorist that allows this to be legal?

he was no a terrorist, he was a member of the iraqi government. i don't see why any reason the media shouldn't cover an iraqi press conference. rumsfeld himself even shook saddams hand...

So, why is it news when it is produced by insurgents or terrorists (you don't need to see the video to report that a soldier died) but it is propaganda when it is a news story made by an embedded reporter?

i didn't say that. i said that for his very nature, an embedded reporter is limited in such a way that he can only put forward a biased view (which is a kind of propaganda.) for the same reason, a video produced by some insurgents themselves is propaganda (same limitation.)
both become news, however, when the media takes those limited views and put them and other information together to present us with the bigger picture.

Because when other news sources called them out on it a few executives got fired for allowing it.

so apparently it was dealt with. i don't see how those two connect.

The issue at hand is about CNN and not Fox News and your comment sounded almost like you were saying, "Yeah, but look at what Fox News does," which would be a distractionary tactic. I could have been mistaken.

i just wanted to say that i preferred scaremongering over lies, if i had to choose...

anyway, i'm actually interested in this issue. are there any news channels that do proper reporting?

While I agree, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that just because the military offered them a courtesy that they had been asking for for decades it does not mean they get to reject all sensibility and put the soldiers in danger. Doing so can either be attributed to idiocy or treason.

👍

 

[exigeracer]

anyway, i'm actually interested in this issue. are there any news channels that do proper reporting?

The CBC!!!

 

[vladimir]

had to look that up...

 

[ledhed]

messed up the Multi thing again sorry.

 

[ledhed]

you guys have a very weird understanding of the news media it seems...

not showing what is going on in iraq would be censorship and in fact propaganda. i expect unbiased TV to show what is actually happening.

vlad so do I .

But when its the enemy handing you a video THEY made for the express purpose of propaganda is it still " reporting the news " or is it being used as a tool ?

Your a smart guy you figure it out.


FK ....would you want to be a CNN reporter going out on a patrol with a US military unit right now ?

I think that little issue will work itself out ....

:
Originally Posted by Swift
CNN is a complete tool.

What can this possibly do except help the democrats with their push about how Iraq was a mistake.

Oh, and of course showing the death of Americans.

This video was recorded by the insurgents! Why would we put something from them showing OUR soldiers die on OUR TV's?

(Swift if Americans are not willing to see our guys die than we shouldn't be in a war. ) Edited..double post ...



To show Americans what we are fighting against and the type of enemy ?
personaly I think this video already saved a bunch of lives because the Military took note and can use counter measures.

I'm still undecided about it...my gut tells me it was handled wrong but I am debating if it did more good than harm.


Vlad CNN Anderson Cooper 360 reorted it as news ...they did little to put it in the context of Propaganda..

If they came right out and said THIS is a propaganda film given to us by these insurgents and should be viewed in that context and was made by etc etc. ....OK show it and explain how and why you decided ut was imortant for us to see it.

IF they did that they would lose all access to the next insurgent film and some other American TV or cable station would get it instead ...as it is they are losing viewers at at alarming rate .

Glen Beck is about the only reason aside from keeping track of what the opposing view, that I watch them...and Anderson Cooper because I read his book and liked him...I ummm changed my mind about him since then and because I have been watching him .

I cant stand Larry King and Nancy Grace is a witch.