Take a look at this LINK

Eason Jordan of CNN today revealed 13 years of hidden stories from the CNN Iraqi Bureau.

Although he said he kept the stories secret to keep his colleagues safe, could the release of these stories helped in removing Saddam from power earlier because of world outrage, thus saving 1,000's of more lives?

Neither the cowards of Europe or the GHWB and Clinton administrations would have acted.

No. We didn't go to war after the mass genocide in Halabja, we just established a northern no-fly zone. I can't imagine any story more compelling than the outright slaughter over there.

Not sure the release of those stories would have made a great difference worldwide, but I'm amazed the CNN news honcho knowing about them privately didn't seem to affect how CNN covered things in general. I would have expected CNN to be less incredulous when reporting allegations of Iraqi atrocities. Wouldn't Eason have confidentially briefed at least the anchors, and how could knowing those stories even if they couldn't be reported not affect their attitude? I also don't understand why some of those stories weren't "leaked" to other reporters, perhaps print media or foreign, for the stories that CNN couldn't afford to be linked to.

Although nothing may have come out of it before the debate with the UN. It could have reenforced our stance on Iraq concerning Germany, France, and Russia.

I don't think it was exclusively CNN that was withholding information from the public. But nevertheless, sometimes, there are tough decisions that have to be made, and many considerations above and beyond satiation of the public's morbid curiosities in making them.

I can't imagine that the widespread knowledge of more specific stories of torture could have helped anyone in any way. Everybody KNEW from stories told by Iraqi exiles and defectors what was going on there, already.

From what I see and what I've read, the network(s) did the right thing, and probably prevented a GREAT deal of suffering on the part of some remarkably brave Iraqi citizens, who dared defy the regime by telling the truth.

Edited for Grammar/Spelling

Outside the abuses of their own employees, I don't think much of the information not reported on CNN was necessarily secretive. I've read about the sons of Saddam and their actions in other news services in print or through electronic documents. Just because one news station doesn't report every single thing, doesn't mean another group or news service isn't reporting it.

I suppose I would find it to be a bigger issue if people only had CNN to rely on for their news and not the many other networks, printed sources and vast array of electronic information before their fingertips.

Apologies for the double posting... too late to edit

Moving on...


I was doing posts for another thread when I came across information detailing the atrocities the U.S. military committed against civilians in order to test various chemical and biological weapons, and measure the effects of radiation poisoning.

I bring it up here because this thread seems to carry a "what if" feeling in regards to the atrocities committed by another country, and what world reaction may have been had this been public immediately upon happening. I think it important to remember these scenario's are not limited to oppressive regimes half a world away.

Might the publication of those stories aroused international outcry and warranted a faster response against Iraq? We'll never know. Would the publication of the stories here in our own country have aroused international outcry and warranted any response against us...? We'll never know that either, but clearly there are reasons not every story makes the front page or the evening news...

The WSJ op ed page blasts CNN because they carried one of the only correspondants directly from Baghdad and their reporting was slanted towards Saddam.

An interesting read, to say the least.

I heard the CNN editor that published these stories after the regime fell and I was fairly persuaded and relieved by his account. His line was that publishing news stories should not be done if it will put individuals at risk for losing their lives.

He also said that CNN repeatedly generally referred to human rights abuses inside the regime. Were there people who doubted that Hussein the dictator used repression and terror? Would we have waged a war solely for the reason of humanitarian aide? We should not have needed much news vilifying Hussein, its not like he recently became a fallen hero or something. He has been the villain of the last fifteen years.

These guys kept this to themselves because they were being threatened by saddam's regime.

At the time of these atrocities, CNN reporters/employees were in Baghdad & Iraq & if they had released this stuff, those employees would have been dead

I wasn't too impressed by the WSJ bit... but then again, it was only an opinion piece. I did find it interesting, however, that the author would say in one line...

...and then go on to say...

From my perspective, "cooperation with Iraq's erstwhile information ministry" wouldn't have gotten three top correspondants banned from reporting within the country's borders. And while the writer of the piece criticizes Jane Arraf for her coverage in Iraq, he neglects to mention that Arraf was also banned in 2002.

Ah... everybody is going to have their complaints about the news and what headlines. Some people want more sex scandal in the church; some want unending war coverage; and some want to know who's watching the economy. Unfortunately there is only so much time in every day and the news stations are locked in a ratings war. Not every little thing is going to make the news. Just because CNN didn't report every single incident that took place in Iraq didn't mean the world didn't know what a malicious dictator Saddam Hussein truly was.