Re: CNN: All the news that we see fit to print

[RadioTony@aol.com]

I would agree, Dan. Absolutely shocking and disgusting. 
However, the flip of this is, he did what was best for business. While others were being kicked out, CNN was able
to stay and that gave them a leg up over the other networks. By his actions, he gave CNN a competitive edge. I
don't agree with his actions, but that is what he did. I wonder what others out here think about this. 

However, this leads me back to my point about the networks limiting the amount of reporting they have been doing
about the severity of the civilians deaths and injuries in this "great victory." 

On WGBH's "Beat the Press" tonight, the five of them all came out against the "bloodless" war coverage and 
chastized the networks from virtually ignoring the civilian deaths in Iraq. One, John Carroll, said he was
disgusted that the networks had been listening to consultants advising the news orgs to "ignore" the bad sides of
war, and only report "feel-good, happy" war news.

It was nice to see that I wasn't the only one critical about what the networks have been ignoring. However, the
question is this: Why is it okay for the news to ignore thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths/injuries but it is NOT
okay that CNN ignored Hussein's brutal regime to keep a competive edge? As a journalist and broadcaster, this seems
hypocritical to me.

In a message dated 4/11/2003 5:54:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, billings@suscom-maine.net writes:

> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&en=ea21e
> 8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
> 
> It is disturbing that one of our country's leading news organization is lead
> by someone with no personal morality, no journalistic 
> ethics, and no sense
> of responsibility to his network's viewers.
> 
> -- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine