Reporters tend to say stupid things when they analyze, but here's one of the dumber. CNN war correspondent Christiane Amanpour was on CNBC recently and let loose with the following gem: She just admitted that CNN is incapable of doing its job. Yeah, we already knew that because CNN is the network that admitted (via Eason Jordan) that it refused to tell the truth about Saddam Hussein and his reign of terror for fear the Ministry of Information would shut down its Baghdad bureau.

Oh wait, she's not talking about being intimidated and deliberately lying about Saddam Hussein by the Ba'athist regime. She's claimed to be intimidated by the Bush administration. And how exactly did FoxNews prevent her from doing her job?

She's admitted incompetence as a journalist. She's admitted the incompetence of her employer. She provides no explanation as to how this could've happened. And CNN's ratings continue to tank. Gee, think there might be a connection?

Here's a link to the \"Day by Day\" cartoon that sums up the issue far better than I can.

Above quote lifted from this USAToday story linked here.

[ September 16, 2003, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CITT, Can you form a thought free of your right wing mind set?
Your a shinning example of the right who avoid going to the fight themselfs ( She has been in many danger zones) but sit safe on the sidelines telling everybody else how they should act to be a good american.
But of course you would have to slam what she says, for if she was correct you might have to question the lock step parade you are walking in.

[ September 16, 2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: p2insdca ]

Yeah, CITT, how about that for a Swift kick below the knees?

How, precisely, can it be taken from her comments that Christiane Amanpour "has admitted incompetence as a journalist"?

The lady speaks truth. She was simply stating her view that the Bush administration & Fox News, with their propaganda, fear-mongering & rah-rah patriotism, had CNN on the run & caused it to be attentive to "toe the line" rather than report critically.

Can you imagine that an American citizen would be more concerned with the incompetence of a journalist and not with their elected officials?

CITTs comments betray his bias and lack of sincerity. The right wing occupation of our airwaves has taken up arms against anyone/anything that might be remotely critical of this Administration's behavior since 9/11.

Whether Ms. Amanpour is a good journalist or not is beside the point. The question is: is the Bush Administration waging an effective, intelligent and necessary war in Iraq?

If Christiane Amanpour is speaking the truth, she paints a rather pathetic picture of CNN. I wonder how she could continue as a reporter with the network. And if this propaganda, fear-mongering, etc., "caused" her to not be able to ask questions she thought appropriate, then an argument could be made for her incompetence.

I wonder if anyone was told to tow the line or get booted as an imbedded reporter..
I am amazed that people on the right will talk about her being stupid, while defending a man like Bush.
Well people did buy pet rocks so I guess I can understand others supporting one as the president.

[ September 16, 2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: p2insdca ]

Pat125:
True, an argument could be made for her incompetence. A better argument could be made for her lack of courage.

But I have to ask of those that would criticize journalists:

Are you suggesting that she (and other journalists) ask more pointed questions about the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, what questions should they be asking?

Might they ask:

a) Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
What is the timeline for the capture of Bin Laden and Saddam?
c) Can you tell us if you have any evidence of a link between Iraq and the Al Qaeda?
d) What efforts have been made in forestalling the Saudi contributions to the world terrorist network?

And if these journalists asked these questions, would you hold it against them? Would you consider them as anti-American?

Let me add a few things to the discussion here.

First of all, to answer the question "How could the adm intimidate news agencies/reporters?", let me give you a couple of facts.

The white house demonstrated how it could freeze out and cut off those who are too critical when at the news conference before the war, W.Bush came in with a pre-determined list of which reporters to call and in which order.
Helen Thomas, by tradition the first reporter called in these events for close to 30 years and a critic of the president, was never called.

The implied message? "You piss us off and we'll cut off access."

The second incident is one which very few people in the public know.

The whole "embedded journalist" program was not conceived by the news agencies themselves. Rather, this was a plan hatched by the dept of defense.

Shortly before the war, representatives from the defense dept came to CNN and stated... in order to participate in the "embed" program, they had certin rules and procedures to agree to. These covered; what could be covered. when things could be reported and how stories would be approved to be aired.
These terms were agreed to.
What was not agreed to was the defense dept's "suggestion" that they allow members of the US military and those in the dept of defense to work at CNN as "interns". That ws deemed too much by any standard

so to those of you who say that the administration never bullied news agencies, think again.

as to the comment about FoxNews. CNN (and other news orgs) had a choice to follow the non-critical approach adopted by Fox (guaranteeing continued access as well as ratings) or to fall behind.

[ September 16, 2003, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

I'm not suggesting anything, she's the journalist. She should ask what she thinks is appropriate. I was only saying that she is either lying, or using an extremely lame excuse (FOX News :confused: ) for CNN and perhaps herself for not being able to do her job.

Journalists should ask any of those questions if they want. (The second one is kind of silly, but that wouldn't stop many journalists from asking.) And no, I wouldn't hold it against them if they asked those questions, and I wouldn't consider them as anti-American. But if I did consider them as anti-American, so what?

[ September 18, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Actually, I think her statement was quite brave and honorable. She is admitting that she (and her network) gave in to intimidation (from the highest power in the world--the US gov't--and a rival network that was in cahoots with the US gov't).

How many people will stand up and admit their own weaknesses? How many reporters would say, "I censored myself out of fear of reprisals?" Or fear I would be shut-out from the story (and thus totally incapable of doing her job), putting my network's ratings at risk.

In the countries that Christine Amanpour regularly reports from, journalists and writers are regularly censored, imprisoned, beaten and killed, even. She knows more about the intimidation of journalists than you or I.

She didn't create the climate of fear. She's just telling us that it exists.

The reporting from the war was tainted from the moment the word "embedded" became the daily "it" word. The administration was very up front about controlling the press and filtering any information the reporters wanted to tell. Hell, the reporters in the field even had to clear with the military what they were going to show all in the name of national security (it's okay to show a dead Iraqi, but don't you dare show a dead member from the "Coalition of the Willing"). This administration is one of the most paranoid administrations in the histroy of the world. Face it, unless you work for Faux News, the conservatives of the world brand you biased...pot, meet the kettle.

I don't see the "stupidity." She said what anyone in touch with reality can see... we DON'T have a *free* corporate media, we have one that's on bended knee to the profit motive, and that tilts (at its most equivocal) toward parroting the Administration's lies and propaganda.

[ September 17, 2003, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Anyone with half a brain should realize Amanpour is a complete idiot. This was pretty much the consensus opinion well before these weird comments Charlie mentioned.

She's not looked upon too positively in the world of journalism.

MIB, what is she doing making (false) claims about WMD? Links between OBL and Sadam?
The only complete idiots I see are the ones making up new reasons for going to war as the facts knock down the "reasons" spouted yesterday. Such as moving from having WMD to having programs to make WMD, but go ahead and follow your pied piper
BTW how is that inside report you spoke of coming along?
And what really pisses me off is that someone from the safety of their computer who hasn't the balls the do what she has done, or go where she has gone can call her stupid. How sad

[ September 17, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: p2insdca ]

Kinda like you, who hasn't gone where Bush et. al have gone, yet you call him an idiot.

You, sir, define the word hypocrite.

BTW, Amanpour is, indeed, quite disliked by many in the media. She's rather considered a laughing stock.

Not every media person who criticizes the Bush Administration is a reputable journalist, you know.

MIB: I'd be really interested in knowing which journalists would be worthy of reading ... either contra or pro the Bush administration.

Thanks in advance for sharing.

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by p2insdca:
[qb] Kinda like you, who hasn't gone where Bush et. al have gone, yet you call him an idiot.[/quote]Bush still owes a year to the National Guard since he NEVER showed up for his final year of "duty" in Alabama. He sure ket the Viet Kong out of Texas, though...what a brave man. Don't mess with Texas.

Ah, MIB strikes again--intimate of Hillary Clinton, privy to DIA intelligence, and has all the dirt on the jouranlists, too.

LOL, JC. Given what I've seen, I'd rather read PhillyFan's posts. Even if I don't always agree with him, he's at least got a sense of humor...

According to whom? Your assertion is vague, passive, understated, and carries no attribution. Who are these journalists who don't look "too positively" on her and her work? On whom do they look "positively"?

Her statement wasn't surprising at all. The Stalinistic control this administration has exerted over the press is horrible, and Amanpour is right to point out that Faux News functions like a right-wing Pravda or Granma: whatever the leader says is repeated as infallible truth. Even the loony Moonie-owned Washington Times will occasionally challenge the dictates of W and Co.

Is Rush Limbaugh a reputable journalist? Ann Coulter? George Will? Brit Hume? Sean Hannity? Robert Novak? David Horowitz? Do only right-wingers have a hold on the "truth"?

I listened yesterday to Anne Garrels of NPR, who was an un-embedded reporter (like Jon Lee Anderson of the New Yorker) ) in Iraq. She has just published a new book, but her on-air comments were what caught my interest. The picture she painted of both the Iraqis' and the US military's attempts to shape and stifle truthful journalism should give every American who watched the Iraq II War reporting on the major networks some pause. She was especially critical--but in the politest way--about faux-journalists like Geraldo.

MIB, Please explain your comment
"Kinda like you, who hasn't gone where Bush et. al have gone, yet you call him an idiot.

You, sir, define the word hypocrite."

MIB is unavalible for comment, he is busy meeting with his sources at the Weekly World News.

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/wwn/newsstand.cfm

Maybe he's meeting with Rush, Fox News, and Trent Lott to determine how to "spin" the latest poll numbers and 8 deaths of American Soldiers.....not to mention the economy, North Korea, Cheney and Halliburton, job losses, 87 billion for Iraqi, the missing WMD, the "connection" to Saddam and "something" quick....something.....God, I could go on and on but it's too early in the day to get THAT depressed.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: PewterPirate ]

The Crawford coffee shop? The drunk tank of a Texas jail? An aircraft carrier in a Top Gun Costume? A Skull & Bones hazing?

I guess I was/am taken aback that we label her as Stupid, or an idiot.
My thinking is that is you disagree with her opinion so the best thing to do is make her out to be stupid therefore her opinion is wrong.

Hi p2. I certainly respect that as long as you are you saying it's wrong to use the label stupid or idiot (or the equivalent or worse) for people on the other end of the political spectrum.

Yes I am,, I made my post using the same words to make a point.

"BTW, Amanpour is, indeed, quite disliked by many in the media. She's rather considered a laughing stock." (MIB)

And you know this - How? Did you conduct your own private poll w/media people?

As for the 'laughing stock' comment, that's absurd! Any professional journalist/newsreporter/broadcaster would probably kill to receive the recognition that Amanpour has received and devervedly earned.

-Goldsmith Career Award for Excellence in Journalism

-two George Foster Peabody awards

-two George Polk awards

- Courage in Journalism Award

-Worldfest-Houston International Film Festival Gold Award

-Livingston Award for Young Journalists.

-the New York Chapter of Women in Cable and Telecommunications named her the 1994 Woman of the Year.

-2002 Award for Distinguished Achievement in Broadcast Journalism from the Edward R. Murrow School of Communication.


______


Looks to me - that Ms. Amanpour is the one laughing!

[ September 18, 2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: ironjohn8 ]

Well then how come she isn't working for the real news network Faux?
I have watched her reporting for a while now, and have lots of respect for her. As a women has has gone into areas that would consider that fact that she has a job reason to beat her. She also seems to put the facts out, and when she is reporting on an opinon, it has been the opinon of the people she is reporting on. Not hers.
I could be wrong but she seems honest to me. Perhaps that is why others resent her.

[ September 18, 2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: p2insdca ]

BOY OH BOY OH BOY!

What a great thread!

Anyone see sort of a trend with CNN here... Need the station in Iraq, they report what sadaaaam says... Want access to the war, they become the "pet dog" for W's war machine. HEY I THOUGHT THAT WAS FOX NEWS WHO DID THAT! Now it's CNN, they report 1/2 truths fully knowing that they are false then come back, what 6 months later, and say OH NO WE WERE FORCED TO DO IT. bubkus

What type of news agency is this? So, if they reported the TRUTH (they say).. they would be locked out? Isnt that a red flag that CNN doesnt have any cameras in the war? Cant get any questions? Hello, all you commie-pinkos would watch that type of reporting 24/7.

I say this whole thing is bubkus, CNN should grow some frickin balls and quit bitching. Or how's this, REPORT THE REAL NEWS... or what they claim it to be.

As for this chic (i wont try and spell the name).. she hasnt seen a "palestine injustice" she wouldnt put a spin on... everyone knows that..

CNN's new motto.. tune in 6 months from now for the news...

[ September 18, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Phillyfan! nice to have you back, I disgree with your post 100%, but its good to read your post.

WEll thanks you...

I'm gonna take this further...

Chickie over at cnn compared to say.. orielly that you bitch about... The Factor is NOT a reporting the news show.. it's the news PLUS commentary...

What this little porkbag does over in Iraq is REPORT the news. Not opinion, reports the news. Orielly, is to report and give his opinion. Skank ho.. report the news. See another trend?

Orielly spins the news.. she is to report it. Good or bad.. like or dislike.. just report the news. Her opinion doesnt matter.

How can anyone watch her now and say, that's real news and not spun into her opinion? See you cant. Larry King's rating are in the toilet, why doesnt she take over and give bill a run for his money?

Reporter Vs Commentator.

Sorry Phillyfan you lost me, but its been along day, so maybe my mind is stuck in low gear....

Dont throw out a big softball like that p2...

Only to you wink

Oh REALLY? I thought his show (and book) was the "No Spin Zone", and that Faux's theme was "Fair and balanced" (though I prefer the motto Joe Conason came up with after that ridiculous suit against Al Franken, "Wholly without merit"). So who's being dishonest here, Pf?

And his last name is O'REILLY!! If you're gonna kneel at his altar, please learn to spell his name.

[quote]AtlantaSpartan:
[/qb][/quote]Oh REALLY? I thought his show (and book) was the \"No Spin Zone\", and that Faux's theme was \"Fair and balanced\" (though I prefer the motto Joe Conason came up with after that ridiculous suit against Al Franken, \"Wholly without merit\"). So who's being dishonest here, Pf?

And his last name is O'REILLY!! If you're gonna kneel at his altar, please learn to spell his name. [/QUOTE]

hmmmmmm, so after not completely reporting what went on in Iraq... Now chicky is saying how they were forced to report what W wanted...

How can you EVEN call Fox news, Faux? Wouldnt that be cnn???? i cant tell you a time this stuff came out about fox. Well, then again, no one watches CNN anymore anyway.. so does it matter that they are a poor news organization who often compromise their supposed "values"?

Bill O grabs a story, forms an opinion, then pulls the guests on. You agree or not. That is the foundation of his show.

This skank.. well her job is to report it... not spin it. She's a field reporter. Oh and a palestine appologist.. but we all knew that...

You forgot about the part where, after he forms his opinion and pulls the guests on, he kills the mikes of anybody he disagrees with and yells over them. Why have guests at that point? Nope, you used to word "spin" to describe the "No spin zone" -- and that's what his method sounds like to me. Fair and balanced, yeah, right.

"Shut up!!!!!!! Shut! Up!"
(Bill O'Reilly engaging in constructive discourse)

This thread is off track again. Thanks to the b***s**t spouted by PF and his ilk.

Amanpour's comments were intended to give those outside the journalist world an indication about how the Bush Administration systematically shuts out/excludes those that might disagree with them.

Nothing more, nothing less. But all the Limbaugh-clones are quick to make this about something else.

This is the basic right wing strategy: When you don't agree with the message, attack the messenger.

Amanpour may not be the most reputable journalist. But the question(s) she posed still remain: Why is the Bush Administration unavailable to the press? Why don't they answer direct questions about policy? How come this Administration only grants private interviews and refrains from the more traditional press conferences?

Whether you're on the right or left side of aisle, I can't imagine why this wouldn't worry US citizens.

More to the point: why would you blame journalists for not being able to get to this Administration and ask the hard questions?

It's not the journalists fault. This Administration simply won't give them the chance.

I disagree with your premise that Amanpour's point was to point out how the Bush Administration shuts out those that might disagree with them. If that's what her intent was, she did a poor job in that interview as the article indicates to me. This is not to say that the administration attempts to do that, which I certainly don't like. And if Fox News journalists are \"foot soldiers\" for the Bush Administration, then obviously I have a problem with that as well. But for Amanpour to blame them for her and CNN to not do their job, to me, is a total cop out. If it's because they're afraid of their ratings slipping even more, then just be honest and say so.

Some posters talked about the embedding policy during the war. I tend to agree the policies there were extreme, but again, that's not what Amanpour was talking about. This is what she did say in the interview according to the article:

I guess I don't see anything in here that prevented her to ask the questions that she wanted to ask. She simply chose not to ask certain questions because there was a "climate of fear" and a "question of tone." I would be interested in hearing what she thought the repercussions would be for her doing her job. Being demoted by CNN? not being invited to a White House journalist thing? not get her chance of being the first person to ask the President a question? Heck, it didn't prevent her from criticizing the Adminstration in the interview.

I'm by no means a Rush Limbaugh clone, as I am not a big fan of Pres. Bush, and will most likely not vote for him. But I don't think it's inappropriate to question the messenger in this case, since Amanpour is a journalist.

Yes, I would like to see the President grant more press conferences. I would also like to see the Administration answer direct questions about policy, but I haven't really seen that in the past couple of Administrations. Any press conference, interview, etc., just seems more and more like the Administrations spinning their policies. The previous President had more press conferences, but it's because he was more adept at handling press conferences, not because he was less dishonest (whether he was more dishonest or not is certainly up to debate).

Although I don't believe this was Amanpour's point, I agree with Bill W's point that we don't have a "free corporate media." In fact, I am skeptical of all media and press (including any noncorporate ones). So this is another reason why I question Amanpour's statements.

So I don't blame the journalists for any limited access to the Administration. But if what Amanpour says is true, then I do question why the journalists are not doing their job and ask the hard questions on the occasions they do have access to the Administration.

As for Philly Fan, his viewpoint is as valid as any of the others, whether you agree or not. The only thing I would respectfully request is that he lessen the number of epithets towards women.

[ September 20, 2003, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

But then what do you think her point was? I don't understand how you can't understand what her point was. If you disagree with her, that's OK. If you think she's blaming someone else for her own failings, that's OK. But how can you not understand that what she was saying is that she (and CNN) self-censored because of the policies of the Bush Administration?

As for her doing a "poor job," this short article contained only a brief excerpt from a TV interview.

An interesting quote at the end of the article:

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

This is the attitude Amanpour and others were up against. The whole war effort became a black-and-white issue. And if you question the Bush administration too hard, you are tarnished with the un-American brush. As we've seen with the Dixie Chicks, for example, the taint of that can be ruinous. Could CNN afford to be shut-out from news stories, could Amanpour afford to be looked on as a "spokeswoman for al-Qaeda?"

Don't you think the fact that one of the most popular groups in country music, the Dixie Chicks, being banned from radio, having their CDs smashed, and having protesters at their concerts... creates a "climate of fear" for artists? If you were an up-and-coming artist, wouldn't you be afraid to speak out?

And isn't it conceiveable that there is a similar climate of fear among journalists who know that if they appear to oppose the Bush administration, they will be branded as the enemy?

You may not agree with Ms. Amanpour... but can you at least see her point of view?

[ September 20, 2003, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: canmark ]

I believe her point was to simply slam the Administration and her employers' competition. And I do understand what she says about the Bush Administration and Fox News, and I took issue with them in my previous post. I just don't think they were adequate excuses for her and CNN to self-censor. It sounds like this is the main source of disagreement here.

I agree with your point that only a snippet of the interview was quoted in the article. It's possible that what she said was taken out of context. Again my skepticism for the press and media showing. Since I have written about this more so than in other P&R threads (don't know why), I would be interested in seeing the whole transcript of the interview. Perhaps my viewpoint would change.

Also, I am not basing Amanpour's career on this one exchange. I don't know her well enough to say she is a good or bad journalist. But I am saying that I disagree with her points that she made in the interview.

I know I wouldn't like it, and I thought the protest over the Dixie Chicks went well overboard. But unfortunately, Free Speech isn't always pretty.

I agree it's conceivable, but as I said, that didn't stop Amanpour from expressing her viewpoint in the interview.

[ September 20, 2003, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

CNN is the network whose president Eason Jordan admitted that they wouldn't report the truth about Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq because they were afraid of losing "access" to Baghdad and high level of Hussein's government. Oh, he couched it as worried about the personal safety of his staff: but the truth is CNN was too afraid of Saddam Hussein to tell the truth.

Now, CNN's star reporter is saying CNN was too intimidated of the Bush administration to tell the truth. Bottom line: CNN refuses to tell the truth no matter what.

Put in that context: the Fox comment is simply a dig at CNN. Would you rather err on the side of flakking for the U.S. military and the Bush Administration, or would you rather err on the side of flakking for al-Qaeda and the Ba'athists? CNN made their choice.

Of course, I'm responding to someone whose diet of news is courtesy of a very biased state-owned media operation wholly beholden to the treacherous Jean Chretien.

To me the greater concern seems to be the agreement that we do not have a free press, or should I say an un biased press.
One other point some of the people who have refered to her as stupid, stood up for a certain Fox reporter who drew positions in the sand...

CITT:
I'm amazed.

CITT has just figured out that CNN was intimidated equally by the Iraqi and Bush regimes.

But he has chosen to criticize the media news network rather than taking to task the Bush administration's continuing efforts to thwart legitimate media coverage of the Iraqi debacle.

""Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

This is the attitude Amanpour and others were up against." (canmark)

That's my observation also canmark. The Fox spokeswoman Briganti is quick to paint Amanpour with a broad anti-American brush.

Yet will this same Fox spokeswoman admit 'un-patriotic' acts by her own network Fox.

FOX FEEDS AL-JEZEERA'S COFFERS

"Executives at News Corp's Fox News Channel, Viacom Inc's CBS and General Electric Co's NBC said their companies pay al-Jazeera for the right to use whatever footage they choose, from exclusive video of Baghdad to captured US soldiers. The US-based broadcasters declined to say how much they pay.

The fees are enough to keep al-Jazeera, started in 1996 by Qatar's emir with a US$150 million investment, from having to ask its benefactor for more money, according to Al-Jazeera's marketing chief, Jihad Ali Ballout.

The agreements with US networks are "a beautiful thing," Ballout said in an interview. "It not only generates money, but it puts us in bed with reputable partners."

Full Article!


Seems like this Fox/al-Jazeera link will never be exposed on 'The O'Reilly Factor'...

Oh, lord. News flash #1: CBC does not have anything close to a monopoly on news coverage in Canada. In addition to other Canadian stations, most Canadians have access to all the major American networks.

News flash #2: CBC ain't the Pravda of Canada. It's about as beholden to Chretien as BBC is to Tony Blair, or NPR is to George W. If anything, when the US is at war, almost any other nation's news media is more unbiased. Fox is about as unbiased as Al Jazeera.

As for the "treacherous" description...if defending your country's sovereignty and the rights of its citizens, and refusing to drag your country into a war that the majority of its citizens do not support is treacherous, then long live treachery.

Charlie in the trees wrote
To make some clarifications... Eason Jordan, even before his recent "reassignment" of last week, was never "president of CNN" as you cal him. That would have been Tom Johnson or Jim Walton.

Eason was the VP for news gathering operations.

and you're right. CNN was afraid of Hussein (as most people in Iraq should have been). Please forgive CNN for caring about the welfare of its employees.