Independant Reporting

Victor

"CNN is sensitive to reporting any information that could endanger lives or operations. " www.cnn.com

Is this:
1. prudent patriotism
2. partisan reporting
3. journalists / editors making sure they are not in the firing line (both meanings of the word)
4. news networks making sure they are 'in' with the right people, the 'best' news sources
5. news networks lawyers and PR people pre-empting a 'hoo-ha' like the car manufacturers donations debate

To be honest, I haven't been able to come to a decision, but it does smack of less than independant reporting.

bonkey

Given the quality of reporting from CNN over the Afghan operations, I would say that it should read either :

"CNN may be....."

or

"...endanger American lives or operations"

depending on what they are reporting about.

No news network should ever report information which has a large chance of endangering someones life, IMHO.

jc

Victor

But what happens when it only (not necessarily) endangers an operation? Presumably operations kill other people.

Sand

Hard to tell given the one line quote and the link to CNNs homepage (didnt see anything resembling that line on it).

Assuming you mean CNN wont reveal the nature of every American operation so their enemies can be forewarned, forearmed and ready to massacre soldiers Id call it basic intelligence. Think what D Day would have been like if even a hint of it had been known to the Germans. Loose lips sink ships as they say.

Victor

e.g. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/military.map.detail.html

Odd that this is still a "trade.center" story.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Assuming you mean CNN wont reveal the nature of every American operation so their enemies can be forewarned, forearmed and ready to massacre soldiers Id call it basic intelligence.

Exactly where in CNNs quoted sentence was the word American mentioned?

You are basically saying that a reporter's job is to have nationalistic allegiance. Which means that a reporter is not reporting, they are issuing propaganda.

jc

shotamoose

I'd be more concerned that CNN is shying away from certain stories or details in order to protect it's operations. The news networks in America seem to have agreed fairly readily to the government's request that they 'play their part' in the war effort:

http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1519

Also, CNN et al have shied away from reporting stuff like Dick Cheney's comment that he wanted bin Laden's "head on a platter". They've been warned off that kind of thing by the White House, and they've gone along with such warnings.

Sand

Bonkey think it through for a moment. It would be the height of insanity to broadcast the plans of your nations troops so their enemies can view them. British and American reporters did not broadcast the plans for D Days even if they felt "The Public (Germans) have a right to know". Whether it was propaganda or common sense? I know what I think

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Bonkey think it through for a moment. It would be the height of insanity to broadcast the plans of your nations troops so their enemies can view them.

Have I for one moment suggested that reporters *should* disclose information about their own side?

I have questioned the integrity of any reporter who, according to *your* justification, will maintain journalistic integrity for *their* army. By implication, they may not or perhaps should not maintain the same integrity if it is information about the "enemy".

Take Afghanistan. CNN reporters were allowed travel with Taliban members during the conflict. If, for one second, these reporters ever entertained the idea of letting the US military know anything they learned, over and above what they would tell the Taliban about the US, then they are not reporters, they are spies.

Either a reporter is neutral, or they are not a reporter - they are a spy or a propagandist.

jc

Sand

You are basically saying that a reporter's job is to have nationalistic allegiance. Which means that a reporter is not reporting, they are issuing propaganda.

I took the implication that a reporter with integrity should report everything (including information harmful to his nation) from that, especially given my post which you quoted which mentioned the D Day example. If I was wrong apologies.

As for reporters providing information on enemy troops in Afghanistan , as I understood it there was a widespread ban on non- authorised media by the Taliban, which by implication basically meant western journalists. I understood this to be the reason for the high incidence of "eyewitness" reports from Pakistan. Those who did cross into Afghanistan disguised were often arrested- that female BBC reporter for example. In the latter half of the conflict some media was allowed in for the sole purpose of reporting on civillian casualties in Afghanistan, a less than subtle attempt at propaganda by the Taliban. I was not aware of CNN reporters tagging along with Taliban fighters. Western journalists did get to tag along with the United Front soldiers, and several died doing so.

And a reporter is a propagandist, only the view that he/she holds will be supported by his/her choice of topics and stories. There is even greater control at editorial level. An unbiased media simply does not exsist. The closest thing to balance is achieved by having two equally biased factions with equal control. Its not a satisfactory position but media has become about giving us an opinion rather than mere facts so we can form our own opinion.