http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:34:27 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/15/113018.php#comment-7991 Brian, i want to commend you (and i'm being serious here) for admitting that you'd jump all over it if it were FOX. the hypocracy of the left is obvious to anyone paying attention, and at least you're man enough to admit it. 7991@blogcritics.org Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:34:27 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/15/113018.php#comment-7830 <i> Is there any doubt that less-than-explicit presentations of the horrors of Saddam's Iraq contributed to anti-war feeling, delayed decisive action to liberate the country, and emboldened the regime to even further desecrations and perversions? I think not.</i><br> And zero news of the perversions would have resulted in...what? I'm not in position to defend CNN, but the conclusions you draw--that CNN did it because it made them feel "important," that their actions contributed to rather than detracted from the regime's power--are not supported by any evidence. I'd be saying the same thing if it were Fox (and who knows what Fox did--maybe that will come to light, too). Covering Saddam's regime was difficult, to say the least. Facing a choice between presenting compromised versions of the story and presenting no story at all is a far more difficult choice than you make it out to be. Can't you understand the moral considerations weighing on the editor or producer making this decision? It's a Hobson's choice. Neither route is obvious--1) Accept compromise and at least get some important info out; 2) Walk away, and get no info out. At least with 1 you can LEAK info to others sometimes. And at least you know what you know and can base your other reporting on that. Route 2 is complete ignorance. Route 2 might result in more torture, not less. You have no way to know. A lot of factors have to be weighted in judging CNN, and they should be, and we should judge. But the snap judgment you have made, and the huge conclusions you have drawn, are hardly supported by the facts we know so far. It's a bit like criticizing Donald Rumsfeld for befriending and arming Saddam Hussein. It's an important fact to note--but it doesn't necessarily mean he is directly responsible for the gassing of the Kurds. The U.S. faced a complicated situation back then. Snap judgments and generalizations don't help in figuring out whether the U.S. did the right thing in arming and financing and supporting Saddam Hussein. 7830@blogcritics.org Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:00:55 EDT