Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Questioning CNN

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted March 13, 2006.


20 Questions for CNN's president covering the war, Abu Ghraib and the 'obsequious press.'
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Rory O'Connor has sent this list of questions to CNN president Jonathan Klein in lieu of their scheduled interview. AlterNet will be publishing Klein's responses, but in the meantime, if you have additional questions relating to CNN's war coverage, send them to QuestionCNN@AlterNet.org.

1. Editors at the New York Times and the Washington Post have apologized for their Iraq war coverage and admitted it was not critical enough, thus acknowledging that their institutions made mistakes in coverage. So have such broadcast network news presidents as ABC's David Westin and Andrew Heyward, your former boss at CBS. Isn't it time for cable networks such as your own to offer a public reappraisal of the war coverage? If CNN does so, what form will it take? How do you as CNN's chief assess the network's coverage of the runup to the war, and the war itself? What would you have done differently?

2. Many viewers found a gap between the coverage of CNN International and the domestic channel, and complain that the U.S. channel was guilty of more jingoism. Even Wolf Blitzer seemed to admit as much. True?

3. CNN's own correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, was critical of the network for not asking enough questions about WMD. She attributed it to the competition for ratings with Fox, which had an inside track to top administration officials. Do you agree? Did you ever speak with Amanpour about her charges, and how to correct the situation?

4. This week the anti-war movement will make an issue of the media coverage of the war, with protests at many major media outlets. Critics say that CNN and other mainstream outlets generally offer more selling than telling, and more jingoism than journalism. How do you react?

5. These are the same groups that helped turn out 30 million people worldwide Feb. 15, 2003, in the greatest one-day protest in history to try to stop a war. The media marginalized those protests, however. 300,000 anti-war protesters here in New York City, for example, were given equal treatment on CNN with pro-invasion supporters who numbered only in the hundreds. Anti-war protesters charge the public was deceived by the coverage. Were they correct?

6. Longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas recently wrote, "Nothing is more troubling … than the obsequious press during the runup to the invasion of Iraq. They lapped up everything the Pentagon and White House could dish out -- no questions asked." Do you agree? If so, what steps will you take to ensure that CNN at least does not repeat this mistake?

7. Thomas and others contend, "The naive complicity of the press and the government was never more pronounced than in the prelude to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The media became an echo chamber for White House pronouncements." Two of the nation's most prestigious newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, kept up a drumbeat for war with Iraq to bring down dictator Saddam Hussein -- and television news outlets such as CNN were no different, accepting almost unquestioningly bogus evidence of weapons of mass destruction and the dubious White House rationale that proved to be so costly on a human scale, not to mention a drain on the Treasury. When Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his statement on Saddam's lethal arsenal on Feb. 5, 2003, before the United Nations, CNN and other mainstream media outlets said he left little question that Hussein had tried to conceal weapons of mass destruction. Why? And why did CNN not say nearly as much about the subsequent failure to find any such weapons?

8. Do you agree with Helen Thomas that it is now "past time for reporters to forget the party line, ask the tough questions and let the chips fall where they may"?

9. At best, the mainstream media were extremely gullible in accepting the Bush administration's false claims. Why? Did executives at places like CNN really think it was all going to be so easy, a "cakewalk?" Why did the Washington press corps forgo its traditional skepticism to become cheerleaders for a deceptive administration? Careerism? Ratings hunger? Why did so few stand alone outside Washington's pack journalism?


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't Hold Your Breath
Posted by: rrk1 on Mar 13, 2006 5:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will await the answers, but not holding my breath. Prediction: you won't get any answers, since the questions are the indictment. But I'm delighted you asked them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesus who?
Posted by: mizipi on Mar 14, 2006 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pres Bush said Jesus Christ was the philosopher who influenced him the most. So-called Christians are a big support group for the current administration. What Jesus is Pres Bush talking about? Anyone with the ability to read can read the first four books of the New Testament Bible in a short time. Why hasn't anyone addressed the hypocracy of using Jesus as a political tool? Spend a few minutes and read chapter 5 in the book of Matthew. You do not have to be a born-again Christian to read the Bible and point out that George Bush and his actions are the very thing Jesus taught against.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Real Journalists
Posted by: Yerim on Mar 14, 2006 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First thing to do is to get rid of entertainers like Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper. i used to complain about Aaron Brown but how i miss him today. He had a condescending attitude but at least made a good coverage of internationla news.
People like Blitzer and Copper have watered down news to such a level that it would make an idiot go to sleep. no wonder americans don't evne know the capital of Canada... might as well watch Fox news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WOLD BLITZER IS A SHILL FOR TIMES WARNER
Posted by: krose on Mar 14, 2006 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AND THEIR HOLDINGS IN THE DUBAI PORT DEAL!

HE CONTINUES TO TRY TO GET US TO CHANGE OUR MINDS!

WHAT AN IDIOT! MAKE HIM GO AWAY!

NOW THAT THEY HAVE JOHN ROBERTS, GIVE HIM SOME OF WOLF'S 17 HOURS/WEEK!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why oh why
Posted by: chanceny on Mar 14, 2006 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First I thought it must be blackmail - these neo-cons had the 'goods' on ol' Wolf, maybe Chris did some alter-boying, maybe Brian Williams, Tim Russert, and Howie Kurtz were taped 3-some-ing with some groupies. But, alas, I know not anymore. How does James Caravelle climb under the covers knowing he could well rub up against such a partisan bitch? He still sounds sane, but how long will that condition last, especially if Cheney goes a'huntin again? And, why are there so many freakin blonde bimbettes all over the tv, whining and moaning about any and all criticisms of their beleagured idol? They've been multiplying, ever since the one who used to accompany Paula Jones on her rounds of sleaze and face-lifts. She seems to have been disappeared real good, but I really believe that she was cloned so now we got Janet Parshall and Rita Cosby and Annie Coulter and they just keep on a'comin! In comparrison, Soledad seems sedate, almost legit, and that's a nauseating mouthful to spout out there! The newsrooms are nests of vipers. McClellan out talks the White House press corps with almost complete impunity (Bless courageous Helen Thomas in her lonely and valliant attempts to be heard.) Every pre-approved republican blabbing point is repeated, with almost a spell-like rendition, by these frauds masquerading as journalists. The questions to be asked are nakedly apparrent, yet no one seems to have the cojones to pose them. They salivate when another female is murdered, abducted in some far-away hellhole so they can concentrate on sharing their important information with us, cause that's what sells their soap. Until this corporate mindset is unseated, we will get the drivel. I got a million questions but if I asked anyone on my tv (except Keith Olberman), they'd take my number and turn me in to the thought police!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only 60 years ago
Posted by: Gregor on Mar 14, 2006 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it incredible that this administration is using the same techniques that the Germans used under Hitler, kidnap the media to do what they want, spy on citizens, break down their rights, break treaties, and then say "we are spreading democracy throughtout the world, we are bringing them freedom. My friend who lived through WWII said Hitler said the same thing that Bush said "we are bringing the Iraqi's Freedom". It sent chills down her spine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What does "inside-out" mean?
Posted by: chaoslegs on Mar 15, 2006 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I pay attention to issues related to the media, but I have no idea what this one means? Or outside-in, obviously they are opposite methods of coverage, but I can't figure it out.

A final question tied to checking with the injured at VA hosptials is to ask about funding cuts to the VA. That doesn't sound like supporting the troops to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

edwin
Posted by: edwin on Mar 15, 2006 8:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rory, you have missed an important area of concern if you haven't included any questions about CNN's slavish, PR treatment of Israel's policies and practices and purposeful mayhem in the occupied Palestinian territories. You'd also have to include something about AIPAC and its influence in the US and on politicians who claim to work for US interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Want a Free Press? Start Getting Your News from the U.K.
Posted by: Velos on Mar 19, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every morning I get my news from BBC Online, The Guardian Online, and The Daily Mail Online.

Of all of the news coverage that I read daily (from England), I read approximately fifteen stories that are abosultely NOT covered in any way by either US Network or Cable news media. The British Press also does an eloquent job of dissing Blair, when the story calls for it.

As for Wolf Blitzer,.....I just don't watch him...nor can I even stand Soledad O'Brien (she's a little fluff muffin, anyway)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

James Ajemian, Ph.D.
Posted by: jajemian on Mar 27, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Klein's response is very typical of any corporate or complex bureaucracy under criticism. He not so deftly identifies and isolates the criticisms against CNN by labeling them as on the fringe-- people who are to be summarily dismissed as freaks or malcontents.

His response is typical of those in positions of power who FIRST solidify their allegiance to the system of which one is a part. After that all the external significant criticisms leveled at CNN are meaningless to him. What has happened is that CNN--and therefore Klein also--has constructed a vast image of itself. All external criticisms that shake the fundamentals of his system cannot be tolerated. Klein and others with him embrace their own dream world.

Then, in turn CNN parrots the unreal, falsely shaped construction
that gives them safe haven based on denial of reality.

James Ajemian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]