CNN's Compromise

By Andrea Levin April 29, 2003

CNN executive Eason Jordan's dramatic acknowledgment
in a New York Times op-ed ("The News We Kept to
Ourselves," April 11, 2003) that for more than a decade
his network concealed gruesome information about
Saddam Hussein's regime lifts the rock a notch off the
dark underside of media collaboration with barbarous
dictators.

Yet, according to former CNN reporter Peter Collins writing
in the Washington Times (April 15, 2003), Jordan's piece
failed to convey the appeasement and fawning that
marked network policies toward the Iraqi leadership.
Collins tells of being instructed in 1993 by former CNN
President Tom Johnson, under whom much of this activity
apparently occurred, to repeat on the air "verbatim" the
self-serving talking points of an Iraqi "Information minister"
in order to advance the network's chances for a personal
interview with Saddam. When Collins shortly afterwards
broadcast a story skeptical of Iraqi claims that Americans
were bombing "innocent Iraqi farmers," he was told by
veteran CNN reporter Brent Sadler that the story "was not
helpful." Sadler wanted that interview with the Iraqi dictator.

The Jordan disclosures have prompted speculation
about the conduct of CNN in other dictatorships where
the network maintains bureaus, such as Cuba. A study by
the Virginia-based Media Research Center found the
network has given Fidel Castro a platform to promote
his views unchallenged. According to the center, "just seven
of 212 stories focused on the regimes' treatment of dissidents;
only four stories concerned themselves with the lack of
democracy; and only two stories spotlighted the intimidation
of journalists."

That is to say, the practices employed in Baghdad
characterize CNN's kowtowing to dictators elsewhere. This
extends to the autocratic regimes throughout the Arab Middle
East, now being serviced by a recently launched CNN Arabic
language division.

It is hardly surprising, then, that with regard to the Arab-Israeli
conflict CNN exhibits a tendency to prefer formulations
agreeable to Arab leaders while minimizing realities that
might offend. Thus, on the very day Eason Jordan unburdened
himself, CNN analyst Bill Schneider declared "...there could
be a fresh start [in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations], but
only if President Bush decides to push for a peace deal,
which means pushing Israel." (Emphasis added) The notion
that "pushing Israel" is the key reflects, of course, the Arab
perspective, not the Israeli or American one, which sees
reform of a corrupt and terror-promoting Palestinian Authority
as the central task.

Nor are such CNN observations unusual. Shortly after
Schneider's comments, CNN anchorwoman Paula Zahn
questioned Arab journalist Hisham Milhem about
Arab-Israeli peace and its supposed role in placating
anti-American sentiment in the Arab "street." Milhem
promptly responded: "...if you're talking about people
who need liberation, need liberation more than the Iraqis, they
are the Palestinians, who are under tremendous occupation,
brutal, Draconian occupation."

The CNN host thanked Milhem, without a hint of disagreement
that Israel's conduct is worse than that of Saddam Hussein's,
and without challenging his one-sided criticism of the
United States.

In contrast, in a segment that followed with Israeli diplomat
Alon Pinkas, Zahn was full of critical challenge, saying
Milhem had "made it very clear that the Arab street will only
have confidence in the United States and this coalition if there
is some kind of peace forged between the Palestinians and
Israelis." She added for good measure: "And another point
that he's made in the past that he didn't say tonight is
the building of settlements has got to stop. Will it?"

When Pincas replied, specifying that Israel has shown
itself prepared to dismantle settlements in some areas in the
context of real peace, Zahn asked: "What else is Israel ready
to bend on? If there is this area of compromise... what else
are you talking about, besides stopping the settlements?"

This snapshot of CNN's coverage is indicative of certain
distorted premises that apparently underpin the network's
take on the Middle East. Chief among these is the belief that
Israel bears the onus for bringing peace and thereby softening
Arab enmity toward America; that Israeli concessions, whether
on settlements or on other issues, are the solution.

Notably, competitor FoxNews reports very differently,
presenting Arab rejection of Israel's rightful existence in the
region as fundamental to the conflict. It gives serious,
repeated attention to the ferocious, even genocidal,
anti-Semitic propaganda generated, for example, in
Palestinian and Saudi media, mosques and textbooks.
CNN omits most of this.

FoxNews has no bureau in Baghdad, Damascus or Havana,
but the network is pummeling CNN in viewer ratings. There
seems little question that the price paid in seeking to
ingratiate oneself with dictators and medieval princes is not
only an undeniable ethical one, but a practical one, borne out
in CNN's trailing a newcomer that readily reports essential,
unpleasant truths.
-------------------------
Andrea Levin is Executive Director of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in
Middle East Reporting in America

www.camera.org