CNN- Complicit in Iraqi torture?

CNN's "Chief News Executive" spills his guts in the NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html and admits he and other "journalists" knew just how evil Saddam's regime was. He claims he kept his silence in order to protect his Iraqi staff from retribution. One must ask:

How many MORE Iraqis died hideously, under torture, because he and his ilk kept the truth from us? How much sooner would this tyrant have been removed from power if the media had told the truth about Iraq?

His European comrades must have known these truths also. How has their silence in the face of these crimes against humanity affected Euro-opinion? How much more support would we have had if these journalists had done their jobs properly? Is their hatred of Dubya so great they would cover up Saddam's crimes in order to frustrate him and the U.S.?

Enquiring minds want to know....

Ed, I'm not trying to change the subject, but how much do you hear on the networks about the situation in Zimbabwe? What's taking place there is incomprehensible & you really have to dig for information about it. But anyone dealing with reality could have anticipated what "self rule" would bring to Rhodesia. The same thing may likely occur in South Africa, eventually.

REMEMBER the NY TIMES Motto
And every other News media goes by it
"ALL THE NEWS THAT IS FIT TO PRINT"

Who decides what is fit?
How much is really filtered out before we get it
Even with the "Embedded" reporters and camera men they too are told what they can and can not report.

Who is more blind?
The Americans that actually think they know what is going on?
OR
The people in the countries where the media is controlled by the government?

Just the thought for the day

Unfortunately, my post didn't elicit any responses on the behavior of CNN, or on the similar behavior of other news agencies with correspondents in Iraq. Is no one concerned that information was held back from us (and from the world in general)? Why do large sections of the major media withhold information from us if that information might make us more sympathetic towards the Administration's positions?

This behavior is not new. In the 1930's, Walter Duranty of the NY Times failed to report on what he knew about Stalin's brutality, in no small part due to his sympathetic views of Communism. For this he was awarded a Pulitzer prize. Atrocities committed by the Viet Cong were similarly under-reported during the Vietnam war, as were the atrocities of the "anti-colonial" forces during Africa's many wars of "liberation".

Why are some sections of the media overly sympathetic with the enemies of "Western Civilization" (sorry, can't think of a better term to describe "our" side)?

Well, I've beaten this dead horse enough...

I really don't understand, Ed. I read the story and it seemed that they had a gun to their head so to speak. I haven't been able to watch CNN (or Fox for that matter) because I have been working very long hours and don't have cable at work.

I don't think that anyone believes that SH was anything more than a murderous thug. He gassed thousands of Kurdish civilians if nothing else. Did I miss some very biased reporting on CNN? If you think so, I'd like some examples since I missed it.