Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
No. I'm saying that, after forty-some years of hearing from the press about how they occupy this sacrosanct position in our Constitutionally-guided lives, I think CNN had a duty to not simply decide that otherwise majorly-news-worthy stories would be supressed by them simply for their own profit. If they claim the mantle of the Fifth Estate, they damned well better not unilaterally decide, not that I shouldn't know about something, but that they would profit more by keeping their knowledge from me.
|
(1) Why is this about CNN's profits instead of the compromises that always come with the business? Why isn't it fair to say that CNN stayed in Iraq, in less-than-ideal circumstances, so that you would have some sense of what was going on there?
(2) When CNN reports that a "senior administration official" says x, y or z, they know who it is, and they don't tell you. Sometimes this is important. That's the way it is.
(3) If the responsible thing to do was to stay there and report the unpleasantness the regime didn't want reported, where was the competition? I didn't see those stories on PBS/ABC/MSNBC/Fox.
