Sparky should be asked to either provide proof or apologize and resign. As an executive in a major company, his views can be construed as representing the views of that company - especially since the forum at hand was one about his company's mission. Given that, he has to prove it or fall on his sword. Without that, CNN loses credibility as a reporting agency.

Nice link, but not an accurate and complete description of what he said, let alone what he meant.

Try this one, from the same site:
http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/02/eason_jordan_cl.html

Pardon me if I don't completely trust the word of someone who's already gone on record as comfortable with lying if it's for the "greater good". Personally, I want to see a transcript/video.

Maybe if the media stopped embedding journalists with terrorist assault teams, the troops wouldn't shoot so many of them.

While I'm on it, I'm reading your other link, where you say "he admitted to covering up Hussein's excesses to maintain access".

He does nothing of the sort. What he "admits" to doing is not reporting "excesses" because doing so will get his Iraqi employees and their families and their friends *tortured and killed*.

Is that a breach of journalistic ethics? Should he have reported it anyway and said "damn the consequences?" Maybe - but it's a far cry from filtering the news to be sure that he'll keep access.

With respect, careful you don't mistake spin for fact. There's definitely more to Eason's "confession" than meets the eye.

It's also interesting that Jordan (or anyone else, for that matter, as I haven't seen actual proof that he's blocking the transcripts, even though I think he's the likely culprit...) isn't making the transcripts available. All he'd have to do in order to clear this up is ensure that we're provided the transcripts...

And to John: if people were captured, you could try to make a case for not saying anything on the off-chance that they'll be released. You could also make a case for playing hardball with the regime. It's not that hard - you tell them that either they release your staff or you'll tell everyone that they're holding people illegally. Maybe they don't care, but at least the truth would be told. And isn't that what journalism is about? telling the truth?

Ron: It's not just about the ones currently in captivity, unless you really feel like trying to smuggle all your Iraqi employees, their families, and their friends, completely out of the country.

As long as they live in Iraq, they're under a threat of death if CNN reports how they're treated. That makes the decision to report or not report a pretty damn significant one.

> And isn't that what journalism is about? telling
> the truth?

When telling the truth means your employees and friends, and their families, and *their* friends, are tortured and killed?

I'm an engineer, not a journalist, but the ethics laws and classes are similar. This is hardly a clear-cut case of what is "right".

I'm not going to argue whether not reporting to save lives is in the best interests of journalism. I simply think that calling that "not reporting to keep access" is, frankly, dishonest.

A follow-up article is here.

John apparently thinks CNN had only two options, "shill for Saddam" or "get your journalists killed." He's forgetting the third option, the one all the other media companies besides CNN took: "don't embed journalists in totalitarian countries." Sure, CNN was top dog for a while, with their "exclusive access" to the world's worst human rights abusers. But now their viewers are waking up to the fact that CNN's scoops were nothing but dictator ordered propaganda, and now not only will they pay the price, but so will the entire field of investigative journalism. After all, what proof does the average man on the street have that those "special reports" aren't actually being done in collusion with the parties being investigated?

John, yes I understand the decision is significant and a very difficult one to make. However, any decision must be weighed against the consequences. Had CNN decided to report the truth, it's very possible that many of their Iraqi employees, their familes, and their friends could be tortured, maimed, or killed. However, by not reporting on these sorts of things, Saddam was allowed to stay in power for even longer and do these things to thousands more people. So, it seems that the basic argument you're making is one that says I'll help my friends and the hell with all the others. I can see where that'd cause problems with ethical discussions - the whole many/few arguement.

As for your last point, there seems to be significant proof that this was nothing more than to keep access. IF Jordan wanted to save the lives, all he had to do was leave. The folks that worked for him there would have to get new jobs, but they'd not be in much more danger than the average citizen - a definite improvement given the circumstances. However, he decided to stay and keep putting them at risk. For what? Since he wasn't reporting on the abuses, it seems that he had no other interest than access.