Just Another Dead Iraqi..CNN news anchor goes after Al Jazeera

[G_j]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18435
http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-aljazeera.html

A CNN news anchor goes after Al Jazeera for focusing on the deaths of Iraqi civilians. Isn't that the Pentagon's job?



Just Another Dead Iraqi

By FAIR
April 16, 2004

As the casualties mount in the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, Qatar-based Al Jazeera has been one of the only news networks broadcasting from the inside, relaying images of destruction and civilian victims – including women and children. But when CNN anchor Daryn Kagan interviewed the network's editor-in-chief, Ahmed Al-Sheik, on Monday, Apr. 12 – a rare opportunity to get independent information about events in Fallujah – she used the occasion to badger Al-Sheik about whether the civilian deaths were really "the story" in Fallujah.


Al Jazeera has recently come under sharp criticism from U.S. officials, who claim the Iraqi casualties are 95 percent "military-age males." "We have reason to believe that several news organizations do not engage in truthful reporting," CPA spokesman Dan Senor said. "In fact it is no reporting." Senior military spokesman Mark Kimmitt had a suggestion for Iraqis who saw civilian deaths on Al Jazeera: "Change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station. The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies."


Acting as the substitute anchor on CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports," Kagan began the interview by asking Al-Sheik to respond to those accusations, citing U.S. officials "saying the pictures and the reporting that Al Jazeera put on the air only adds to the sense of frustration and anger and adds to the problems in Iraq, rather than helping to solve them." After Al-Sheik defended Al Jazeera's work as "accurate" and the images as representative of "what takes place on the ground," Kagan pressed on:



"Isn't the story, though, bigger than just the simple numbers, with all due respect to the Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives – the story bigger than just the numbers of people who were killed or the fact that they might have been killed by the U.S. military, that the insurgents, the people trying to cause problems within Fallujah, are mixing in among the civilians, making it actually possibly that even more civilians would be killed, that the story is what the Iraqi insurgents are doing, in addition to what is
..more..

[m-jean03]

1. CNN= Criminal's News Network

Reporting on, by, and for Criminals.

[HFishbine]

2. Let's see

CNN devotes hours to Chandra Levy, Dru Shadeen, DC Sniper victims, Jon Benet Ramsey, and countless other civilian victims of violence and she wonders if civilian deaths in Iraq are the real story? Why doesn't CNN stick just to the good things in America? Is it because American lives are more worthy than Iraqi lives in the eyes of the foxy but misguided Kagan?

Furthermore, if one is willing to accept her premise that the reporting is lopsided, isn't CNN just as biased by not including civilian deaths in their reporting?

[madrchsod]

3. cnn is a white house whore

opp`s ,whores get paid and they don`t fall in love with their customers..crack whores,they`ll screw anyone for a rock. the pictures of the dead babies and the accurate death tolls must have cnn all pissed off,kind`a like someone else is getting the rocks for free..
we got our asses kicked in that town and the only people who reported it was aljizzy.sorry cnn, we don`t associate with lying crack whores anymore...

[ozymandius]

4. While CNN has a Dem-supporting PAC,

this incompetent anchor would never lead anyone to believe it. Kagan used to be a sports anchor but was promoted to news anchor during the Rick Kaplan days, primarily for her glamorous legs. People who work at CNN know her story which contributes to the reasons why people who work there so widely despise her. The word on the CNN street says that Kagan is the person you do NOT want commenting on a human interest story - precisely what this story is.

EDIT: I wish that news agencies would represent themselves fairly. Fox supports Republicans. CNN supports Democrats. The conflicting messages of these two networks just muddy the water and make their appearance of "fair and balanced" reporting look clumsy.

[damnyankee]

5. Yeah, why didn't those insurgents march out into the open ...

and say 'hey, soldiers, we're over here,' so all those civilians wouldn't have had to have been murdered -- err, inadvertently harmed.

[Parrcrow]

6. Daryn Kagan is just a news model

spouting the CNN line that the only perspective that counts is that of the Pentagon.

[senseandsensibility]

9. I agree

She's not informed enough to be purposely slanting the news; she's just following the company orders. Like many of the "reporters" on this anything but Democratic leaning network, she gets this frozen expression on her face whenever called upon to question anything from this administration. You can just hear her thinking, "Must avoid freeper e-mails, must avoid freeper e-mails..." Daryn Kagan is Candi Crowley without the brains.

[Bandit]

7. Sometimes the truth leaks out

"We have reason to believe that several news organizations do not engage in truthful reporting,"
Truth in reporting does happen occasionally.

[okieinpain]

8. I think that is a fair question, but only if it's asked with the other

question of american troops dropping 2000lb bombs in neighborhoods. I didn't see the story but I'm pretty sure that the cnn host probably didn't bring up that part.

I always get a laugh when I see white people talk about segergation days. like this week the sports guys on espn were talking about jackie robinson, and they explained his experience as pretty bad stuff. why can't they just say that white people didn't want a nigger presented in a positive role. funny stuff.

[jackkendem]

10. What else do you expect from the Conservative News Network?!?

They have their heads so far up the conservatives ass that it's not even funny!

[newyawker99]

21. Hi jackkendem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[keithyboy]

11. With Israel killing yet another of the Palestinian Hamas leaders just

think what this means for our soldiers who are held hostage by the Iraqis. This is proof to me that with tensions the way they are now in Iraq, Israel doesn't give a damn about the fate of our soldiers or our country. They use us and Bush has just been used to the max!!! Today's action by Israel is the 'thanks' he gets. Only problem is, our children will be paying the price. Can things get any worse?

[jackkendem]

13. Yes, it can get worse. If Bush is re-elected our nation will cease

to exist as we know it. The world community will turn its back on us, and it will be open season for terrorists to begin taking potshots at us, as we will have no more allies.

[rocktivity]

12. Did this take place before or after

the Kagan vs. Dave Letterman "Yawning Kid" incident"?

http://brendanl.net/video/gwbyouth/AmericasYouth2.rm

:headbang:
rocknation

[Karenina]

14. "Military -age males" MY ASS!!!

WHO here remembers how loud we all screamed that 50% of Iraq's population was UNDER 16 YEARS OLD??? So the Amis kill IN COLD BLOOD any pre-pubescent or adolescent male they see and thereby JUSTIFY THEIR MURDER? :puke: :puke: :puke:

[G_j]

15. good point

I doubt if most Americans think of military-age males as 13 yr. olds.
:-(

[troublemaker]

18. We are currently using a standard of 10+ years old. Seriously. n/t

[G_j]

19. unbelievable

I can't even comprehend the mindset, and I can't imagine that many soldiers will be feeling 'full of pride' from this whole mess.

[Eric J in MN]

16. "military-age males"

When the US drops a bomb on a house, the death of any males between the ages of 16 and 65 is ok?

[wtmusic]

17. "The insurgents are mixing in with the civilians"

Repeat 100 times after me:

"The insurgents ARE the civilians."
"The insurgents ARE the civilians..."

[keithyboy]

20. Think repetition will help? I doubt it.

"Civilian" means any person our enemies kill. Of course, we never kill civilians...we just have 'collateral damage.'

[G_j]

22. I suppose

innocent people killed by the 'good guys' go to heaven because it's for a good cause, freedom and all that...
And since Bush knows God personally, the people he murders must get special treatment on the other side...