What not to print
Titled "The news we kept to ourselves," this opinion piece by CNN's chief news executive is the New York Times' most e-mailed article in the past 24 hours. It made waves on several radio talk shows yesterday, and the short summary is this: In order to protect journalists and citizens who leaked other information in Iraq while the country was under Saddam Hussein's rule, CNN didn't report about some atrocities performed by the Iraqi government. It can be seen from different angles.On one hand, CNN covered up news. To protect some, they didn't report about the harm done to others. One can only wonder how things would be different if more atrocities had been revealed earlier.
On the other hand, CNN protected people who, in all likelihood, would have been tortured and killed. One can only wonder what kinds of inside information made it to more powerful sources because these people lived.
It's a weird dilemma for journalists and news organizations. People can pass judgement now, but nobody will ever know what could have been. I'm not CNN, but I've already found myself in smaller-scale dilemmas. The police/molestation/explosives story I mentioned the other day may have backfired on investigators to the point that I'll never really be able to report on it. If I'd begun investigating the hell out of the story earlier, I could have printed some of it, though it likely would have resulted in someone running and eluding the police, and the police being less than happy. Then there's another story that will hopefully break soon, and it's one of those ones that would make the AP national news wire. I could publish some now and say something like, "though sources in the [name of city department] declined to confirm it, they have previously said..." Again, it would be the same dilemma. People think that being a journalist is easy. It's not.
Posted by Layla at 7:22 PM, April 12, 2003
— Comments —