I highly doubt that. We already know that CNN was not above moderating coverage to ensure access -- vis a vis Eason Jordon's admission post Iraq Invasion.
I doubt that the CNN that toned down info on Hussein would do any different with Iran
I'm not sure that the old CNN would do a better job. They were the ones that dreadfully compromised their integrity in order to keep access to Saddam Hussein in the 1990s. That's the trouble with any media dealing with a totalitarian society -- the tyrants have no incentive to give access except on their own terms.
I don't even bother to follow US news regularly any more because of the annoying chatter caused by blow-dried pundits. Instead, I only follow CBC and BBC news coverage.
When the security forces lose their willamberleyJune 16 2009, 07:39:37 UTC
Agreed. There's a bit in Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody on page 163 where he talks about how how the Berlin Wall came down: 'This kind of social awareness has three levels: when everybody knows something, when everybody knows that everybody knows, and when everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows. Many people in the GDR figured out for themselves that the government was bad; this is the "everyone knows" condition. Over time many of those same people figured out that most of their friends, neighbors and colleagues knew that as well -- "everyone knows that everyone knows." At this point the sentiment was widespread but because no one was talking about what everyone knew, the state never had to respond in any formal way. Finally people in Leipzig could see others acting on the knowledge that the GDR was rotten -- "everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows." This shared awareness is the step necessary for real public action: ...'
I've been following persiankiwi on twitter as a good snapshot of the #
( ... )
Comments 9
I doubt that the CNN that toned down info on Hussein would do any different with Iran
Reply
Jim Cambias
Reply
Reply
One of the better analyses of the downsides of competition I've seen.
I'm also amused by Salon.com's June 13 article that basically said the election was over and the obvious voter fraud was going to go unremarked.
Reply
http://english.aljazeera.net/
I don't even bother to follow US news regularly any more because of the annoying chatter caused by blow-dried pundits. Instead, I only follow CBC and BBC news coverage.
::B::
Reply
'This kind of social awareness has three levels: when everybody knows something, when everybody knows that everybody knows, and when everybody knows that everybody knows that everybody knows. Many people in the GDR figured out for themselves that the government was bad; this is the "everyone knows" condition. Over time many of those same people figured out that most of their friends, neighbors and colleagues knew that as well -- "everyone knows that everyone knows." At this point the sentiment was widespread but because no one was talking about what everyone knew, the state never had to respond in any formal way. Finally people in Leipzig could see others acting on the knowledge that the GDR was rotten -- "everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows." This shared awareness is the step necessary for real public action: ...'
I've been following persiankiwi on twitter as a good snapshot of the # ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment