Long-time CNN foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour still harbors some resentment toward the American media for the Iraq war.
In September 2003, Amanpour spoke out publicly and said CNN was intimidated by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship." Over four years later, Amanpour is still disappointed with the media leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
[Click Here for Audio]
"I said it before and I'll say it again," Amanpour said. "I believe that we failed as a profession to do our duty which is simply to ask the hard questions, to stay on it, to fact check and to cross-check and to not take one version of the story hook, line and sinker."
Amanpour was the featured guest on "The Kalb Report," a TV and radio show hosted by veteran journalist Marvin Kalb and taped at the National Press Club in Washington on March 10 before a live audience.
She defended her much-criticized three-part controversial series "God's Warriors," which was broadcasted on CNN in August 2007. She told the audience she was not attempting to engage in moral equivalency by trying to equate modern radical Islamic extremism with modern fundamental Judaism or Christianity when asked by Kalb.
[Click Here for Audio]
According to Amanpour, the only mistake made in the series was "calling someone representative instead of congressman or something like that."
"[I]t was a rigorous piece of journalism which approached the subject that's on everybody's mind and that is what do we do in this world where politics, culture and society all interconnect and sometimes collide," Amanpour said. "We went out specifically - and this was part of when we promoted it or we talked about it or we went to review it - we chose to focus on the extreme of each of those religions."
According to Amanpour, there were "one or two groups very upset" about the series "whose basic job is to comb through everything the media does and if the media doesn't toe their political line, they're very upset."
Amanpour credited CNN founder Ted Turner for inventing the 24-hour news cycle, but had one critique of it. She felt that it forced policy-makers to react immediately to news when some decisions deserved more deliberate attention. She also said Internet, specifically blogs, played an important role in the news cycle.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
She's right in one respect
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 09:28 ET by FastEd"to fact check and to cross-check and to not take one version of the story hook, line and sinker." Have a conversation with Dan Rather and see how that works out. Or maybe talk with BOR and find out if he's still looking for the guy who sets the gasoline price.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
veteran journalist
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 09:38 ET by Jack BauerI've seen this alleged "journalist" on O'Reilly. He makes Olbermann look like a paragon of unbiased reporting.
I think Walter Duranty was his mentor. He's old enough.
Riiight
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 09:55 ET by dronetekYou know people like her are full of crap, because they talk
about being better journalists when it comes to "the right". However,
when it’s their own ideology they don’t seem to be anywhere near as interested
in investigative journalism. The perfect example is how they let democrats get
away with their rhetoric on Iraq,
without ever asking tough questions. Of course, that’s A-OK because it’s in
line with their agenda.
Dronetek, EXACTLY! How
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 10:07 ET by futbolisgreat1Dronetek,
EXACTLY!
How many CNN reporters have done a story on the quotes below?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
futbolisgrat1.. on the silly WMD thing.
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 11:50 ET by Gary HallIt's a great list of quotes, and the players should be held accountable, however if I may?
First, a note. In the current agreement between the R's and the D's in the Senate Intelligence Committee report due to come out on this subject of how the Bush administration supposedly hyped up or mistrepresented the intelligence (i.e., WMD's etc.), it has been agreed that in the final report the R's cannot reference any material following the March 20th beginning of the war.
However, I offer it anyway as their agreement does not limit my rights of free speech.
The left, w/ the MSM leading the way, has defended their case in many of these examples, you noted, by suggesting that the 1998 material from the Clinton administration was prior (the Bush admin.) to addtional discovery in 2002 after the inspectors went back in briefly after being gone for more than 3 years.
Secondly, they claim that the comments by Democrats and others (the quotes), from 2001 forward were made just because those D's had bought hook line and sinker, the lies and misrepresentations that Bush has sold them.
A better case might include more of what was said by Democrats after consultation with the Clinton administration, after they had vacated the White House, and comments made by the Clinton administration itself, after they left office and even after the start of the war. A brief synopsis:
And of course, there were those high up Democrats, such as Sen. Levin (D) -- who as Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee had their strong feelings, as well:
Did a single journalist out there run to the phones to call that breaking news story in? "We inturrupt this broadcast... _ _ C news has just learned that the Senate Intelligence Committee Chariman has reported that Saddam still has nuclear weapons - please take cover."
Imagine the outrage, if VP Cheney was out there some 2 1/2 years after the war started, still maintaining that it was a fact that Saddam still had nuclear weapons. Of course Cheney is on record in saying that we had no evidence that Saddam had nukes. The D's on the Senate Intelligence committee did?
No wonder that the agreement in the present prohibits the use of what was said after the war started.
Long ago
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 09:56 ET by JWFLong before I knew about media bias, I did not like to look or listen to this woman.
There is left wing bias and the there is the "extreme" grating "focus" of this woman.
I still can't say her name.
"I still can't say her name"
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 14:40 ET by okiehawk44Try Mrs. James Rubin -- married to a Clintonista who to this day is still trying to get another Clinton into the WH -- these people are about as unbiased as Spitzer is a "happily married man."
oh44... Bingo!.... and I
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 14:43 ET by bigtimeroh44...
Bingo!.... and I am laughing out loud with your analogy.
You hit the nail on the head
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 15:45 ET by ArminiusAmanpour has had a huge conflict of interest for about a decade with her marriage to Jamie Rubin.
Consider this exchange between Amanpour and Larry King last year while discussing "God's Warriors":
KING: But how much does the Israeli-Palestinian situation affect the Muslim situation, affect the Christian opinion, when they all intermingle here?
AMANPOUR: Well, they do intermingle a lot. So, you know, I’m sort of keeping the two separate at the moment as I discuss this.But for sure, the constant open witnessed that is Israel-Palestine, the war that exists in Israel and the occupied territories is a powerful recruiting tool for those disaffected in the Islamic world. There is absolutely no doubt about that.But, also, right now, another powerful recruiting tool is the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. It is—it’s equaled or surpassed, at the moment, the pool of recruits for those who would come into terrorism and who would do America harm.And I think, you know, there’s a new Pew poll, a recent Pew poll that has just been published which has, I think, rather troubling results.
It talks about how these phenomenal values that the United States espouses and has exported, you know, for decades, are now being viewed with suspicion and with distrust and mistrust.
So, really, the challenge for America and for American leadership is to get that back, to reclaim its values, to reclaim its position in global society and to be able to once again be considered the exporter of great and valuable morals and values.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/20/lkl.01.html
Amanpour’s claim echoed a statement offered by Jamie Rubin just a few weeks earlier. “It will take years, decades to retrieve the respect that we once had before [the Bush] people took office,” Rubin said. Rubin was the director of foreign policy for the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1996. He was also the spokesman for Madeleine Albright’s State Department and, in 2004, worked for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, serving as a senior advisor for national security affairs. In addition, Rubin supports Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
http://www.observer.com/2007/james-rubin-hillary-barack-and-anything-bush
Amanpour is essentially carrying water for her husband, Madeleine Albright, and Hillary.
www.sinsofthehusband.com
Fact: 50 million people
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 10:12 ET by jdhawkFact: 50 million people are enjoying for the first time in three generations personal freedom that they could only imagine.
Fact: The United States of America is largely responsible for the above.
Fact: Our drive by media, including the hate America Amanpour, has been unsuccessful in causing the above to fail - so far.
"...to ask the hard
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 11:02 ET by Chris Norman"...to ask the hard questions, to stay on it, to fact check and to cross-check and to not take one version of the story hook, line and sinker."
Translation: To do every biased thing in the MSM's power to keep the US from going to war. A war, they disagreed with...
Dear Ms. Amanpour
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 11:21 ET by rammingspeedOnce the WMDs weren't located, the Bush haters (include yourself, of course) poured over every word of intelligence reports and congressional testimony, and even extra things like the Downing Syndrome (oops, Downing Street Memo, yellow cake, ad nauseum) and found nothing to show that we acted less than responsibly to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq and look for the WMDs and possible nukes.
The world wide intelligence community knows for a fact that the WMDs and nuclear weapon reasearch existed, Hussein was told 16 times by the UN to allow a full search, and he refused. The entire Middle East being a hotbed of murderous haters of Western civilization, we needed to make sure Iraq was neutralized, so that the weapons wouldn't fall into the hands of someone else more inclined to use them than Hussein.
After 9/11, we couldn't take the chance that WMDs would come from Iraq, or somewhere in the Middle East, and be used against America on her own soil.
Ms. Amanpour, you have brain power, but you have the wisdom of a preschooler in a sand box. You want to let insane murderers have their open chance to kill you, be my guest.
I'm gonna defend myself, and if that means taking proactive military action against what was reasonably believed to be a stash of WMDs ready to be used against me, then that's what I'm gonna do.
Doing it my way is win-win. You and I both get to live. Your way, not so much.
You forgot
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 11:46 ET by exLibDemocrats need cover because they overwhelmingly voted to give Bush power to launch Iraq War.
Democrat base is overwhelmingly anti-war.
Democrats who voted for the war but want to get elected must either confess their sin or claim they were lied to.
Most people will not believe a Democrat if he says he was lied to, but if the media claims that it was the negligent one it takes the focus off the Democrat and gives said Democrat an excuse for the vote.
He was lied to and the news media didn't do it's due diligence.
After all it's well know that George Bush is such an eloquent speaker and a master intellect, it's not surprising that he duped an entire industry devoted to exposing Republican Lies, Deceit and Corruption.
If you really believe this . . .
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 11:22 ET by Mica the Magnificent"I believe that we failed as a profession to do our duty which is simply to ask the hard questions, to stay on it, to fact check and to cross-check and to not take one version of the story hook, line and sinker."
O-k, Christiane. Here's your chance to do a three-part series on the myth of Global Warming.
Great point, Mica. I believe
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 11:49 ET by Chris NormanGreat point, Mica. I believe Ms. Amanpour has some experience covering religion.
Amanpour, is
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 11:40 ET by exLibAmanpour is a disgrace to honest journalism.
God's Warriors:
#1 - Asking the Christian leader about his school for teens.
You ask them to wear skirts below the knees and not watch R-rated movies.
Isn't that like the Taliban? Isn't that oppression?
(How dare you do such a nasty thing?)
In a different show broadcast on CNN, CNN goes to the Middle-east and talks about burkas and a Burka "Fashion Show". Tells us in the show how we need to "embrace" the fashion of Muslims and interviews women who talk about how the Burka is a good thing and not deratory or demeaning to women, CNN anchors nod their head in agreement.
#2 - at a gay pride rally in SF.
Gay protestors with an effigy of Christian leader hanging from a noose
Gay protestors with an effigy of christian leader in a cage.
Gay protestor with sign saying Christian leader doesn't have right to make statements that are "offensive" to gay people.
Gay protestors yelling profanities at Christians on oppostie side of a barrier made by city police.
Christians on other side on knees praying and reading scripture from Bible
Amanpour to Christian leader "Why the hate for these kind, nice, loving people?"
"Don't you realize coming here is making them unconfortable?"
Amanpour two months into Iraq war "The US has Lost".
She's in the entertainment business not the news business
Tue, 03/11/2008 - 16:04 ET by 911isbusyWhat else can she say? Her income comes from "reporting" in foreign countries. She doesn't sit at a desk in the U.S.
There are no ramifications for her criticising the US or the US media. They themselves are all breaking their backs to show how anti-Iraq war they are as well.
More importantly, if she were to criticise radical Islam or any other country she visits in which the US has a conflict, how will she be received? Will they cut off her head? Amanpour's rhetoric is a rhetoric of survival, both economic and physical. The term "God's Warriors" that she uses presents the issues in terms the terrorists most appreciate. This is how they see themselves. Its her free pass in the Middle East.
Reuters and AP war correspondents know very well that they cannot get a front line story in the West Bank and Gaza if they are known to be objective because they will be seen as simpathizers with Israel so they frequently let themselves be treated to staged Palestinian injuries and readily accept claims of massacres (at Jenin for example) and "oppression". The second intifada was to a large extent a show. Amanpour is a show as well.
Those who have not swords can still die upon them.