PDA

View Full Version : Midwest Hotel Chain Drops CNN Over Video


Brian Damage
11-16-2006, 07:51 PM
A Midwest hotel chain has pulled CNN from the TV channel lineup in its guest rooms, saying the cable network was aiding terrorism with the broadcast of a video showing Iraqi snipers shooting at U.S. troops.

The broadcast, which aired Oct. 18 on both CNN and CNN Headline News, featured edited portions of a tape the network said it obtained from a rebel group called Islamic Army of Iraq.

The video crossed the line from journalism to propaganda, said James Thompson, president of the Iowa-based Stoney Creek Hospitality Corp.

"It was shocking and repulsive," he said. "Their actions supported terrorism."

Guests at the Stoney Creek Inn's 10 properties in Missouri, Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin can still view Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC and other cable news channels.

ADVERTISEMENT



Supportive comments from guests have outnumbered complaints by a 3-1 margin, Thompson said.

A network spokeswoman did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment Thursday. A CNN producer previously defended the report as an attempt to show the "unvarnished truth" about the Iraq war.

The video, which first appeared on "Anderson Cooper 360," shows uniformed U.S. soldiers mingling with Iraqi civilians in a public area. An American gunner is seen standing guard in a turret atop a U.S. military vehicle.

After the insurgent sniper confers with a spotter presumably the person operating the video camera a shot rings out. After a fade to black, the soldier in the turret slumps forward as the sniper's car drives away.

In a CNN Web log entry defending the segment, producer David Doss wrote that the network excluded the "actual impact of the rounds" because "a number of us felt airing that precise moment was simply too horrific."

Only portions of the rebel-supplied tape which CNN said featured a total of 10 sniper attacks were included as part of a broader news story that also featured interviews with a U.S. sniper in Iraq and a network military analyst, Doss noted.

Thompson called his response "a moment of conscience." He said the decision to yank CNN and CNN Headline News from his hotels is permanent.

The company has hotels in Columbia and St. Joseph, Mo.; Des Moines and Waukon, Iowa; East Peoria, Moline, Quincy and Galena, Ill.; and La Crosse and Wausau, Wis.

The CNN report also raised the ire of several Republican lawmakers, who asked former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to bar network reporters from traveling as embedded journalists with military units in Iraq.

On Thursday, opinions among guests were mixed at the Stoney Creek Inn in Columbia, a central Missouri college town.

Dennis Cunningham, a retired factory worker from northern Missouri staying at the hotel for several weeks while his wife undergoes brain surgery, said he supported Thompson's decision.

"I agree with him. I think it was inappropriate," Cunningham said. "We don't need to see things like that over here."

Cunningham was not aware of the hotel's decision until told by a reporter. Neither was Peter Cain of St. Louis, who like Cunningham ate breakfast near the hotel lobby as the Fox News Channel played in the background.

"If he's trying to make a statement, then why doesn't he make it known?" said Cain, referring to hotel owner Thompson. "I didn't even notice (it was missing)."

Lex Luthor
11-16-2006, 08:56 PM
Good for him!! I hope many others follow suit. It is a sad state of affairs with the news agencies recently doing anyting they can to get ratings

CNN financing terrorists at the cost of our own troops

Fox financing a multiple murderer for ratings

Freedom of expression and the Freedom of the Press now seems like freedom from morals or decency. I would almost prefer censorship.

Once again it goes to show that money can buy anything, shame on CNN and Fox for their moraly corrupt heirarchy. Murder and terrorism should not be a profitable business but Fox and CNN are allowing it to happen.

ABlairican Pie
11-16-2006, 10:58 PM
How does reporting the news "support terrorism"?? :confused:

We would "prefer censorship"?? In other words, we would rather support news that is favorable to the view that the war is just going marvey.

Fleet
11-17-2006, 12:24 AM
How does reporting the news "support terrorism"?? :confused:

We would "prefer censorship"?? In other words, we would rather support news that is favorable to the view that the war is just going marvey.
During WWII, parts of the news was censored. Because broadcasting it would have hurt the troops and the U.S.

ABlairican Pie
11-17-2006, 12:32 AM
During WWII, parts of the news was censored. Because broadcasting it would have hurt the troops and the U.S.Okay, I guess I can see that. It's helpful to remember that news reporting isn't without some sort of journalistic bias, it's done with some intent to color a perception about an event. It's not entirely "objective". I can imagine that it wouldn't go over well for family members to see their loved ones shot at and possibly die.

It's not that some editorial content or personal perspective can't go into reporting, but it's just a matter of how it's done and who it affects.

Jenya
11-17-2006, 01:09 AM
During WWII, parts of the news was censored. Because broadcasting it would have hurt the troops and the U.S.

Huh? TV wasn't around until the 1950's. :confused:

Lex Luthor
11-17-2006, 01:36 AM
How does reporting the news "support terrorism"?? :confused:

We would "prefer censorship"?? In other words, we would rather support news that is favorable to the view that the war is just going marvey.

I would prefer not to see CNN pay to tag along and know full well that they will be shooting footage of snipers picking off US troops. To be honest I do not want to see footage of Allied troops picking off enemy troops either. There is a certain line of humanitarianism that should not be crossed.

Do you remember the outrage a few years back when Iraqi extremists circulated footage of them beheading an American in protest of the war? I do not put the CNN footage that much further ahead on the ethical scale. There are some things that should not be aired.

If CNN actually paid the Iraqi's to come along and shoot footage of the war from the other side (my bet would be yes) then it is even more sickening. Years ago that would be seen as treason, now its just freedom of the press.

Fleet
11-17-2006, 02:13 AM
Huh? TV wasn't around until the 1950's. :confused:
Newspapers, radio and clips shown in theatres.

jie3
11-17-2006, 03:48 AM
I would prefer not to see CNN pay to tag along and know full well that they will be shooting footage of snipers picking off US troops. To be honest I do not want to see footage of Allied troops picking off enemy troops either. There is a certain line of humanitarianism that should not be crossed.

Do you remember the outrage a few years back when Iraqi extremists circulated footage of them beheading an American in protest of the war? I do not put the CNN footage that much further ahead on the ethical scale. There are some things that should not be aired.

If CNN actually paid the Iraqi's to come along and shoot footage of the war from the other side (my bet would be yes) then it is even more sickening. Years ago that would be seen as treason, now its just freedom of the press.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that it's important that people get to see the realities of what's actually going on. It's much easier to support a war if you're shielded from the true horror of it.

Thankfully, the majority of Brits and Americans now oppose the war, but that might not have been the case if it weren't for the media showing us the terrors that our troupes face on a daily basis, and the sheer lack in quality of life of the Iraqi Citizens.

It also gives the troupes a voice. I'm sure that the large number of them who feel that they are there for all the wrong reasons would not be able to express their views to the same extent. I watched CNN the other day, and a Sergent was being interviewed in his camp. He said that he did not understand why he was there, and that the first thing he's going to do when he gets home is to write to Bush, and ask him to explain it to him.

J

Central Perk
11-17-2006, 08:06 AM
Did CNN actually film these events or did they just obtain footage? And what about this, are the networks aiding terrorism every time they show a new Osama Bin Laden tape? Terrorism is all about bringing attention to a cause and the networks certainly enable Bin Laden to do so when they air that footage.

ABlairican Pie
11-17-2006, 08:21 AM
Okay, I guess I can see that. It's helpful to remember that news reporting isn't without some sort of journalistic bias, it's done with some intent to color a perception about an event. It's not entirely "objective". I can imagine that it wouldn't go over well for family members to see their loved ones shot at and possibly die.

It's not that some editorial content or personal perspective can't go into reporting, but it's just a matter of how it's done and who it affects.
I'm still thinking, is this hotel upset that journalists on CNN are showing something that is patently "treasonous", or are they just showing the realities of this war? Of course showing what our soldiers are going through may make people have an emotional reaction against this war, but would CNN's decision to air the footage make it "propaganda"? Of course, if this hotel chain only had news cable channels airing "approved" images that showed the war in a positive light, wouldn't that be propaganda as well? The message would be, "Don't show any footage unless it looks like we're winning." patriot: It's like the whole brouhaha over photos of flag-draped coffins.

How do we know our soldiers weren't shooting back? I really doubt that CNN made a conscious attempt to do anything to "aid terrorists" with airing this footage.

Bobby F.
11-17-2006, 10:39 AM
I'm still thinking, is this hotel upset that journalists on CNN are showing something that is patently "treasonous", or are they just showing the realities of this war? Of course showing what our soldiers are going through may make people have an emotional reaction against this war, but would CNN's decision to air the footage make it "propaganda"? Of course, if this hotel chain only had news cable channels airing "approved" images that showed the war in a positive light, wouldn't that be propaganda as well? The message would be, "Don't show any footage unless it looks like we're winning." patriot: It's like the whole brouhaha over photos of flag-draped coffins.

How do we know our soldiers weren't shooting back? I really doubt that CNN made a conscious attempt to do anything to "aid terrorists" with airing this footage.


There is plenty of news coverage going around about how we are doing in the war without it having to be graphic. What purposed does it serve to show one of our military getting killed by a sniper?? People know what happens in a war. Death. To show things like this does break the resolve for wanting to follow through with the war. What would have happened if all of the major networks were there on Normandy beach filming the massacre that took place there. The out cry of "get our guys out of there" would have been enormous!! If CNNwants to fair about it then start showing nightly clips of our military capping off a few terrorists. But they won't because that would be too harsh for the public to see our guys doing there job. They would just rather focus on how are guys are getting killed in a war they see as unjust and try to gain support for that way of thought.