Ethics Alarms had flagged CNN’s incompetence and bias too often already this week: it was getting boring. Then the network, damn them, forced me to write about its crummy ethics again, by posting that ludicrous protest above.
Here is the “journalism” CNN stands behind:
Pages: 1 2
Ethics Alarms 
That CNN comment seems to be in response to the Secretary of Defense denouncing (without presenting any facts to the contrary) a report stating that the administration underestimated Iran’s willingness and ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. That report which appeared in additional media seems to have been well-resourced.
Trump, Hegseth, and Brenden Carr have repeatedly attacked news reporting which they found unfavorable. In that light, it is not only reasonable, it is mandatory for news media to defend themselves.
Hegseth would be on solid ground, instead of sinking into the swamp, had he been honest and forthcoming on important Defense Department issues. He knew he was wrong to put sensitive military attack information on Signal, and he tried to weasel-word that away. He knows who issued the order to kill non-combatants in the Gulf of Mexico, yet he dithered. He knows exactly whose tomahawk missile hit the school in Iran, yet he hides behind an ongoing investigation. He knows it would be wrong to turn Stars and Stripes into a propaganda vehicle for the administration, yet he presses on.
Or, perhaps he knows none of this and is stupid rather than evil.
The proper correction of shoddy or dishonest reporting is the responsibility of the people and of competing news media and not to be done by government coercion.
The sanctification of freedom of the press in the First Amendment proscribes Congress from abridging that freedom. But the Constitutional relationship between making laws by Congress and enforcing laws by the Executive Branch makes it clear that the administration is obliged to dispute disputable reporting with facts and not with repeated outbursts of FAKE NEWS!!! and threats.
Yet, CNN is the unethical actor here.
From: Pentagon and National Security Council underestimated Iran war’s impact on Strait of Hormuz | CNN Politics
The Pentagon and National Security Council significantly underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US military strikes while planning the ongoing operation, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
President Donald Trump’s national security team failed to fully account for the potential consequences of what some officials have described as a worst-case scenario now facing the administration, the sources said.
While key officials from the Departments of Energy and Treasury were present for some of the official planning meetings about the operation before it started, sources said, the agency analysis and forecasts that would be integral elements of the decision-making process in past administrations were secondary considerations.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Energy Secretary Chris Wright have been key players throughout the planning and execution stages of the conflict, the sources acknowledged. But Trump’s preference of leaning on a tight circle of close advisers in his national security decision making had the effect of sidelining interagency debate over the potential economic fallout if Iran were to respond to US-Israeli strikes by closing the strait.
“Well sourced?”
It is abundantly clear why sources who do not speak the party line must remain un-named and un-identified. The fear of reprisal is clear with the current administration at least as willing to use lawfare as the previous one was. The main point, however, is that truth and facts are the proper way to respond to what are perceived as inaccurate reporting.
“Unnamed sources” means “we are pulling it right out of our poop chute”.
To some. Not to most journalists.
Based on this I would say they did not underestimate the potential but decided that allowing Iran to continue moving toward a viable missile umbrella and a nuclear weapon was more important than having gas prices rise a bit during the mission.
It should be pointed out that fuel prices are still far below that of the previous administration and that green legislation that has driven up energy prices for electricity production has done more economic damage to the economy than it delivers benefits.
I always find it amusing when we hear grumbling about rising gasoline prices when we attempt to mitigate a near term nuclear event but are deafeningly silent about fossil fuel costs rising when they worry about a 1% rise in global temperatures.
The costs of Iran closing the strait of Hormuz temporarily is chump change compared to the costs of allowing the regime in Iran to continue slaughtering tens of thousands of peaceful protestors, to destabilize the nations in the Middle East, and reducing China’s ability to buy discounted sanctioned energy to fuel its Belt and Road strategy for global communist domination.
Absolutely. I just wish Trump could effectively communicate this to the country.
On a side note, I heard someone report recently that support for the Iran war was now over 50%. Perhaps all the anti-war propaganda is not taking hold as well as they hoped?
One of the unethical actors here. Which is the one the post was about.
I find this a perplexing comment, HJ. Fact: CNN had a week when it was caught in even more than its usual mendacity, bias, and incompetence. Fact: it chose the very same week to assert its dedication to principles it had abandoned long ago. That’s what the post was about. CNN doesn’t get to state it is generally and universally honest because it may have been accurate in once instance. Even in that instance, CNN’s cliam that somehow the Trump team didn’t “plan” or consider that the Iranians might try to block the Strait of Hormuz if they were attacked didn’t hold up, and was well-debunked by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton among others. CNN had to issue a couple of “clarifications” to that one too.
Fact: CNN’s tome is relentlessly negative regarding the Iran operation. It’s not their job to be negative. It’s their job to be fair. A government trying to win a military operation has ever reason to object to a news source deliberately spinning every event to undermine public trust and morale. Do you watch CNN? How can you justify the sneering, always assuming the worst angle is the correct one, never highlighting successes and never admitting good motives by the administration? The 1st Amendment says that Congress “shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Nothing says that an irresponsible, biased, irresponsible new media can’t or shouldn’t be called what it is when it actively acts to distort what the public get to hear in order to undermine a government official or policy its reporters disapprove of. It’s not just “disputable” reporting that the government should flag, but also bias with partisan agendas attached. Incomplete news is fake news. Misanalyzed news is fake news. Isn’t saying that two teenagers inadvertently hooked up and then tried to bomb Mayor Mandani’s home when that isn’t what happened fake news? Isn’t describing an anti-ICE activist who interfered with laws enforcement as a loving mother rather than, you know, an activist “fake news?” Isn’t describing a traditional special meal for the troops as a unique extravagance of this War Dept. fake news? The news media, with CNN a prime offender, has done massive damage to the functioning of the government, and they cannot be called out on it too loudly or enough. Why do you the dredging up of the Signal botch is remotely relevant to CNN crowing about how ethical it is on a week when CNN was anything but?
I wrote, when the Signal scandal occurred almost a year ago, that Hegseth should have been fired for it. You did not comment on that post, I see. In that incident CNN, of course, went after Hegseth with metaphorical guns blazing. You’ll note that I didn’t argue that Hegseth was to be excused because CNN is unethical.
” Do you watch CNN?”
I do not watch CNN or any other broadcast news — I am especially averse to cable ‘news’ — nor have I for many, many years, long before it ever was stated here that to watch would make me believe untrue things and make me stupid.
I do not watch CNN or any other broadcast news — I am especially averse to cable ‘news’ — nor have I for many, many years, long before it ever was stated here that to watch would make me believe untrue things and make me stupid.
First, being smart requires skill sets of a different order. But since we need to understand war aims, and war propaganda narratives, and the machinations of the Deep State and the real power-system that runs the ENTIRE SHOW, we must examine the “media systems” as extensions of the power center. This requires familiarity with “media studies”.
I know that what I write sounds ironic and insincere however I am interested in truth, not falseness. We are in a time of 4th and 5th generation information and kinetic war. The fate of the US enterprise is to be decided. We must win. And we know what side we are on. Face the facts, then decide where you will serve. The world must be rearranged (we had been mismanaging it) and our dominion reconfirmed and defended.
Do you desire the American Dream to succeed or do you want it to fail? It is that simple. I want the US to WIN and WIN BIG(LY).
In order to win, we must know what constitutes a win. As in goal setting, there must be a clearly stated objective that is realistic and measurable.
Of course, the administration could just proclaim that we have won and be done with it. Or, as he said in the interview with NBC, we could just keep hitting them for fun, you know, kinda like a video game. Maybe that’s a win.
The speculation is now running that because Charlie Kirk was publicly and privately opposed to Israel’s desired war on Iran that he had to be ‘taken out’.
I am trying to point out to very innocent Americans, just coming to understand that a war is going on, that there are no more rules. The screens and the subterfuges drop. Now you can witness raw power defining its objectives.
There are many players, and winning is different for each “interested party”. But the ‘game’ is ruthless and played to win.
Iran is being brought to its knees. This is not a game. It will not get up again.
As we proclaimed about the Taliban, or ISIS more than once.
UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!! (all caps so Mojtaba Khamenei would be sure to see it) is one of the latest crys from the war gamer in chief. Time will tell.
I will agree that the CNN statement is unethical in claiming that the only interest is in “telling the truth to our audiences”. CNN and other news media have other interests, namely staying in business, which is why their analyses, as opposed to straight news reporting of which there is precious little, lean to the left or the right depending on their audience.
This nonsense about “ethics” must be put aside (at least for a while). The one simple truth is: We are at war and we MUST win. It does not require lofty truth to win, it requires resolve and as Hegseth states mercilessness. Ruthless attainment of tactical objectives.
We have tactical advantage but the strategic war is still to be won. We cannot waiver by diverting ourselves into ethical considerations (at least not right now). Later, ok. Now: absolute destruction of the enemy.
If CNN serves those aims, that is good. If not those who serve in that opposition must be neutralized.
I am telling you the truth. Hard though it is to accept.
Some, of course, prefer that news media yield to the whims of our current leaders and support them in whatever it is they want to do, that is, to be a propaganda arm of the government.
Our founders, who had pretty good understanding of the excesses of tyrannical government, saw it differently. Despite being subject to harsh criticism by the press of the day, they nevertheless saw the press as defenders of the citizenry against an overreaching government. Madison said the press was a bulwark of liberty necessary to monitor government actions. Adams said a free press is terrible to tyrants. Jefferson said, “…were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”.
News media that serve the aims of government are not free.
Our founders, who had pretty good understanding of the excesses of tyrannical government, saw it differently. Despite being subject to harsh criticism by the press of the day, they nevertheless saw the press as defenders of the citizenry against an overreaching government. Madison said the press was a bulwark of liberty necessary to monitor government actions.
Power has found the way and the means to get its will by controlling the means by which the information is purveyed.
Jack, CNN sucks. Got it? Their clear mistakes on the Mamdani business and elsewhere are terrible.
Meanwhile, you’ve got to learn to make DISTINCTIONS among the media, which is what I believe Johnny is trying to help you do.
If I read you right in a post from a couple of days ago, you are literally demanding that the New York Times not report that the attack that probably, unfortunately caught a girls’ school was likely due to outdated intelligence data. Censoring that information not how things work, man. Facts are facts. This instinct toward blocking data for fear of what people will think is what I associate much more with the far left and the last thing you should be demanding.
Meanwhile the unbelievable acceleration even further of your references to “Axis” is astonishing. The Axis in current public affairs parlance is the AXIS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE, it has been for years, is obviously of overwhelming importance now, has been critical in finally getting the far left to understand what October 7 was really about (an Iranian terrorist proxy), and is precisely what the fight is about now. Once again, good lord anyone try to help.
Meanwhile, you’ve got to learn to make DISTINCTIONS among the media, which is what I believe Johnny is trying to help you do.
Just curious what would you consider good media? Jack has given may examples of flagrant bad journalism by the NYT, WP, Fox News, CNN, MSNow (MSNBC), etc.
This is just the latest example in a very long line.
Just curious what would you consider good media?
Jack will have his own ideas. I have a few thoughts. First (excuse the self-promotion) I am a model of what good media should say.
We must all admit complicity. We exist in an economic system created by conquest on many levels. This is not bad. It is good. We are parts and parcels of it. So good media would start from admitting complicity. “We are news corporations owned by corporate constellations and we serve owners and shareholders and governing objectives. The “truth”? Truth is flexible to interests. We are here to convince you that it is in your interest to understand our interests dovetail with your interests, and yours with ours.”
Good media will understand that our interests — nation, community, family, person — are not universal but particular. As a nation, we sank, we are deteriorating. We must arrest that process and establish a ground for renewal and re-empowerment. Venezuela, then the dismemberment of Iran. Then the toppling of Cuba. These are baby steps.
Then the arrest and deportation of Islamicists who have invaded our nation. Hopefully we will encourage the same in Europe. Tens of thousands, millions, must be excommunicated.
The good media must cooperate in the process of reconstructing America’s industrial base and truly putting America first. It must locate and explain and defend the value and importance of recovering metaphysical religion (i.e. Christian militancy) for this nation (that is a whole topic to itself).
Etc etc.
I do not wish to get too far off topic, JP, but the outstanding example I’ve given many times is the gigantic fall 2024 takedown of DEI at the University of Michigan by the New York Times after a huge investigation of theirs, with a reader comments section barraged by critics of DEI with their own personal stories. That’s right, in the New York Times. It’s never been mentioned here. Also note that Jack’s own mentions of the New York Times are overwhelmingly opinion pieces (editorials, op-eds, guest essays which are the new name of op-eds) which is NOT WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT, now or ever. Plus this new apparent demand that the Times censor any unfavorable but likely true war news, which is not how it works.
BTW while I can argue the war decision either way, I’ve spent some time since 10/7/23 telling friends that the attack was indeed by an Iranian proxy in a network that even Iranians, especially those in the US, themselves oppose. It wasn’t all these crazy analogies to other world conflicts and intersectional matters that the college protesters thought it was. I hope this helps.
Here’s a snippet from an interesting Daily Mail piece on the Strait of Hormuz you’d never see in CNN:
“It was last week alleged that the state-of-the-art Chinese spy ship Liaowang-1 was seen in the Strait of Hormuz. One specialist has previously called the vessel a ‘floating supercomputer… to map the invisible battlefield’. China relies heavily on Iranian oil and has reportedly been pressuring Tehran to allow safe passage for vessels through the Strait. One source has said China wants the war to end because it ‘endangers its energy supply’.”
You never see a CNN piece saying, “on the other hand….”
Or, perhaps he knows none of this and is stupid rather than evil.
The proper correction of shoddy or dishonest reporting is the responsibility of the people and of competing news media and not to be done by government coercion.
A couple of notes. We must accept increased collusion between government, the media corporations, and the military sector if we desire and if we are to realize the now-defined project of Making America Great (once again). Obviously, the project so defined will require classic propaganda to channel the winning spirit. The truth is that these endeavors require a raw use of power and not a great deal has to do with exalted rhetorical values. Power must do what power must at this present juncture. We must understand we are now in a time of global war, but it is a war in many respects different than war traditionally conceived.
The admirable thing about Hegseth is his open enthusiasm for unadorned frankness about military attacks and successes. He celebrates them and does not merely report them. It is crucial as we go forward that the World understand what the US military is capable of. If other adversaries see what happens to Iraq (with semi-formidable defenses and offenses) others will see that fighting the US is futile.
The sanctification of freedom of the press in the First Amendment proscribes Congress from abridging that freedom.
That’s true, but the requirements of winning must entail the voluntary choice to understand the war aims and to support the government, the military and the constellations of corporations that run the show. (You might think I am being ironic yet I am mot. The US is in a very difficult and dangerous phase. It is tactically capable but strategically susceptible. But it must win the battles it has engaged in. (Venezuela, Iran, then the fall of Cuba — these will be glorious. Then: the beginning of the process of ridding America of Islamic invaders. The war is on! Count on difficulties ahead!)
(I meant to write Iran, not Iraq.)
Brian Stelter was just graduating high school at the time, so perhaps he doesn’t remember Eason Jordan admitting that CNN ignored all sorts of atrocities by Saddam Hussein for years, just so they could stay in Iraq. Still, you’d think he would have become aware of it at some point.
My point being that he should have been prepared for duplicity and the latest should not have been a surprise.
Certainly, hiding or skewing the truth in order to gain or maintain access to new sources is ethically wrong. Somehow, this reminded me of a change in Department of Defense policy several months ago, in which Journalists, in order to maintain access to sources inside the Pentagon, were mandated to sign a pledge promising not to gather or report unapproved information, even if that information is unclassified. Clearly, unapproved information is whatever those in charge in the Pentagon did not like.
But, this is not relevant to the current issue of CNN’s unethical statement.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt practiced war censorship during WWII which was implemented via the Office of Censorship. This office was established immediately after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the following statement when issuing executive order 8985:
All Americans abhor censorship, just as they abhor war. But the experience of this and of all other Nations has demonstrated that some degree of censorship is essential in wartime, and we are at war.
The important thing now is that such forms of censorship as are necessary shall be administered effectively and in harmony with the best interests of our free institutions.
It is necessary to the national security that military information which might be of aid to the enemy be scrupulously withheld at the source.
It is necessary that a watch be set upon our borders, so that no such information may reach the enemy, inadvertently or otherwise, through the medium of the mails, radio, or cable transmission, or by any other means.
It is necessary that prohibitions against the domestic publication of some types of information, contained in long-existing statutes, be rigidly enforced.
Finally, the Government has called upon a patriotic press and radio to abstain voluntarily from the dissemination of detailed information of certain kinds, such as reports of the movements of vessels and troops. The response has indicated a universal desire to cooperate.
In order that all of these parallel and requisite undertakings may be coordinated and carried forward in accordance with a single uniform policy, I have appointed Byron Price, Executive News Editor of the Associated Press, to be Director of Censorship, responsible directly to the President. He has been granted a leave of absence by the Associated Press and will take over the post assigned him within the coming week, or sooner.
Examples of censorship during WWII, with which the press voluntarily complied:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship
A couple of my opinions:
Looking at CNN’s conduct, they fall very far short of the conduct of the press during WWII. Some have labelled the conduct of the mainstream media “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”. It is up to CNN to rebut that, as they have the appearance against them.
WWII is an especially bad example to cite for suppression of a free press today. In 1941, the elected representatives of the people voted overwhelmingly for war one day after the attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor. The vote for was 388 to 1 in the House and 82 to 0 in the Senate. Today, we are nowhere near close to that kind of unanimity, and we are nowhere near the kind of war we were in then. (We would have been much closer in 1979, but that’s a different argument.)
The press, ideally at least, exists to serve the public, not the government. In 1941, the desires and aims of both were much more closely aligned than they are now, so that serving the interests of one also served the interests of the other.
A loyal press should — heh! — multiple choice follows. Yes, be loyal to the facts. But, loyal to the war effort which so many oppose, or loyal to those who oppose it? Loyal to the best interests of the United States, interests as determined by whom? The President? The opposition to the President? The Congress? Gallup? Lacking public unity, it’s far better to stick to loyalty to the facts and clear, rational analyis.
In combat environments, there is a necessary, symbiotic relationship between the military and the press, so that combat journalists can be embedded with the troops, and both journalists and military leaders acting ethically and professionally need have no fear of the other. It has existed at the troop level and at the top levels of government, military and civilian. I’ve seen that relationship work well first hand, despite the inevitable inherent friction from different perspectives of what constitutes best interests. It is not working now. We can point a finger at whomever we believe responsible for that, but there are dirty hands and unprofessional conduct on both sides. So far, neither the leadership of the nation (for a worthwhile cause) nor the enemy (for a credible existential threat) have rallied the people to a point where very many will tolerate suppression of a free press.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a legal principle stating that if a witness lies about one material matter, their entire testimony may be deemed unreliable and disregarded.
In the court of public opinion the press and the media are the witnesses and the public is the judge. CNN has proven themselves untrustworthy this week to report the news objectively. They gaslighted the public about terrorism in New York. They are a propaganda arm for the Islamic regime in Islam.
They gaslighted the public about terrorism in New York. They are a propaganda arm for the Islamic regime in Islam.
Mamdami is a marked man. As the presently developing war develops we who have more apparent analytical skill (in seeing what is going on) must accept that things are going to get nasty. And we must help others — those duped to believe in the traditional sanctity of freedom of religion and of speech — to see that those ‘rights’ exist under normal conditions and during peacetime, but are suspended during wartime. Let us be frank: It cannot be allowed that an anti-American and anti-Occidentalist be elected to the mayoral office of NYC. In this climate his removal is imperative.
From The Persian Gulf TV War (Douglas Kellner):
“The 1991 war against Iraq was one of the first televised events of the global village in which the entire world watched a military spectacle unfold via global TV satellite networks.[1] (https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/gulfwarrevisited.htm#_edn1) In retrospect, the Bush administration and the Pentagon carried out one of the most successful public relations campaigns in the history of modern politics in its use of the media to mobilize support for the war. The mainstream media in the United States and elsewhere tended to be a compliant vehicle for the government strategy to manipulate the public, imperiling democracy which requires informed citizens, checks and balances against excessive government power, and a free and vigorous critical media (see Kellner 1990 and 1992). Indeed, if the media do not adequately inform citizens, provide a check against excessive government power and corruption, and adequately debate the key issues of the day, democracy is undermined.
“Moreover, the U.S. media, especially CNN, completely dominated global coverage of the event. CNN had cameras and reporters in Baghdad throughout the war, a large crew in Israel, and live coverage of all U.S. military and government press conferences. Thus its images, discourses, and material tended to shape global coverage of the event. This meant that the Bush administration and Pentagon was able to control the flow of images and discourses and thus to manage the TV spectacle of the Gulf War.[2] (https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/gulfwarrevisited.htm#_edn2)
“In this chapter, I first discuss the production of the text of the “crisis in the Gulf” and then “the Gulf war.” This will involve analysis of disinformation and propaganda campaigns by the Bush administration, the Pentagon, and their allies, as well as dissection of the constraints produced by the so-called pool system. I also indicate how the political economy of the media in the United States facilitated the manufacturing of consent for U.S. government policies. Then I analyze the meanings embedded in the text of the war against Iraq and the reception of the text/event by the audience. The latter process will involve some speculation on why the Gulf war was popular with its audiences and how the Bush administration and Pentagon mobilized public support for the war.”
(Kellner is part of the “opposition” but we can use him against the mindless opposition of the enemies of America to these necessary adventures in the present. Go team USA. Go team Israel.)
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/gulfwarrevisited.htm