PRESS COVERED UP FOR SADDAM, BUT NOW WHAT DO THEY THINK

CNN's Eason Jordan tells in a New York Times editorial about horrors of the Saddam regime known by CNN, but never reported, including torture and dismemberment. The reason for the cover-up wasto keep reporting, but what really is there to report about Iraq if not these horrors? The machinations of the "inspection regime" or the faux elections? Yep, it's a good thing that CNN was there to get those stories and to relay government propaganda about the horrible sanctions while keeping quiet about murder. Eugene Volokh has the goods on Eason Jordan's ugly cover up last year.

Sure, I have some sympathy for the failure to reveal what he knew out of fear that CNN staff, many of whom were Iraqi, might be killed. Protecting those you know is certainly the easier course compared to protecting those you've only heard about, but I hope there's plenty of guilt.

Still, after reading Jordan's NYT editorial, I have a few questions for the author.

1. You wrote an editorial, so why not editorialize? Tell us what you think about the Bush policy now and whether you think Hans Blix could have stopped these horrors.

2. Did you withhold the information because you are like Scott Ritter, who refused to tell the world about the "horrific" children's prison because he didn't want Americans stopping those horrors?

3. If Enron or Exxon kept quiet about how an employee "was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters" for weeks so that the Company wouldn't lose some profit opportunities, would CNN refuse to report it?

Just wondering.