Seeing is Believing. Review on CNN

Biased, Pro-american, Toe-Sucking, American Propaganda etc.. etc...Well these are the kind adjectives that critics in Indian media have described CNN, especially after 9/11. I gather that has been the prevelent feeling in Arab media and other asian media too. I've never been a great fan of CNN and had always preferred BBC but due to disruption of BBC telecast by my cable operator I started watching more & more CNN especially for the last six months or so. And I have come to the conclusion that believing in these A2B (Anything American is Bad) critics was a classic third world mistake made by me. So let's do a reality check.

At the onset I would like to mention that this view is of CNN International being aired round the world. As I mentioned earlier I seriously started watching CNN ever since Iraq issue heated up. But the 'Biased Tag' always was in the back of my mind. So I used to wander to other indian news channels. But the pathetic coverage they offered (except DD, surprisingly. But I didn't recieved it's specialised news channel DDNews) made me more sick. So I became a CNN Regular especially after war started.

In the end I think that CNN' coverage of Iraq war upto the mark both in terms of technology and credibility. I completely disagree with the critisism that american news channels(CNN in India) show what americans wants to see. On the contrary I think that the media in this part of the world, atleast in India, took a special liking to Iraqi information minister and projected him as somebody who set the record straight coz they did exactly the same thing for which they were critisizing CNN, they showed and printed what they wanted to see (i.e. American failure). That's why it took by surprise when the report of american tanks surrounding Baghdad came up. How can american whose war plans have gone wrong, whose supply chains are under pressure, who were going to take weeks to make it to bagdad etc etc be there. And when Sahaf described Al-Jazeera as a 'sell-out'for showing CNN's footage of american tanks just outside baghdad they realised it was not american channels who were fooling them but they were fooling themselves by taking Iraqi information minister on his word. Overnight their tone changed, I couldn't help my self laughing whenever I saw these 'so called unbiased Indian channels'. But some still carried on, one Indian weekly, reknowned for its editorial quality, in one of its article wrote how it will take america months to capture Baghdad, how will american go home in bodybags etc. etc. A simple case of somebody spitting anti-american venom, and we were blaming CNN of being unfair. Showing dead bodies and airing anti-american views does not consists neutrality. That's what Hypocrites do..

Coming back to CNN, it did'nt just did its job on war front, it also tried to accomodate the dissenting voices. Like its editions of 'Interntional Correspondants' on how is media covering Iraq an it was not just an hogwash. They showed every Press briefing of sahaf and visual clippings from Arab media. Throughout the war there was not a single thing which 'Unbiased Indian Media' or the Arab websites told me which I didn't knew fromm CNN. Infact I usually was a step ahead. So much for credibility.

Whatever critics have to say about 'Embedded Journalism', I thought it made a very good viewing. It really was worth every dollar spent on it. No news report or war movie made such an impact. As they say you could not better the real thing. I don't agree when people say that they glamorise war. They more than anything else potray the uncertainity and horrors of war. Some moments wil remain in memory for long time, like when people of Najaf stopped the american soldiers thinking they were going to destroy the mosque and the american commander ordering its troops to return, the horrified faces of family whose home is searched by marines, 'defeated' iraqi soldiers returning bare footed 'smiling' to their homes and of course the saddam statue falling.

The concept of embedded journalism exited me, though each and every indian publication worth its name ridiculed and critisized it. But the most sensible criticism of them all was How does a journalist fairly report about the war when he is effectively under the command of one of the participating forces. He has to report what the they tell him, he cannot antagonize them. Makes sense but this question was raised in one the epiodes of International Correspondent and the BBC representative replied 'embedded journalist don't have to file earth shaking reports, they just have to state the facts hour by hour or sometimes every half an hour. Also you can't get away with false factual reports when you are on the air 24x7, most of the time you don't have the luxury of thinking out so you show what you see and let the audience think it out'(or something to that effect). Looking back I think it worked out wonderfully.

Also I think they have a good line up of other programmes, Larry King Live & Talk asia with Lorainne Hahn are very good talk shows, the music room, design 360, living golf re wonderfull non-news programmes. For a good laugh switch to 'Daily show -Global edition by Jon Stewart' it was the best critic for the media coverage in Iraq. And how can we forget 'International Correspondant'. I think CNN is good investment of your time.

And don't spend too much of ur time thinking about the critics coz believe me u can get more unbiased critics in US then this part of the world, most people here just love to hate america, A2B remember.

Njoy.

P.S. Fox News lead CNN in ratings in US coz of its pro-government coverage. But fox is owned by Rupert mudroch who is not american by any standards.