CNN Accuses Dubai Port Company of Trying to Censor Its Broadcasts

[dampier]

Lou Dobbs broke the story last night on his show that CNN has been banished from any Dubai Ports World company facility and has been blacklisted by the company's press and public relations office, as well as the public affairs company (read that - the lobbying firm) they hired. CNN has been told it will no longer be granted any access or interviews by any company official in retaliation for Lou Dobbs reporting on the matter.

"It's a rather astonshing new attempt to silence me and our coverage," said Dobbs.

Mark Dennis, spokesman for Dubai Ports World, was quoted, on the record, as saying CNN was banned because "CNN won't shut up Lou Dobbs."

Dobbs full on-air statement from him and CNN can be found here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/27.html#a7324

It's amazing that the company has now managed to create a new story that will keep them in the news even longer than the present controversy would.

Special note: If you want to discuss the ports deal, there is a thread in Off the Air. This message is intended solely to discuss the CNN/DPW controversy.

 

[desertv]

> Lou Dobbs broke the story last night on his show that CNN
> has been banished from any Dubai Ports World company
> facility and has been blacklisted by the company's press and
> public relations office, as well as the public affairs
> company (read that - the lobbying firm) they hired. CNN has
> been told it will no longer be granted any access or
> interviews by any company official in retaliation for Lou
> Dobbs reporting on the matter.
>
> "It's a rather astonshing new attempt to silence me and our
> coverage," said Dobbs.
>
> Mark Dennis, spokesman for Dubai Ports World, was quoted, on
> the record, as saying CNN was banned because "CNN won't shut
> up Lou Dobbs."
>
> Dobbs full on-air statement from him and CNN can be found
> here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/27.html#a7324
>
> It's amazing that the company has now managed to create a
> new story that will keep them in the news even longer than
> the present controversy would.
>
> Special note: If you want to discuss the ports deal, there
> is a thread in Off the Air. This message is intended solely
> to discuss the CNN/DPW controversy.
>

Of course no one talks about the fact that CNN censored news coming out of Iraq when it had a bureau there during the Saddam regime

 

[HomerJay]

> > Lou Dobbs broke the story last night on his show that CNN
> > has been banished from any Dubai Ports World company
> > facility and has been blacklisted by the company's press
> and
> > public relations office, as well as the public affairs
> > company (read that - the lobbying firm) they hired. CNN
> has
> > been told it will no longer be granted any access or
> > interviews by any company official in retaliation for Lou
> > Dobbs reporting on the matter.
> >
> > "It's a rather astonshing new attempt to silence me and
> our
> > coverage," said Dobbs.
> >
> > Mark Dennis, spokesman for Dubai Ports World, was quoted,
> on
> > the record, as saying CNN was banned because "CNN won't
> shut
> > up Lou Dobbs."
> >
> > Dobbs full on-air statement from him and CNN can be found
> > here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/27.html#a7324
> >
> > It's amazing that the company has now managed to create a
> > new story that will keep them in the news even longer than
>
> > the present controversy would.
> >
> > Special note: If you want to discuss the ports deal, there
>
> > is a thread in Off the Air. This message is intended
> solely
> > to discuss the CNN/DPW controversy.
> >

The "c" word is thrown around a bit loosely in this context. Any company is free to refuse to work with a news agency they feel, justifiably or not, to be biased in their reporting. Mr. Dobbs of course is free to diasgree, but despite his remarkable ego, not everyone needs to bow down before him in awe of his mighty newscast.

If an official government agency were pressuring CNN to change its reporting, we'd have cause to be worried, but this is a simple case of a company making a choice, and CNN making its own choice in response.

 

[network]

> Of course no one talks about the fact that CNN censored news
> coming out of Iraq when it had a bureau there during the
> Saddam regime

You want to provide proof of that? We're waiting.

 

[dampier]

> You want to provide proof of that? We're waiting.

He's probably talking about the reports that were coming out of CNN's Baghdad "bureau" (hotel room) during the first Gulf War when CNN had their four-wire and they had to clear their reports with the Iraqi censors before they could be sent out. That CNN would not let their competitors use the device caused its own explosion - of competitive professional jealousy and backbiting which is where a lot of that accusation came from. That and anything Peter Arnett said. It's amazing to see one guy get fired from not just CNN but NBC too.

It's a false argument used to try and distract from the original point of this thread - a private company actually went on record saying the reason they wouldn't talk to CNN was because the company refused to shut Lou Dobbs up. That -is- astonishing. CNN is hardly quaking in their boots, and now the detractors of the deal have a new toy to play with, and they are using it accusing the company of now trying to control the American media.

 

[DougBroda]

>Any company is free to refuse to work with a news agency they feel, >justifiably or not, to be biased in their reporting. Mr. Dobbs of course is >free to diasgree, but despite his remarkable ego, not everyone needs to bow >down before him in awe of his mighty newscast.

>If an official government agency were pressuring CNN to change its reporting, >we'd have cause to be worried, but this is a simple case of a company making a >choice, and CNN making its own choice in response.

Well...sorta. Dobbs *does* have a massive, obvious and excessive ego. And any private company (even one owned by a foreign government) has the right to deny any news organization access to their facilities and to interviews.

But the company "barred" CNN from photographing ita facilities in the Arab world even if CNN is not on their property -- which it could not do in this country, and which CNN is ignoring. If they try to enforce that directive (assuming they can under the law in those countries), they'll look even worse than they already do (looking like a spoiled brat that can't take criticism, IMO).

 

[robbbc]

> >Any company is free to refuse to work with a news agency
> they feel, >justifiably or not, to be biased in their
> reporting. Mr. Dobbs of course is >free to diasgree, but
> despite his remarkable ego, not everyone needs to bow >down
> before him in awe of his mighty newscast.
>
> >If an official government agency were pressuring CNN to
> change its reporting, >we'd have cause to be worried, but
> this is a simple case of a company making a >choice, and CNN
> making its own choice in response.
>
> Well...sorta. Dobbs *does* have a massive, obvious and
> excessive ego. And any private company (even one owned by a
> foreign government) has the right to deny any news
> organization access to their facilities and to interviews.
>
> But the company "barred" CNN from photographing ita
> facilities in the Arab world even if CNN is not on their
> property -- which it could not do in this country, and which
> CNN is ignoring. If they try to enforce that directive
> (assuming they can under the law in those countries),
> they'll look even worse than they already do (looking like a
> spoiled brat that can't take criticism, IMO).
>
A company wholy owned by a foreign government is very different then one privately held. When they speak, they are speaking for their government- not just themselves. Citgo is the same deal IMO. Exxon doesn't speak for America- but Citgo does speak for Venezuela (sp?). Trying to play these government controlled companies off as private individuals acting in their own rights is a stretch.