Emmy Winning Former CNN Journalist Blows The Whistle: CNN is paid by governments

I guess it's who you want to believe.
Take it or leave it.

We don't know if they were 'demands'.
I would presume it's standard policy to include responses to criticism - even if that is Bahrain officials.
What, CNN should silence them?
Just have her and Greenwalds version?

6. False: There was something scandalous about a requirement that the documentary include a response from the Bahraini government.
The Truth: Seeking and publishing a response from the subject of a story is Journalism 101.

The right to reply!

Greenwald includes CNN's responses to some of the issues.
Does he not think they are lies?
Why did he include them?

What does 'money from Bahrain' mean?
The e.g's I have found relate to sponsoring events such as 'Davos' and the e.g in one of her interviews is the F1 in Bahrain.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/04/cnn-business-state-sponsored-news

CNNi

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/21/world/meast/bahrain-grand-prix-protests

There are many more e.g's.

It seems to basically boil down to Amber Lyon and Glenn Greenwald believing no advertising money should come from Bahrain.

For me, there are too many stories relating to Bahrain's 'other side' to warrant such a lop-sided critique.

It's strange how they have suddenly decided to turn on CNN after they were both 'relieved of their duties' / outsourced.
Why did they have no issue with CNN prior?

 

I don't believe that one source is equally reliable as another. Unless The Guardian is "out to get" CNN, the fact that they have put their own credibility on the line by publishing this weighs in the favor of Lyons.

That's certainly Lyons' claim. I see no reason to doubt it

The question is whether A) the response to the criticism is equally valid as the criticism itself and B) it is standard editorial policy, applied in an unbiased way.

If iraquis claimed to have their villages bombed or to be tortured, and the us claimed that it only dropped sunshine and lollipops on the iraquis, and that alleged torture was really feather tickling and pillow fights, would it be "fair and balanced" journalism to present both positions as equally valid?

Lyons presented video taped evidence of her claims. She also was presumably not "out to get" the government of Bahrain. She also directly witnessed wounds of protestors. She also directly witnessed that armed, masked intruders held her and her crew at gunpoint, and destroyed video that they had shot. In response, Bahrain's government officials say, in effect, "lies! all lies!". Now you suggest that CNN has an obligation to present each side as equally valid?

And does CNN always show such a courageous commitment to "unbiased" journalism? In the lead-up to the invasion of iraq? In the Trayvon Martin shooting, where it presented photos of TM as a 12 year-old boy?

The article that you cite above answers your question. It gives a number of examples of a long-standing financial relationship between CNN and Bahrain. Here's just one example.

Where exactly was CNN's commitment to "Journalism 101" here? Is this a "fair and balanced" presentation? Or do the obligations of journalistic ethics only mysteriously arise to defend dictatorships which fund CNN?

I think that Greenwald notes in his original article that CNN has to present information that other news sources carry in order to maintain any veneer of credibility, but that its criticisms are blunted by its financial relationship to Bahrain and other governments.

No, though it is hardly credible that CNN could have financial relationship with Bahrain and also report on it objectively. As noted above, CNN has presented PR releases with only the the most muffled indication that they are exactly that.

They apparently were criticizing CNN for its handling of Bahrain well before being terminated. It may in fact have been such criticism that lead CNN to decide to fire investigative journalists.