luckydevil Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7644 Pro-Marxist Slant Pushed at ABC By Marc Morano CNSNews.com | May 7, 2003 Having kept quiet for 14 years, a former ABC News correspondent has gone public for the first time with allegations that network anchorman Peter Jennings manipulated news scripts during the 1980s in order to praise the Marxist-backed Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Peter Collins, a newsman with over 30 years experience, including stints with Voice of America, the BBC, CBS News and CNN, recently walked away from the news industry and has "no compunction about telling [my story] now." In an exclusive interview with CNSNews.com, Collins alleged that Jennings personally dictated changes in a Collins television script in order to praise the Sandinista government for its "new, unselfish society," for successfully reducing illiteracy and "launch[ing] the biggest land reform in Central America." Collins covered Central America for ABC's "World News Tonight" and "Nightline" from 1982 until 1991 and having recently retired from journalism, Collins said he now feels "liberated." Repeated attempts to obtain a reaction on Collins' allegations from ABC News were not successful. ABC News publicist Cathie Levine told CNSNews.com that neither Jennings nor the network had any comment. The pro-Marxist spin at ABC News According to Collins, Jennings "took a piece that I had written about the 10th anniversary of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua [in 1989] and first asked his producer to correct it for me and then he himself called me up in Managua and essentially dictated to me what I should say." "Basically what Mr. Jennings wanted was for me to make a favorable pronouncement about the 10 years of the Sandinista revolution and he called me up, massaged my script in a way that I no longer recognized it," Collins said. A partial transcript of Collins' July 19th, 1989, segment on "World News Tonight" includes the following: "The Sandinistas brought with them Marxist ideas about spreading wealth and creating a new, unselfish society. And in the first few years, they did manage to reduce illiteracy, the infant death rate and launched the biggest land reform in Central America. But the Reagan administration saw the Sandinistas as a threat and forced them into a war with the U.S.-backed Contras." The Reagan administration had battled Democrats in Congress throughout the 1980s in attempting to help the rebel Contras, with varying degrees of success. The Sandinistas, led by Daniel Ortega, ruled Nicaragua from 1979 until 1990, when they were voted out of office. Asked why he believed Jennings wanted his script changed to reflect a more positive spin about the Sandinista government, Collins was unequivocal. "Because I presume that Peter Jennings felt that the Sandinista regime, which was a communist regime - no questions about it - were mere benign agrarian reformers ... [Jennings] was a believer, was and is," Collins explained. Not just ABC News Collins, who served as a CNN correspondent in Baghdad in 1993, also criticized CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan following Jordan's confession that he had withheld from viewers numerous details of Saddam Hussein's atrocities over the last ten years in order to protect news sources and maintain access in Iraq. Collins resigned from CNN after growing uncomfortable with the way CNN was reporting from Baghdad and Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Collins wrote an op/ed in the Washington Times in April detailing how he was pressured to read what he calls "Saddam Hussein's propaganda" on the air as part of CNN's effort to obtain an exclusive interview with the Iraqi dictator. Other news organizations are guilty of similar tactics, according to Collins. "CNN is only the most egregious violator of this principle that you ought not to get too close to the regimes you're covering," Collins said. "I think a number of reporters and organizations went soft on the Sandinista regime in order to facilitate their access or out of conviction," Collins said. CNN spokesman Matt Furman would not address specific questions relating to Collins' allegations, but told CNSNews.com that CNN "disputes both the facts and the implications of [Collins'] op/ed." 'Against the wishes of Peter Jennings' During his days at ABC News, Collins claimed he and Jennings had recurring conflicts. "I had dozens of run-ins with [Jennings] directly -- several with him being the 800-pound gorilla on the ABC News editorial staff," Collins said. "My resistance to him personally cost me my job at ABC eventually." Collins also revealed that fresh off signing a new multi-year contract in the mid 1980s, a confident Jennings warned him that there were going to be changes in the newsroom. "Jennings remarked that he [had] just won a new contract and as a consequence of that, he said, nodding at [ABC News executive producer] Bill Lord, there is going to be a few changes around here. Within two or three months Bill Lord was out as executive producer, and Paul Friedman was in," Collins said. Prior to working with Jennings, Lord had served as the executive producer of ABC's "Nightline." Friedman, who also served as Jennings' London producer prior to Jennings' ascension to the position of lead anchor of World News Tonight, currently is an ABC News consultant. Collins believes one of the factors that led Jennings to want to change executive producers was the network's coverage of the Sandinista/Contra conflict. "Bill Lord had supported me in my coverage of Central America, against the wishes of Peter Jennings," Collins said. "[Jennings] was unhappy with my coverage because I tried to tell both sides of the story," he added. A question of 'competence,' praise for new media Collins is speaking publicly about his years at ABC and CNN for the first time because he has walked away from the news business and no longer desires to work in the industry. "I feel liberated," said Collins. "I don't have a job in the industry. I am not looking for a job in the industry. I am starting a little computer consulting company. That is what I am working on right now. I have no compunction about telling it now." Collins believes the basic tenets of journalism have eroded over the years. "The first obligation of a reporter and a news organization is to get the facts straight and report both sides of the story," Collins said. But he didn't see the issue as one that was charged politically. "I would not frame this whole question as just a left - right issue, but rather as a question of competence," Collins said. Collins believes CNN's recent admission and his own experiences in Central America are merely "scratching at the surface" of what Collins regards as a long standing failure of the media to report accurately about despotic governments, particularly left-of-center authoritarian regimes. "We can go as far back as Walter Duranty in (1930s) Moscow for the New York Times, Herbert Matthews in (1950s) Cuba for the New York Times - [how] those two writers tilted their coverage in ways when compared with the historical record was outrageous," Collins said. But he credits a few key individuals and organizations with breaking the monopoly of the establishment news media. "If it were not for for Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times,and Fox News -- those organizations, entities, have finally managed to break the dam," Collins said. "Ph.D. pieces could be written about this subject, dozens of them." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Morano is a senior writer for CNSNews.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 He sounds like a jealous little baby. I wonder if he's trying to sell a book? Hmmm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 7, 2003 Author Share Posted May 7, 2003 Denial is a b**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 What is CNS News never mind, I looked it up myself...since when did news become partisan, I'm really sick of all this crap from both sides Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 About a month ago, there was an article in the NYtimes editorials about the difficulties many networks have had over the years dealing with ruthless regimes and reporting. It wasn't flattering to the newscrews, but it definitely came across as more balanced than some of this article. This sounds like someone has an axe to grind. The NYtimes editorial atleast went into some of the reasoning behind choices made by CNN and others on what attrocities they could cover. Case and point, here the article blaims CNN saying they were willing to read propaganda in order to get an exclusive interview. THe NYtimes editorial talked about the difficult choices the CNN producers had to make. For example, is it worth reporting on a killing that gets your only reporter kicked out of the country allowing multiple future killings to go unreported. The author talked about the difficulties the producers had weighing the safety of their reporters with the need for the stories and the ability to ask certain questions. The editorial spoke of minders and a feeling that the reporters were never really safe. Often, even the reporters who left still felt they had to be careful what they said for fear of what would happen to other reporters still in the country. the editorial did point out the news organizations could have left the countries. That's a tough choice, and one that goes beyond simply the money of having A story which might make the news for a day or a bit longer. On the whole, I thought that editorial sounded far more reasonable than this one of "they're just biased." I don't doubt that there is bias on some reporters sides. Now, I'd argue that bias is slipping ot the other side, and Bush is getting a free pass on somethings. For example his state department using document that it knew were forged to make the case that Iraq was trying to purchase nuclear weopens. That's been in the press around the world for months before an editorial in the NYtimes brought it back up here. Here it got a 1 column story from most press outlets then it was forgotten. Now the part about anchors being 800 lb gorillas fits in with most of what I've heard. I just distrust some of his reasons for why things were or weren't reported. Just out of curiosity, do many of you actually think of despotic rulers like Sadam was as left of center? I think of them as having fallen off the left right continuum. However, he seems to make the arguement that CNN and others media coverage of Sadam and others was a leftist conspiracy. I'm not sure I buy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Undoubtedly, the fact that he appears to have been removed involuntarily from ABC could quite plausibly be portrayed as a basis for bias on his part against them. However, he's also hitting CNN for the same thing, and for something wwhich they themselves already admitted to. All in all, I think this subject is something that should certainly be looked into. The news media wields extraordinary power, yet is subject to an equally extraordinary lack of scrutiny. Why shouldn't it be fair game to question them about their credentials and agenda and political leanings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 7, 2003 Author Share Posted May 7, 2003 Jennings might be the worst of the 3 main networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by gbear THe NYtimes editorial talked about the difficult choices the CNN producers had to make. For example, is it worth reporting on a killing that gets your only reporter kicked out of the country allowing multiple future killings to go unreported The short answer is "yes, if that's what's required to maintain your journalistic integrity". Any other consideration is economic. But even what you said to justify overlooking one killing didn't happen, because CNN didn't report on "multiple future killings" either. They pandered to a rogue regime to maintain a bureau there. Where were the reports of the many abuses that we're only hearing about now, like tongues being cut out of dissidents' mouths for them to bleed to death, or Uday's torture and killing of athletes for their competitive failures, or of the plastic shredder and other similar horrors? No, CNN was quite fat and happy with their American monopoly on Iraqi news. Originally posted by gbear Just out of curiosity, do many of you actually think of despotic rulers like Sadam was as left of center? I think of them as having fallen off the left right continuum. However, he seems to make the arguement that CNN and others media coverage of Sadam and others was a leftist conspiracy. I'm not sure I buy that. Saddam was ultra-right, as he was an Arab fascist which is what the Baath party is. And you're right- radical left and radical right look an awful lot alike. Hitler was ultra right and Stalin ultra left, but they were brothers in their evil slaughter of millions of innocent people. But this issue isn't about Saddam's leanings, but about the political leanings/agenda of the media who entered into a cozy relationship with that regime to get a sexy reporting angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi Denial is a b**** Denial is a river in Egypt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 7, 2003 Author Share Posted May 7, 2003 Some would argue Hitler was ultra left( he talked about the state - used the same language Stalin did), but as stated before there really isnt a difference between the ultra left and ultra right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Denial is a river in Egypt A little of it runs in Sudan too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Redman, Did I mention the edditorial wasn't flattering? It came to basically the same conclussions you did about the integrity of the news outlets. The difference between that editorial and this article is the explanation of why. It just painted a better picture about the whole situation and some of the tough choices they made. I'm probably wrong, but I think it was written by an ex producer for CNN. My comment about right and left governments was in response to this quote from the article: "Collins believes CNN's recent admission and his own experiences in Central America are merely "scratching at the surface" of what Collins regards as a long standing failure of the media to report accurately about despotic governments, particularly left-of-center authoritarian regimes." My overall point is I'm not sure this is just a liberal agenda question as is the point of the article. A press integrity question it surely is. I'm just not sure what got reported and not reported about Iraq the first time around is an effort to protect a left of center authoritarian regime and thus promote a leftist platform. If it seems like I'm ignoring the Nicaruaga part of this story, it's just because I know less about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.