CNN is sitting on the horns of a dilemma of its own making. Last summer, CNN and Time Magazine launched their new series, NewsStand, with a segment called “Valley of Death.” This was about a Special Forces operation in Laos in 1970. CNN charged that lethal poison gas had been used to kill both American defectors and North Vietnamese troops. Almost immediately, the accuracy and fairness of the reporting came under question by many of the people who were presented as sources. We were among the first to challenge the story.

CNN followed up a week later with an affirmation of the previous week?s story, and additional supposed corroboration. But when confronted with overwhelming evidence that the story was a hoax, that the primary source was highly suspect, that people?s words had been coaxed and taken out of context and that contradictory evidence was ignored and cast aside, CNN and Time took a different tack.

CNN hired high-profile first amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams to investigate. After just 10 days of reviewing the interviews and evidence, Abrams issued a 55-page report calling the allegations “unsupportable.” It concluded that (quote) “A decision was made by CNN to broadcast accusations of the gravest sort without sufficient justification and in the face of substantial persuasive information to the contrary.” (Unquote) An apology was issued and the story was retracted.

Three CNN employees lost their jobs, executive producer Pamela Hill and producers Jack Smith and April Oliver. CNN?s best known correspondent, Peter Arnett, narrated the program and did some of the interviews. Many of us thought he should have been fired, but he escaped with a reprimand. However, his contract was not renewed this year. Rick Kaplan, the president of CNN, should have taken responsibility and resigned, but he has managed to hang on to his job.

To date, CNN has settled with 11 veterans who sued or threatened to sue. It is reported to have paid $150,000 to Admiral Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose views had been misrepresented on the program by out-of-context quotes. There are nine defamation suits still pending, and a judge ruled last month that depositions can begin in two of them.

April Oliver has filed two suits against CNN, one for wrongful dismissal and one accusing CNN of trying to coerce her cooperation through the choice of her attorney. She claims that CNN had confirmed her story and that they buckled to maintain their relationship with the Pentagon. In an article in the American Journalism Review she stands by her story and continues to claim that she has an unnamed source who confirms her charges. Oliver?s suits present CNN with a dilemma. To defend against her suit, they need to claim that her reporting was badly flawed. But that is going to make it hard to defend against the suits of the veterans who charge that the false reporting of April Oliver defamed them. Oliver?s suit could also prove highly embarrassing to CNN President Rick Kaplan, who did not allow the story to be critiqued by CNN?s military adviser before it was aired.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author