CNN journalist banned from Iran (1 Viewer)

[Synch]

Because he screwed up the translation.

CNN journalists banned from Iran

Journalists from CNN have been banned from working in Iran because of a mistranslation of the president's comments, the culture ministry says.

CNN had violated "professional ethics", the Irna news agency quoted the ministry as saying.

CNN issued a correction after it translated the president as saying Iran had a right to use nuclear "weapons" rather than nuclear "technology".

CNN does not have a bureau in Tehran but gets permits to cover assignments.

Its chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, is currently in the country.

Broken seals

The US-based news network had carried a live translation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's press conference on Saturday.

Its translation quoted the president as saying: "We believe all nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons", and that the West should not "deprive us to have nuclear weapons".

Iran says the Farsi word for technology was translated as weapons.

The Iranian culture ministry issued a statement on Monday saying: "Taking into account CNN's actions contrary to professional ethics in the past years and their distortion of the president's comments during his press conference on Saturday... no journalists from CNN will be authorised to come to Iran."

It continued: "Any revision in the decision depends on the performance of CNN in future."

A call to CNN's Atlanta headquarters was not immediately returned but the channel told viewers it had not yet been notified of the ban.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for producing energy, not weapons

Leading Western nations are currently trying to persuade Russia and China to support a hard line on Iran's nuclear programme in a closed-door meeting in London.

Last week Iran broke the seals on three nuclear facilities, ending a two-year moratorium on atomic experimentation.

CNN is so liberal. :roll:

 

[cnredd]

Because he screwed up the translation.




CNN is so liberal. :roll:

Are you under the impression that it was intentional?...

 

[Kandahar]

This is obviously just an excuse for the Iranian government to crack down on independent media. Frankly I'm surprised that CNN has been allowed in Iran up until now.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Because he screwed up the translation.

CNN is so liberal. :roll:

You know, some Biblical scholars state that belief in the Virgin Birth is based on a mistranslation of Hebrew.

The Greek word parthenos - virgin when it should have been alma -young woman.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/matthew.html

It's not a perfect world my friends - mistakes do happen in translation sometimes.

I'm sure Iran would like to get any Foreign Corrrespondent out of their country ASAP.

 

[Synch]

This is obviously just an excuse for the Iranian government to crack down on independent media. Frankly I'm surprised that CNN has been allowed in Iran up until now.

If you had read the article, CNN was producing false propoganda about Iran, if this happened with a foreign news media that mistranslated a speech made by Bush or anyone in his cabinet that made them look very bad, you would be screaming bloody murder, and rally to block every single reporter from that foreign nation and their "anti-american propoganda media."

 

[Kandahar]

If you had read the article, CNN was producing false propoganda about Iran,

An honest mistake in translation hardly qualifies as false propaganda, and even if it did it's no excuse to ban CNN from the country.

if this happened with a foreign news media that mistranslated a speech made by Bush or anyone in his cabinet that made them look very bad, you would be screaming bloody murder, and rally to block every single reporter from that foreign nation and their "anti-american propoganda media."

I would? Yeah, I guess you figured out my evil plot to end freedom of the press...by, umm, defending CNN's right to broadcast in Iran...

And you figured out the inner depths of my personality after being on this message board for a whole 8 posts! Truly amazing, Sherlock!

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time, son. :lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If you had read the article, CNN was producing false propoganda about Iran, if this happened with a foreign news media that mistranslated a speech made by Bush or anyone in his cabinet that made them look very bad, you would be screaming bloody murder, and rally to block every single reporter from that foreign nation and their "anti-american propoganda media."

And one of the worlds largest producers of natural gas and oil needs nuclear power why exactly??? Iran wants a nuclear weapon everything they say to the contrary is bullshit. Due to the fact that the Iranian president has threatened to wipe Israel off the map it is clear that a nuclear Iran simply can not be allowed. If Israel doesn't stop them the U.S. should because we all know that the impotent U.N. isn't going to stop that maniac Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

[stsburns]

I don't know why Iran would not allow CNN Journalists in. I mean their going to print whatever they wanna print about ANYWAY!

 

[George_Washington]

CNN Journalists banned from Iran? Drat!

They should've been banned from America instead.

LOL

 

[Stace]

They're not banned anymore.

CNN allowed to resume work in Iran after apology

 

[Synch]

CNN Journalists banned from Iran? Drat!

They should've been banned from America instead.

LOL

Is that sarcasm or are you being serious, cause I thought CNN was conservative..

although that is a good idea..

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Is that sarcasm or are you being serious, cause I thought CNN was conservative..

although that is a good idea..

CNN conservative??? LMFAO ya maybe compared to the communist BBC.

 

[JOHNYJ]

And one of the worlds largest producers of natural gas and oil needs nuclear power why exactly??? Iran wants a nuclear weapon everything they say to the contrary is bullshit. Due to the fact that the Iranian president has threatened to wipe Israel off the map it is clear that a nuclear Iran simply can not be allowed. If Israel doesn't stop them the U.S. should because we all know that the impotent U.N. isn't going to stop that maniac Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The American people will never support an invasion of Iran ! Invasion is the only way to be sure you've stoped Irans nuclear program. The American people don't trust President Bush enough to go along with another foreign adventure !

 

[Kandahar]

The American people will never support an invasion of Iran ! Invasion is the only way to be sure you've stoped Irans nuclear program. The American people don't trust President Bush enough to go along with another foreign adventure !

I think the American people would be more supportive if they were aware of the danger that Iran posed to the rest of the world. The evidence of Iran's nuclear program is overwhelming, unlike the evidence for Iraq's WMD program. No one is seriously disputing Iran's nuclear program, unlike Iraq's WMD program. And because the evidence actually exists, some of the less-sensitive information can be released for public consumption, unlike Iraq.

Furthermore, the American people never liked Saddam Hussein, but his anti-American threats were so laughably empty that few people took him seriously. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, scares the world every time he opens his mouth. Comparisons to Hitler are not to be used lightly, but Ahmadinejad is the one world leader for whom the comparison is accurate.

 

[KCConservative]

I think the American people would be more supportive if they were aware of the danger that Iran posed to the rest of the world. The evidence of Iran's nuclear program is overwhelming, unlike the evidence for Iraq's WMD program. No one is seriously disputing Iran's nuclear program, unlike Iraq's WMD program. And because the evidence actually exists, some of the less-sensitive information can be released for public consumption, unlike Iraq.

Furthermore, the American people never liked Saddam Hussein, but his anti-American threats were so laughably empty that few people took him seriously. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, scares the world every time he opens his mouth. Comparisons to Hitler are not to be used lightly, but Ahmadinejad is the one world leader for whom the comparison is accurate.

Wait, who dissputed Iraq's WMD program? Careful, this just might be a trick question.

 

[Thorgasm]

Americans won't stand for another unilateral invasion. The evidence is much stronger against Iran. That is why the American people will demand a real coalition with UN approval.

 

[cnredd]

Americans won't stand for another unilateral invasion. The evidence is much stronger against Iran. That is why the American people will demand a real coalition with UN approval.

And if the rest of the world goes wishy-washy again and caves...

...then what?

 

[Thorgasm]

And if the rest of the world goes wishy-washy again and caves...

...then what?

Then :hitsfan:

 

[cnredd]

Then :hitsfan:

That's the point...

You SAY the right thing the American people want is for the many(all) countries to come together in unity...

That's out of America's hands...

The sad part is if France, China, or Russia say "No(Nyet)", the American people won't think to themselves, "I wonder if this is another payoff like the Oil-for-Food scandal" or "I wonder if they are more interested in their own interests over global security."...They'll think, "Oh well...Let's go back to watching TV and don't bother me with this Iran crap again"...

Of course, when the perverbial crap DOES hit the fan, the American people will be sure to rise up and blame the Administration....again...:shrug:

 

[Inuyasha]

Americans won't stand for another unilateral invasion. The evidence is much stronger against Iran. That is why the American people will demand a real coalition with UN approval.

The real question is can we really finacially afford another military adventure at this time.

 

[Thorgasm]

That's the point...

You SAY the right thing the American people want is for the many(all) countries to come together in unity...

That's out of America's hands...

The sad part is if France, China, or Russia say "No(Nyet)", the American people won't think to themselves, "I wonder if this is another payoff like the Oil-for-Food scandal" or "I wonder if they are more interested in their own interests over global security."...They'll think, "Oh well...Let's go back to watching TV and don't bother me with this Iran crap again"...

Of course, when the perverbial crap DOES hit the fan, the American people will be sure to rise up and blame the Administration....again...:shrug:

I mean that the evidence will have to be overwhelming, not just a hunch. The president will have to be a diplomat and convince our allies it is in their best interest to go along. Otherwise, we will be seen as imperialists and will recruit even more terrorists.

 

[cnredd]

The real question is can we really finacially afford another military adventure at this time.

No...

The real question is can we financially(or otherwise) NOT afford one...

Is anyone under the impression that Iran gets nukes, blows up Isreal, then STOPS?...

If we're second or third on Iran's list of targets, do we just let them do as they please until it's our turn?...If Poland is 15th on their list, do they not intervene until it's their turn?...Will China say, "Nothing to do with us...why should WE bother?"...

To ask "can we really finacially afford another military adventure at this time?" is so coldhearted it hurts...

"Sorry Isreal(or wherever Iran's targets may be), we'd LIKE to stop a few hundred thousand, or perhaps millions of you dying, but right now it's just not financially feasible."...:shock:

 

[Inuyasha]

No...

The real question is can we financially(or otherwise) NOT afford one...

Is anyone under the impression that Iran gets nukes, blows up Isreal, then STOPS?...

If we're second or third on Iran's list of targets, do we just let them do as they please until it's our turn?...If Poland is 15th on their list, do they not intervene until it's their turn?...Will China say, "Nothing to do with us...why should WE bother?"...

To ask "can we really finacially afford another military adventure at this time?" is so coldhearted it hurts...

"Sorry Isreal(or wherever Iran's targets may be), we'd LIKE to stop a few hundred thousand, or perhaps millions of you dying, but right now it's just not financially feasible."...:shock:

Nicely idealistic but where is the money for another war, a billion a week or whatever going to come from? Where do we get another 200,000 men and to invade Iran you'll need more than that. It has a strong military and a greater sense of nation than Iraq has ever had. We are neither the world's policeman nor the world's bank. We do not have a never ending cup of money. We are having a difficult enough time trying to help our own people out of a sting of national disasters. If we pour our money and our military into never-ending conflicts we will be a second rate power within 20 years.

 

[cnredd]

Nicely idealistic but where is the money for another war, a billion a week or whatever going to come from? Where do we get another 200,000 men and to invade Iran you'll need more than that. It has a strong military and a greater sense of nation than Iraq has ever had. We are neither the world's policeman nor the world's bank. We do not have a never ending cup of money. We are having a difficult enough time trying to help our own people out of a sting of national disasters. If we pour our money and our military into never-ending conflicts we will be a second rate power within 20 years.

Which cost the US more?

Natural disasters or 2 planes flying onto the World Trade Center?

Now imagine a nuclear detination...

Which will cost more?...A "military adventure" or cleaning up thousands of square miles of radiation-laced ex-cities?

If the option is spending billions to prevent spending trillions later, I'll be all for it...

And whaddaya know?...Saving thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives are part of the program!...

I have not stated whether or not that this option IS the correct one...

But I will NOT sit here and rule anything out based simply on the current "wallet" situation...

 

[Touchmaster]

you would have to be insane to suggest that Iran would attack either US or Israel with nuclear weapons (which it wont have for years even if the supposed plans go ahead anyway), what possible motivation would it have to do so, knowing that it would be utterly destroyed in retaliation? havent really thought this through have you... and while the Iranian president is a highly unpleasant muslim fundamentalist, the country has never attacked another since the revolution, why would it start now? (and it has had more hardline presidents than this one..)