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.
Are you under the impression that it was intentional?...Synch said:
Synch said:
Kandahar said: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.
Synch said:If you had read the article, CNN was producing false propoganda about Iran,
Synch said: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."
Synch said: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."
George_Washington said:CNN Journalists banned from Iran? Drat!
They should've been banned from America instead.
LOL
Synch said:Is that sarcasm or are you being serious, cause I thought CNN was conservative..
although that is a good idea..
Trajan Octavian Titus said: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.
JOHNYJ said: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 said: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.
And if the rest of the world goes wishy-washy again and caves...independent_thinker2002 said: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 said:And if the rest of the world goes wishy-washy again and caves...
...then what?
That's the point...independent_thinker2002 said:Then :hitsfan:
independent_thinker2002 said: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 said: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:
No...Inuyasha said:The real question is can we really finacially afford another military adventure at this time.
cnredd said: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:
Which cost the US more?Inuyasha said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?