You'll need to go see this post by Austin Bay for more information on what worms CNN and Eason Jordan are. Regarding the "arrangement" CNN came to with the Saddamites, here's Bay:
The network's deal with the devil lasted a dozen years. The deal brought the network a commercial advantage over more tough-minded competitors. Moreover, CNN's depiction of Saddam's regime often differed, oh, a hundred degrees from the critical reporting of the NY Times' John Burns. (Saddam jailed Burns at least twice--underlining my point about the risk correspondents face.) Sure, CNN portrayed Saddam as a strong man - but by the way, Iraqi children were dying. Though Saddam had invaded Kuwait and had a meanish streak, in CNN's Iraq children died because of UN sanctions enforced by the US military. CNN played a "he's bad, but--" game. I'll wager the journalistic excuse was "balance"--a balance Saddam and Baghdad Bob certainly appreciated. CNN's "balance" was of course anything but balance -over the long haul I believe the network put a finger on the scale that gave Saddam undeserved moral and political weight. We now know the reason Iraqi children were dying: Saddam had corrupted the UN's Oil For Food program and was skimming money that was supposed to buy medicine and food.The biggest laugh is that the anti-American Left honestly believes that the Big Media apparati are tilted against them. They sneeringly call Big Media the SCLM (the "So-Called Liberal Media"), but with obvious propagandists like Jordan, Rather, Arnett, and Couric out there? I'd say they were kidding, but today's anti-war Left has no sense of humor ---or humility or patriotism or of how tiresome their cynicism is.