Politics & Government
CNN Defends Its Use of Ambassador Chris Stevens' Personal Journal
CNN explains why it reported on a journal belonging to the late U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, a graduate of Piedmont High School.
OUTSIDE OAKLAND, CA -- CNN came under fire from the State Department this week for using the personal journal of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens as a reporting tool after his death.
Stevens was a 1978 graduate of Piedmont High School whose family still lives in Piedmont.
Anderson Cooper explained the decision to use the journal last Friday night after the State Department accused CNN of "patting themselves on the back." CNN elaborates in the video on the right.
Find out what's happening in Piedmontfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Stevens spent his childhood in Davis and went to Emerson Junior High School before moving to the East Bay and then building his career.
A CNN reporter found the journal "on the floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where [Stevens] was fatally wounded," according to a story on CNN.com.
Find out what's happening in Piedmontfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
"That story noted that the network notified Stevens' family 'within hours after it was discovered,' that the personal journal was only used for news 'tips' later corroborated by other sources, and that it was then provided to a third party to return to his family," according to the Huffington Post.
Still, the State Department was critical, calling it insulting to Stevens's family.
Here's the full statement from State Department Spokesperson Philippe Reines:
Given the truth of how this was handled, CNN patting themselves on the back is disgusting.
What they're not owning up to is reading and transcribing Chris's diary well before bothering to tell the family or anyone else that they took it from the site of the attack. Or that when they finally did tell them, they completely ignored the wishes of the family, and ultimately broke their pledge made to them only hours after they witnessed the return to the United States of Chris's remains.
Whose first instinct is to remove from a crime scene the diary of a man killed along with three other Americans serving our country, read it, transcribe it, email it around your newsroom for others to read, and only when their curiosity is fully satisfied thinks to call the family or notify the authorities?
When a junior person at CNN called, they didn't say, 'Hello, I know this is a terrible time, but I'm sure you want your son's diary, where do you want it sent?' They instead took the opportunity to ask the family if CNN could report on its contents. Contents known only to Chris Stevens, and those at CNN who had already invaded his privacy.
When the seniormost levels of CNN were finally reached, they needed to be convinced to do the right thing. But not before they took a second shot at convincing the family to let them report on the contents. A family member made it crystal clear directly to CNN that they wanted Chris's diary and would not make any other decisions until then. But that wasn't fast enough for CNN, so they helpfully offered to send the family the transcript they'd already made and passed around, to put a rush on it for their own purposes.
It was then made clear to them, for what must have been the fourth time in the same call, that they wanted to look at it privately, together as a family before making any decisions. Period. CNN finally heard their request enough times that they had to accept it, agreed to abide by the clear wishes of the Stevens family, and pledged not to use the diary or even allude to its existence until hearing back from the family.
But the Stevens family was never given that chance. I guess four days was as long as CNN could control themselves, so they just went ahead and used it. Entirely because they felt like it. Anderson Cooper didn't even bother to offer any other explanation as to why the network broke its promise to the family. And only did so after being contacted by a reporter asking about the diary and their convoluted sourcing.
How do they justify that? They have yet to even try to defend the indefensible. Not a proud episode in CNN's history. I'm sure there are many good people in the CNN newsroom equally appalled by this decision and wondering who above them authorized this course of action.
Don't miss a day of Piedmont news, opinion and events. Sign up for the Piedmont Patch e-newsletter here.
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.