She also berated a US Marshal who was part of the security in the courthouse, and if she’d done so again (I was told over the radio by the guy in charge of the building security) she’d be immediately evicted and never get back in the place.

And when the non-scuffle happened, she said with considerable emotion “oh, that’s so cruel!”, referring to the efforts of the bailiffs to simply guide Saddam to the exit during a break. Even a few other reporters in the gallery shook their heads or smirked when they heard that.

And he did look a bit thin, but not exactly frail.

I haven’t had time to catch most of the western coverage, but it seemed, oddly enough, that the wire service reporters were being the most reasonable about things, based on their comments in the gallery as things progressed. Though I’d probably be disappointed if I forced myself to look at the wire stories ….

Sort of like CNN as a whole. :/

Similarly, see Ralph Peters via WindsOfChange, excerpt:

“A herd mentality has taken over the editorial boards. Ignoring all evidence to the contrary, columnists write about our inevitable “retreat” from Iraq, declaring that “everyone knows” our policies have no chance of success.

“That isn’t journalism. It’s wishful thinking on the part of those who need Iraq to fail to preserve their credibility.”

What superb comments! Thank you.

Jamie Irons

It’d be interesting to compare the relative sharpness, drama, and punch of CNN’s first accounts of the Milosevic trial with Amanpour’s (deliberately?) tedious and unbelievably blase account of Saddam’s trial. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more rambling, incoherent piece on a major trial than this CNN mess. Even a cub journalist on a college paper could wring more sizzle out of this story than Amanpour.

Consider these gems:

“Saddam Hussein kept trying to have his day in court, have his speech, but was eventually asked to sit down, which he did”

No, moron, he is indeed having his “day in court”. This is his trial, remember? However much you may loathe the concept of an Iraqi democracy made possible by US troops, this is a real court appointed by a real and representative government. This is an extraordinary event, more important than the Hague trial of Milosevic or the Spanish trial of Pinochet. This is teh spectacle of Saddam’s own former subjects granting him the justice that he never dreamed of providing them when his boot was at their throats for all those decades.

he basically said that he did not recognize the jurisdiction of the court. He said, ‘this was false, whatever is built on something false is itself false.’”

No, it’s not about “jurisdiction”– as you yourself seem to grasp, which explains the weasel modifier “basically.” The punch line here– and the most important quote of all, buried for perhaps not-so-mysterious reasons halfway down the article– is that this man is delirious. He’s nuts. He says ‘I’m still the president of Iraq.’ This is as rational as claiming that he’s the reincarnation of Saladin. This, not “frail but outspoken”, is the headline of the story, whose arc would, if professionally and intelligently arranged, paint a picture of a madman whose particular lunacy is as sinister as it is bathetic.

“His main point of defense is that he does not recognize this tribunal. His lawyers have told us that they do not recognize it and that will be his main point of defense, that he is being tried essentially illegally. Nonetheless, the judge proceeded.”

Perhaps the above attempt at prissy evenhandedness is oh-so-delicate irony, but here again, the result of such a banal retelling effect is to deflate the story and minimize the trial’s importance. And with it, to cock a subtle sneer at the Iraqi courts and with them, the new Iraqi democratic government.