ekw ekw What we now know about CNN is that they kept secret many things they knew that Saddam was doing in order to keep this very Baghdad office open. In at least one instance, this resulted in the deaths of two of Saddam's sons-in-law when CNN failed to warn them that they were to be executed when they came back from the U.S. CNN knew this. They kept quiet about what they knew in order to keep their bureau open. The men came back, they were executed. Here is a link:http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/20/1050777161410.htmlCNN did this throughout the 90's and up until it was clear that the U.S. was going to overrun Baghdad. At that point the senior editor in chief of the Baghdad news bureau did a preemptive admission. He copped to hiding facts that might reflect poorly on Saddam and the Ba'ath Party so that they didn't incur the dictator's wrath. They needed to stay competitive and to protect their Iraqi staff (didn't other networks have this problem as well?) was the justification. My question was and is, if you aren't going to report the truth, or as much of it as you know, then what is the point of your bureau other than that it provided you with a nice income with bonus hazardous duty pay? What is the point in staying competitive when all you are doing is sending out soft stories that steer clear of the truly horrific stuff Saddam was doing? And what is the point of keeping silent about things you know when life and death are in the balance? I need to ask the same thing the guy asks Michael Keaton's character in this film: How do you sleep at night? One might also wonder, why, once CNN cemented itself in the public's mind as the brave network that stuck when others ran, that it curled up in a corner and became a network that protected its own image rather than report the truth of the outrages of Saddam's horrific rule? Whatever they gained in 1991, they lost in 2003, and not only did they lose the confidence of the public, but since 2003 the other networks' credibility has steadily eroded in the face of the multiple checks on them by pajama-clad Internet bloggers who just don't take the networks at their word anymore. This, as far as I'm concerned, is the best thing that has happened to journalism since the Sixties. This movie seems to me to be CNN trying to remind us all how important they are, but events have overtaken them, and this now looks like a display in a museum.

svs247 'Live from Baghdad' is a political movie in the sense that it asks very tough questions; however, its center lies not in politics but in people. It relates the story of Robert Wiener and his CNN team as they struggle to report the news from Baghdad in the six month antebellum period leading up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991. The team battles with tough Iraqi censorship, enormous political tension, and the reality of impending war. While still presenting the historical events of the time, Baghdad focuses on interpersonal relationships and intrapersonal struggles. Questions over the role of the media emanate from the various stories and struggles that the CNN team faces. The issues of censorship and propaganda, for example, plague the CNN team and their coverage. The use of the media as a diplomatic pawn befalls Wiener and his crew several times in the film. In many senses Baghdad is a media mood ring: different situations in the movie stress and display the various characteristics of the press from a governmental tool to diplomatic connection.The acting in this movie is superb. Keaton is a very strong actor in this film and in every sense epitomizes the gung-ho, balls-out attitude of the real Robert Wiener. In stark contrast, David Suchet, as Naji Al-Hadithi, presents the exquisiteness of his character with a sense of calculation and deliberation. He very much captures a cultured, borderline-aristocratic dignity that an Iraqi official in Saddam Hussein's cabinet might hold.The particular strength of this movie is not in the plot, the production or the characters, however--and in fact none of these really stand out as excellent--but in the broad questions it raises. At the heart of this film is the implied question as to the role of the media. To what extent should we censor? How much should we analyze? What does the public have the right to now and how far can the press go to get it? 'Live from Baghdad' is an incredible movie in the sense that it can raise these questions from an emotional and factual base.I give this movie an 8 out of 10 for its generally entertaining plot and tough press-related questions.

spikslow I watched Live from Baghdad as part of a research project. It was slightly different to most 'warcorrespondent in foreign and dangerous country' genre films in as much as it followed TV news-journalists and outlined some of the technical and administrative difficulties faced by them. Also it went to some efforts to outline the historical context of the first gulf war. However, I did not like this film, it was predictable, exceptionally formulaic and dull, the frustration of the news-team in trying to cover the build up to the war does not make for good watching and when (as everybody knows) war does come to Baghdad and the film reaches its supposed climax, the result is underwhelming, a few overblown special effects are thrown into the stew at this point but do little to rouse the viewer from their slumber.

Topher-26 It was often publically proven that Naira, the girl who supposedly saw the babies die in Kuweit from the unplugged incubators (312 of them as confirmed by Amnesty International then) turned out to be the daughter of the Ambassador of Kuweit in Washington, DC. and never set foot in Kuweit in her life. (Amnesty International later realized their mistake).The movie suggests that the American journalists were kept from investigating further inside the hospital by the local Iraqi police. The whole thing being a lie, this scene makes obviously no sense.After the broadcast of this woman's "testimony" shocking the world population, George Bush Sr. got the authorization 2 days later to attack Iraq.Of course, the only kinds of journalists represented in the film are from CNN and FOX, notoriously known as being the most government-controlled media "news" companies of the "free world".Please do not let this film serve as a history book. It only serves the purpose of disinformation aimed at the masses. Praising a political film based on propaganda is more serious than voting for a comedy. A little research to verify the facts beforehand might be necessary.