“One man’s fact is another man’s opinion.”

That in a nutshell is Jonathan Klein’s answer to the many questions and criticisms posed in this space recently by me and you concerning CNN’s coverage of the ongoing war in Iraq.

To the president of CNN/US, we’re “naïve, highly partisan extremists,” a “definite minority out on the fringe” whose tone is strident but whose criticism is insubstantial, and clearly out of step with “the vast majority of Americans who simply do not feel” the way we do.

After a lengthy negotiation with CNN publicists (see below) Klein and I finally spoke over the phone last week. While he declined to comment on CNN’s coverage of the start of the war, “since I didn’t start working at CNN until December 2004,” he was more forthcoming about his positive view of CNN’s current war coverage, as well as his dismissive take on anti-war critics of the mainstream media in general, and CNN in particular.

“We’re being very aggressive in covering the war at the moment,” Klein began. “We have lots of people with lots of expertise on the ground in Baghdad now. Generally I think we’re doing a good job of daily reporting, and we also have the capacity to do in-depth reporting and documentaries. In fact we’ve aired five or six docs and specials already, including an hour-long look at WMD, two hours on how war is going, and so forth.”

While praising his own, Klein was critical of his critics, saying, “It’s naïve for otherwise intelligent people to assume CNN has any role other than reporting the facts. They may oppose the war — but the conduct of the war is simply not up to CNN.

“Who is the ‘anti war crowd?’” Klein asked rhetorically. “Many people now oppose the war — but how many take such an extreme position vis-à-vis the mainstream media and complain about the war coverage? It’s one thing to be opposed to the war; it’s another to affix blame to the media. In any event, whether that is a valid point of view or not — it’s certainly not shared by the majority of Americans.”

As a case in point, Klein referred to questions raised about coverage of the so-called “Downing Street memo,” which famously revealed the details of a meeting between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that concerned Bush’s intent to “fix” intelligence and facts in order to justify an eventual attack on Iraq. As I had noted in a question to Klein (question 10), the bombshell memo was “ignored by mainstream media until it became too embarrassing to suppress.”

To Klein, however, the coverage of the memo is a “good example” of what CNN is doing right. “The Downing Street memo was reported on CNN,” he said. “Perhaps not as often as certain partisan extremists would have liked it to be … but it certainly was not ignored by us or by the mainstream media in general. “It’s true the memo was also widely covered by alternative media,” he added. “So does it matter if it was or was not covered enough by the mainstream to satisfy a highly partisan crowd? The great thing about the new media landscape is that people can get information if they need it. Thank God there is lots of opportunity now to get more information from sources other than the mainstream.”

Can CNN do a better job of reporting on the war? “Of course we could do all sorts of things better,” he said. “We want to add more depth and more analysis, for example — NPR is great at that — and we also want more diversity, because that makes us more interesting to watch.”

When challenged about the lack of diversity (question 2) among his on-air war analysts, however, Klein averred, “Our list of analysts is very good. Yes, many have worked in government in the past, but that just means they have inside knowledge. And our top terrorism analyst Peter Bergen is certainly very independent.

“Look, an enormous amount of data comes through CNN on a daily basis — video, audio, texts, graphics, you name it — and just keeping up with it all is a tough job,” he continued. “We’re committed to getting better, but to do so we have to tune out the constant din of criticism from partisans on both sides and replace it with a good calibration.”

I asked Klein to comment on criticism (question 3) leveled by star CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour at her own network for its coverage of the still-missing WMD.

“I’ve known her a long time, (From early 1996 through 1998, Klein was executive vice president of CBS News and brought Amanpour to 60 Minutes as a contributor) I respect her a lot, and I debriefed her on how we could cover the war better when I first took this job,” Klein revealed. He refused to share any details of what he oddly termed a “private conversation,” but claimed, “You can already see the results on air with better coverage…”

I returned to the topic of viewer dissatisfaction with that coverage, but Klein again gave no quarter.

“Look, that’s who you hear from,” he told me. “An extreme wing gives statements of opinion to you. But I hear from both the left and the right, and the tone of the criticism is quite similar — and not substantial. I get the same sort of questions from extremists on both sides, and I can’t get engaged in that conversation. I’m not here to please the fringes.”

Does he not see any sign of mainstream media complicity in their coverage of the run-up to and current conduct of the disastrous war in Iraq?

“That’s what you’re disposed to see,” he countered. “What I see is that we go out in a very dangerous situation and do great reporting with experienced and knowledgeable correspondents like Christian, Nic Robertson, and many others…

“The vast majority of Americans do not feel the way your readers do, and do not express those feelings to us,” he stated flatly. “In fact the number of people watching CNN today is higher than ten years ago. There’s no mass disaffection with either CNN or the MSM. The reality is that every week sixty-six million American get their news from watching CNN — more than any other news network — so we must be satisfying their needs for information. But we can’t cover everything, and we can’t please every fraction of the audience all the time.

“You’re talking about a highly partisan and definitely minority point of view,” the CNN/US president reiterated. “It’s really just a certain segment of extremists who don’t see their particular point of view reflected enough. And as I said, we hear similar complaints from extreme poles of both right and left.”

To Klein, at least, the situation is eminently clear: “We’re putting considerable resources into the story, but somehow it’s still not enough to satisfy certain people — even though we do more than anyone else! These people are definitely on the fringe.”

The Story Behind the Interview

In early March, with the third anniversary of the War in Iraq looming and a host of protests at the mainstream media’s coverage of the war slated to occur in several cities, I began my efforts to interview CNN/US President Jonathan Klein. CNN Worldwide Senior Vice-President for Public Relations Laurie Goldberg was the point person.

On March 8 she emailed me to say, “Jon is traveling quite a bit this week, but I will do my best to make it happen as soon as possible. I’m sure Jon would love to speak with you.”

Two days later, however, things weren’t looking so good. “Jon’s schedule just seems to be getting worse rather than better,” Goldberg wrote. “One thing we have done in the past that might work, is you can email me the questions and I can forward them to Jon to answer. That is probably the best way to get what you want sooner rather than later. Please let me know if this will work for now.”

I told her that would be fine, and the next day she wrote, “If you just email me your questions, I’ll get you his answers asap.”

On March 13, I sent Goldberg the twenty questions I had posted that day and then asked, “When can I expect the replies, please?”

She replied, “Since these are pretty elaborate questions it might take a little while. I will get them to him today and see what he thinks time-wise.”

When I suggested we could speed things up by simply doing an interview in person, Goldberg responded in a startling manner. “He doesn’t have time right now. He won’t be answering all 20 individually since they are all basically the same question. Also, you should keep in mind that he wasn’t at CNN for the first 20 months of the war.”

To Goldberg’s plaint that Klein no longer had “time right now,” I noted that I had again proposed an in-person interview only “since you said it might take a little while for him to write responses. Being interviewed by me would be much quicker.”

To her assertion that my 20 questions were “all basically the same question,” I replied, “Previously you said, ‘These are pretty elaborate questions.’ Now they’re suddenly all the same question?”

And to her reminder that “Also, you should keep in mind that he wasn’t at CNN for the first 20 months of the war,” I responded, “So that should free him up to take an objective look at CNN’s coverage during that period.”

The next day Goldberg wrote back, “When I looked at each of the questions more carefully, while they gave specific examples they were virtually the same question.”

“I don’t agree,” I told her. “I spent a lot of time formulating very specific questions, which I was told Jon would answer via email because he had once again become ‘too busy’ to be interviewed after agreeing to do so. (This is the third time that happened.) Now it appears he and CNN are ducking out because you all don’t like the questions asked. I say ‘appears’ because I can’t believe that to be the case — but unfortunately, I suspect many of my readers will see only the appearance of a dodge. Perhaps you can explain your assertion that “they were virtually the same question?” What do you mean by that, specifically? I’ll be happy to reformulate them so it’s more clear that there are twenty individual, specific questions — not at all the same, as you say. How are they the same? I’m frankly quite puzzled.”

“He is not ducking out of the questions,” Goldberg replied. “You clearly have a very specific agenda and Jon will answer how he sees fit. He may not answer all 20 specifically because of time restraints, just like if it was a live interview he would only have so much time. Why don’t you just wait until you get the responses?”

Later that day she emailed me again, “Jon may want to call you after all.”

And still later that day, someone claiming to be Jonathan Klein left the following comment on my blog:

“Good questions, Rory, though some are repetitive. i won’t be discussing CNN’s coverage of the start of the war, since i didn’t start working at CNN until December 2004 - so i would not know what i was talking about! but i’ll faithfully discuss our coverage of the war since that date. looking forward to our conversation.”

I emailed to Goldberg for confirmation. “If it is Jon, I’m happy to hear he is looking forward to our conversation — but I’m confused since you have repeatedly indicated that he is too busy to confer, and variously have indicated that he may answer the questions via email, may only answer one question since “all the questions are the same,” or that he may in fact call me to have an actual conversation. In any event, I would appreciate clarification as to what exactly is happening in terms of getting a reply — i.e. when, and how.

“That was him.” Goldberg wrote back. “He initially wanted to answer by email, but after seeing your questions decided he would do it by phone when he could. I was trying to get him for you sooner rather than later — hence the suggestion that he do by email. Not sure when he is going to be doing it.”

“Well can you please either try to find out, or give me a number to call him?” I countered.

“I have been trying to find out,” Goldberg responded. “You will know when I know. I don’t give his phone number out. Right now he is out of town all of next week other than Thursday at 3. We have penciled you in for that time, but I can’t promise it will happen, since it is his only day in the office

“That’s not much of an excuse,” I responded, “Since I assume he has access to telephones even when not in the office? Whatever — I will await a call, or an email, or a reply of any sort, if and when CNN and Jon want to engage.”

To his credit, Klein did call at the appointed hour to discuss at least some of the forty questions we posted for his consideration. Judge for yourself whether he simply gave the same answer to what he felt — rightly or wrongly — was the same repeated question. But at least he was willing to engage, which is a lot more than can be said about, say, Roger Ailes at Fox News…