Live From Baghdad Bombs Moral Depth

Live from CNN, the bombing of Baghdad! In 2003, flashes of green light lit up the television screen. The re-invasion of Iraq, the second act of the violent drama of Bush politics, was broadcast through the same portal that brought "The Bachelor" and "Family Guy." Although the internet is usually blamed for the shrinking of the world, it was the ancient technology of televisions, the staying power of the visual image, that haunts. And while it haunted some and excited others, the news stations bring in the cash. This is from a report on the networks numbers during the Iraq War, focusing on after the bombing of Baghdad in 2003.

Comparing viewership to from prewar to postwar, MSNBC say a 357 jump in ratings, while CNN when up to 305, and Fox News climbed 239 percent, according to Nielsen numbers. In overall numbers, Fox News was number one, followed by CNN, and the MSNBC. 

Money of that kind should lift eyebrows and prompt some ethical questions. 

And while "Live From Baghdad" tries to come off as sophisticated and ethically sensitive to these questions, it ends with the feeling of being lured into eating a wormy apple. Its shiny and juicy-looking on the outside but disappointing inside. Disappointing enough to make the movie about as half as powerful as it could be. As Keaton and Carter drink and flirt throughout the film, there are brief pauses of reflection--on life, on deception, and on their power to influence the public. Although the touch questions are pondered ("Who are we to say what it means?" A reference to a story pushed by Keaton and Carter) they are quickly dismissed with cynical one-liners. "If we had had the technology, Hitler would have been on Meet the Press." Another piece of the film Keaton is bothered by the supposed capture of a man they interviewed they filmed while knowing the risk to doing so. Although these dilemmas are intriguing, the performance of the emotions felt contrived. 

However, the drum music surrounding Saddam Hussein's appearances in the movie was menacing and effective. Real emotions stirred, and the tension and danger was felt. Some credibility was restored to the authenticity of the story by the smart use of real news clips of Bush One and Saddam, but not enough. It was hard to take the script seriously after it was clear that the primarily purpose of the film was not history education but CNN propaganda. 

Images of Bush One making hard threatening statements about Saddam and towards Iraq was creepy and reminiscent of the hellish mistakes of Bush Two. As the credits rolled, "Saddam Hussien is still in power," came on the screen. Made in 2002, director Mick Jackson might have had an idea of what was to come, or might not have, but either way the end of the film leaves a sense that CNN is not on the side of the people, but the cash and the drama.