February 11, 2005
Eason Jordan Resigns
Just got off the phone with Howard Kurtz. It's confirmed. Eason Jordan resigned today about an hour ago (6 pm EST). There are lots of reactions.
Here is an AP Story. Here is CNN’s account. And Howard Kurtz’s. See Instapundit.
This is the statement Eason Jordan released tonight around 6:00 pm EST:
After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq.
I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside.
While my CNN colleagues and my friends in the U.S. military know me well enough to know I have never stated, believed, or suspected that U.S. military forces intended to kill people they knew to be journalists, my comments on this subject in a World Economic Forum panel discussion were not as clear as they should have been.
I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise. I have great admiration and respect for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces, with whom I have worked closely and been embedded in Baghdad, Tikrit, and Mosul, in addition to my time with American soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen in Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the Arabian Gulf.
As for my colleagues at CNN, I am enormously proud to have worked with you, risking my life in the trenches with you, and making CNN great with you. For that experience, and for your friendship and support these many years, I thank you.
I told Howard Kurtz I was surprised and didn’t know of any firing offense. Of course I haven’t seen the tape.
11pm: Kurt’z story is out: “Eason Jordan resigned last night as CNN’s chief news executive in an effort to quell a bubbling controversy over his remarks about U.S. soldiers killing journalists in Iraq.” Read it. He quotes me correctly:
Jay Rosen [said] he didn’t think Jordan “had engaged in a firing offense.” Bloggers “made a lot of noise” about the Jordan flap, Rosen said. “But there was basic reporting going on — finding the people who were there, getting them to make statements, comparing one account to another — along with accusations and conspiracy thinking and the politics of paranoia and attacks on the MSM, or mainstream media.”
Here’s one try at an explanation. The primary sources are my earlier post on Jordan’s job being political and diplomatic (the Colin Powell of the news division but very definitely a journalist by tribal affiliation); plus the comments of Rebecca MacKinnon; and this comment from a “veteran journalist” in tonight’s thread, otherwise nameless. It also picks up from the terse Glenn Reynolds: “I think we know what the video would have shown, now.” It’s only a possible explanation, but plausible in my view.
The tape had to be a disaster. But what kind? When Jordan and others at CNN looked at it, they must have seen a man making statements that went beyond what the network had been able to prove in its news reporting. He had wandered into the territory of assertion, some hearsay, and of things you feel you know are true even though you can’t get anyone on the record to say it.
By speaking in this way before an audience of influentials, Jordan allowed there to be (some) daylight between the military reporting the rest of the world had seen on CNN and the “report” that Jordan, its chief news executive, was willing to offer the in crowd in Davos. But there can never be that daylight. As “veteran journo” said: “If the standard of proof wasn’t good enough to get it on CNN, it’s not good enough to discuss at a forum in Davos.”
Ordinarily the lapse would not be noticed, and would not become public. That was before the WEF created a participants’ blog. Rebecca MacKinnon, who once worked for Eason Jordan at CNN (bio): “I think Eason Jordan resigned because he knew that if the Davos tape came out it would make the situation worse, not better.” (Worse because the “lower standard of proof” is plainly in evidence at certain moments.) Her post is a must.
I know there are a number of people involved with the World Economic Forum who think the WEF needs to completely re-think its media/blogging and on/off record policies. It was a great thing that the WEF started a blog this year, inviting conference participants to post their impressions and thoughts. I encouraged them to do this. Unfortunately, the WEF’s operating norms are not compatible with the age of the blog. Jordan’s demise is the frightening result.
I said it in Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over: “A blog, you see, is a little First Amendment machine.”
After Matter: Notes, reactions & links…
Steve Lovelady emails: “The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail. (Where is Jimmy Stewart when we need him ?) This convinces me more than ever that Eason Jordan is guilty of one thing, and one thing only — caring for the reporters he sent into battle, and haunted by the fact that not all of them came back. Like Gulliver, he was consumed by Lilliputians.”
“We see you beind the curtain, Lovelady and company, and we’re not impressed by either your bluster or your insults,” says Will Collier at Vodka Pundit. “We’re not going away. Deal with it.” For more, check out the exchanges between Steve Lovelady and Vodka Pundit readers.
“Sad day for the freedom of expression in America and sad day again for the future of blogging,” writes Bertrand Pecquerie at Editors Weblog. “Nevertheless, there is one advantage in this story: masks are fallen!… Real promoters of citizen media would have to take some distance with those who have fueled and organised the Eason Jordan hatred. If not, the ‘new era of journalism’opened by the blogosphere will appear as the old clothes of American populism.”
Captain’s Quarters: “The moral of the story: the media can’t just cover up the truth and expect to get away with it — and journalists can’t just toss around allegations without substantiation and expect people to believe them anymore.”
An anonymous “veteran journo” in the comments is making sense on why Jordan had to go. I don’t know who it is, though. “I’m a journalist (25 years in the trenches) and I have been following this story with great interest.” That is evident.
Michelle Malkin does an instant restrospective: Easongate.
For those of us in the information business, this is truly an earth-shaking time. Who would have imagined that the downfall of one of the world’s most powerful news executives would be precipitated by an ordinary citizen blogging his eyewitness report at Davos in the wee hours of the morning on Jan. 27? It’s simply stunning.
Her narrative of events in the blogosphere is very useful. The column is impressively done— on deadline, as it were.
The Los Angeles Times tells readers about Eason Jordan’s resignation over the fallout from a story the Los Angeles Times never told its readers about. What is the name for that?
Rebecca Blood: “Journalists will take this personally. For many of them—and for a large segment of the public—this will cement their view of blogs as nothing more than a written form of talk radio. With regard to the weblogs most often quoted in the press, and apparently read by reporters, this perception will largely be accurate.”
Glenn Reynolds remarks on a telling little error in the Los Angeles Times story: “If, as many suspect, this will be spun by some Big Media outfits as a baying mob out for the blood of conscientious journalists, that spin will lose force when it becomes apparent that many of those describing the ‘mob’ have only the vaguest idea of what they’re describing.”
Don’t miss Digby’s take on it.
Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix: “Can we please interrupt the self-congratulatory hooting from conservative bloggers for a moment in order to offer some kudos to two liberals, Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd? It was their outrage that lifted this out of the usual left-right paradigm.” A much neglected factor.
Cory Bergman at Lost Remote:
This latest story will only lead to greater distrust between media execs and bloggers. Selfishly, it makes our jobs harder here at Lost Remote. Over the past few months, I’ve noticed that media execs who are not familiar with Lost Remote — the very people we’re trying to attract — are becoming less inclined to trust us simply because we’re a “blog.” Back in 1999 when we launched as an “industry news site,” we had trouble landing interviews because people thought we were insignificant. Now that we have a very respectable audience, we’re battling a blog perception problem inside the industry. Very unfortunate.
Timothy Karr at Media Citizen: “The problem is that much of the story was driven by those seeking to score political points. The new and accurate information that they often uncover is just a byproduct of the witch hunt. This controversy mounted as mainstream news reporters fed off the blogs; their resulting mainstream coverage stoked the ranting pundits on the endless cable talk shows. This media storm then spun back into the blogosphere, which ratcheted the frenzy up another notch. And so on.”
Jim Geraghty at National Review Online:
I would have preferred that the tape be released, that the public have a chance to mull over his comments, and then let Jordan face whatever consequences were appropriate. I have a feeling that the discussion of the “blogs as a lynch mob” is going to get a lot of coverage in the coming days.
“This was clearly was a case of blog-thuggery.” Jude Nagurney Camwell at the American Street:
The ‘Right-wing mouth machine’ would like us all to think that Eason Jordan was “bad” and “unAmerican” for saying what he said. CNN has been complicit by their reticence to talk about tough issues. They wound up to be the biggest loser. They lost Eason Jordan. Eason was guilty before being proven innocent by no other process except one: the blog-trial. The right-wing blogs seem to be the Supreme Court of the blogging community at large. Why should this be so?
From Howard Kurt’s account:
Gergen said Jordan’s resignation was “really sad” since he had quickly backed off his initial comments. “This is too high a price to pay for someone who has given so much of himself over 20 years. And he’s brought down over a single mistake because people beat up on him in the blogosphere? They went after him because he is a symbol of a network seen as too liberal by some. They saw blood in the water.”
PressThink, Feb. 10: “Whether you agree or not in the case of Jordan’s remarks, suspicion of the blog swarm is not crazy or wrong, and fear of mob-like actions by bloggers and others online is going to continue to speak to people, for the same reason invasions of privacy by the press always speak across ideological divides. It doesn’t take much to imagine the mob coming at you.”
From the New York Times account by Jacques Steinberg and Katharine Seelye: “Eason Jordan, a senior executive at CNN who was responsible for coordinating the cable network’s Iraq coverage, resigned abruptly last night, citing a journalistic tempest he touched off during a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, late last month…” A journalistic tempest?
See this interview in the Mudville Gazette with Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald, on what he calls the “myth” of targeted journalists. Crittenden was an embedded reporter in Iraq. Also see this letter from him.
Jeff Jarvis: “I honestly don’t get it. If he had been upfront about what he said from the start; if he had demanded that Davos release the tape and transcript; if he had admitted to putting his foot in his mouth and apologized and said he was wrong; if he’d done that, he’d still have a job… But he released obfuscating statements and didn’t level with the public he’s supposed to serve and now he’s slinking away like a criminal when he should be apologizing for saying something stupid.” (More Jarvis.)
The End of Honest Mistakes? Garrett M. Graff at FishbowlDC:
On any given week the Jeff Gannon saga or the Eason Jordan controversy would have been big news on the blogs, but the fact that they came in the same week—their virtual bloodletting separated by just a few days—marks a much larger sea change.
We now entering an age where journalists are so closely scrutinized by thousands of people with almost limitless time and limitless research power that the slightest misstep can end a distinguished career.
Rony Abovitz (before tonight’s news): “The challenge for Eason is how to both have real integrity on this issue and keep his job. The more spinning and denials, the harder this becomes.”
“The trouble was the cover-up.” — Hugh Hewitt’s verdict.
Posted by Jay Rosen at February 11, 2005 7:09 PM
Jordan: I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq.
Actually, it was Jordan who was tarnished by CNN's breathlessly strident, repetetive, speculative reporting style.
Jordan: I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside.
CNN does have many talented people, but if CNN used to be the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, that was before internet-based alternative streams of information conveyed how narrow the CNN storyline was.
Jordan: While my CNN colleagues and my friends in the U.S. military know me well enough to know I have never stated, believed, or suspected that U.S. military forces intended to kill people they knew to be journalists, my comments on this subject in a World Economic Forum panel discussion were not as clear as they should have been.
We may never know.
alene: This is the worst possible [outcome].
What is? Certainly not that Jordan was forced out. He wasn't. He didn't have to resign, despite some calls that he do so. You don't get where Jordan got being thin-skinned. And most of the comment threads, discounting the predictable threadnoise on both fringes, were moderate, persistently requesting clarity, explanation, and either admission or evidence. No, Jordan didn't have to resign.
If, alene, this is the worst possible outcome, all it means is that those who are thoughtless will label themselves more clearly, the easier to pass over their noise in the comment threads. Yes, Jay, it would be a good idea to put the names of commenters above the comment itself, the better to help us scan.
Chris Josephson wrote:
As someone who has family in the military, the idea that someone in Jordan's position could believe them capable of targeting journalists is revolting. Why did he seem to hate our soldiers so much to slander them this way?
now, I'm not trying to criticize Josephson personally, because this comment reflect the views of all who engaged in the witch hunt against Jordan.
Now, imagine its a year ago, and Jordan said at Davros that the US military was torturing and abusing and killing Iraqi prisoners.
Does anyone here believe for a moment that the "Chris Josephsons" of the blogosphere would not have written:
As someone who has family in the military, the idea that someone in Jordan's position could believe them capable of torturing and killing Iraqi prisoners is revolting. Why did he seem to hate our soldiers so much to slander them this way?
The truth or falsity of the Jordan allegations was irrelevant to those who criticized him. What was relevant was that Jordan could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US military was targetting journalists, and thus opened himself up for criticism. The jackals of the right wing had another victim cornered.
The tape, and Eason Jordan, would have allowed a full airing of this issue.
Nonesense. We saw with the "Killian memos" story that the focus would be on whether or not a network could prove what was specifically alleged beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not whether there was a legitimate factual basis for making the general claim in the first place.
And, as we saw with the Abu Ghraib pictures, if proof were to emerge that journalists were targeted, it would be chalked up to a couple of "bad apples." The fact that torture has become US policy in the "war on terror" has subsequently been established has had so little effect that one of the authors of that policy was just confirmed as the Attorney General.
There were lots of allegations of torture by the US prior to the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures, yet these allegations went unexamined by the corporate media. Given the current media environment, only an idiot would suggest that there would be any "airing out" of the evidence suggesting that the US has "targetted journalists" as a result of what Eason Jordan said at Davros.
Last week I sent a letter to General Mills, complaining about their advertising on CNN -- because of Jordan. I'm pretty sure Jordan's boss (who IS that? why don't we see THAT name more often?) was getting heat.
Jordan should have been fired after April 2003, when he admitted CNN had been fully in agreement with Saddam's: "information, propaganda, truthtelling, stonewalling and press policies"
But, I guess Jay Rosen is happy, happy, happy to accept Saddam's standards of free press.
Jordan should have been fired when it became known he thought the US tortured journalists.
Jordan should have been fired sooner -- but I'm glad he's gone.
"Truth to Power" -- only now, with blogs, can the MSM Power be met with truth. (Though some think some FORM ### truths must be unmentionable.)
(You know I also disagree with Jeff J. on obscene speech -- it should be controlled. Forcing inuendos to discuss, within the rules, the forbidden subjects.)
Whose side was Jordan on? The fence is not tenable -- Jordan wanted to be on both sides. Journalists trying to see the insurgent "truth", and their POV, can't see it unless they are on that side. Jordan's CNN had been on Saddam's side since after Desert Storm (catapulted them onto the Global stage in 1991).
I'm sure Jordan believes that some of 12 journos killed by US actions were "targeted". I suspect some, at most 9 but prolly less, actually WERE judgement calls by the soldier pulling the trigger, and the soldier decided to fire thinking he was firing on an Enemy -- an enemy journalist.
I do think this, too, may be story to follow. But I think a lot of military folk think Jordan IS an enemy journalist.
And Jay, I ask you, aren't they right? Isn't the anti-US junk by CNN (int'l) helping the death squads get more recruits, and so helping in more death, including more Americans?
Observation is NOT, and can NOT, be neutral. Is the press, or artists like Leni R., at all responsible for how their output is used?
Mr. Sambook should be fired ... but the BBC has no responsible owners to complain to.
I respect you a lot, but I think you're off base here.
The head of CNN International--the best TV news by any U.S.-based company I've seen, including PBS--has resigned because he said something dumb, which he may or may not have immediately retracted. If this strikes you as a triumph for the first amendment...Not that the resignation itself involved any first amendment violations. But as to the purposes of the first amendment, it is nothing but harmful.
Here's what I wrote elsewhere:
I find this resignation unbelievably disturbing. I don't expect blogs to do journalism, exactly, but I had really hoped they would be good for something other than blacklisting journalists. It's one thing when they actually seriously breach journalistic ethics & do something really incompetent, as with the CBS Killian memos thing and with Raines (whose resignation I think had way, way more to do with internal politics at the Times than anything written on any weblog). It's still shows a disturbing lack of priorities to think the Killian memos are the biggest scandal in the last four years, but whatever. It's another thing when they say something stupid in a confidential forum--which they then, if David Gergen is to be believed, immediately clarify. I realize this is partly Jordan's or CNN's decision, and I suppose I blame CNN more than the blog noise machine. Instapundit, Malkin, Powerline, Hewitt, LGF, Belmont Club, the overwhelming % of the highest-traffic right wing weblogs--their entire raison d'etre is to bully people who criticize President Bush too much. But CNN is supposed to have a different purpose. One day, one cable network and one national newspaper are going to realize that there is nothing at all they can do, short of becoming knockoffs of Fox, the NY Post or the Washington Times, to please these people, and that there's plenty of room for an audience among the rest of the country, and stopped pulling their punches, and start showing some independence and judgement again and refuse to be bullied any long. But God, that day is nowhere in sight, and we seem to be getting further away from it. The New Yorker magazine, the few unintimidated reporters and columnists at the dailies & weeklies, NPR, PBS and the left-of-center weblogs (who have their own problems about prioritization--Gannon never should have had a press credential, but I agree with Dan Froomkin that's it's gotten too personal) can't break every story in the country worth covering. And even if they do, most of the country will never hear it through all the noise made by the right-of-center weblogs, TV news networks, and talk radio.
And one more thing: This idea of a bunch of scruffy underdogs, ordinary citizens outgunned but holding their own against the dreaded "MSM", is smart self-marketing, but it's really just utter crap. A lot of weblogs are less powerful than the people they target (though not in all cases) but they choose their targets directly in the service of the most powerful people in the country. That's why they get results, too--it has relatively little to do with the merits.
(Obviously, people do make themselves vulnerable--there's a reason that this happens to CBS, Mapes, Churchill and Jordan, and not the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh, Paul Krugman and Dana Priest. What I'm saying is, out of all the people who say or do stupid or wrong things...it's how they help or harm President Bush and the Republican party that determines whether right-wing weblogs write about them or not; which stories "get a -gate" and which don't; whether or not someone gets fired; how much coverage the story gets.)
That's why I used the word "blacklist" before, though I had hesitated to at first because I don't think it's REMOTELY on the same level as the McCarthy era blacklist. We're talking about what, maybe half a dozen jobs lost, instead of thousands. This is the first case where I think the resignation was clearly unjustified, whereas--again, thousands. And these are pretty much all powerful people who will land on their feet, which was often not the case in the 1950s, where it included a bunch of very ordinary people, and made it hard to work in their field at all. And this is a bunch of private citizens, not a committee of the United States House of Representatives. So all of that changes things an awful lot.
The thing is, though, when you combine this with media concentration under corporate owners--people who really and truly only care about profits, and do not care about journalism--it means that a single resignation or firing can have an enormous chilling effect on journalism that is critical of the administration. I am not so worried about what happens to Eason Jordan. I think he'll be all right. I am worried about a competent, independent press corps.
Very bad things happen in the dark, and this is true whether the dark is created by government censorship or by the profit motive; whether true and important stories do not get heard because reporters are afraid to write them or because they are drowned out by a din of noise."
This was posted at Romenesko"s Letters but there are no unique url's there to link to, so I am re-printing it here.
2/12/2005 4:26:49 PM
From JULES CRITTENDEN, Boston Herald: I am alarmed that Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily, is baffled by the uproar over Eason Jordan's remarks. If this helps, it is because Jordan reportedly accused American soldiers of purposefully murdering journalists, without citing any evidence, and without his news organization having reported it. While he backtracked and claimed he was misunderstood, apparently CNN found his transgression serious enough to accept his resignation.
I am also alarmed that the editor of a major media watchdog publication's web spinoff would cite a report titled "Two Murders and a Lie" (Reporters Without Borders, and apparently without standards) to support Jordan, as well as the similarly flawed "Permission to Fire," (Committee to Protect Journalists) both of which offer selectively reported and distorted views of the Palestine incident that are peppered with inaccuracies and speculation. There is no evidence to support accusations of either murder or lying in the Palestine incident.
By way of disclosure, I was embedded with the tank company that fired on the Palestine, and was within 100 yards of the tank that fired on April 8, 2003. Sgt. Shawn Gibson saw what he thought was an Iraqi forward observer in a tall building. We had been alerted that an Iraqi FO had eyes on our position an hour earlier. The tankers had been in combat for up to 30 hours by the time Gibson fired, and after a particularly heavy pre-dawn counterattack was repelled, continued to be plagued with mortar fire and RPGs -- including fire from the east bank of the Tigris and from tall buildings. In a month of combat operations with A Co. 4/64 Armor, I witnessed numerous examples of restraint when the tankers put themselves in danger in order to avoid killing civilians. Any suggestion that American soldiers have purposefully killed journalists in Iraq is repugnant, ignores the facts and reflects a disturbing bias. The failure of a major media watchdog publication's editor to get this is also disturbing.
From the Poynter site: Jules Crittenden has covered crime, politics, science, maritime matters, and foreign affairs for the Boston Herald for 10 years, including ethnic conflicts and other issues in Kashmir, Kosovo, Israel, Armenia, and Nagorno Karabagh.
Interesting point in viewing the power of words and the position of those who make them arises in the sbw comments and JR's reaction to them.
sbw makes comments about which JR says he won't respond because of their nastiness and high-handedness. Fair enough. sbw retracts and apologizes. JR accepts. OK. Still, given the exposure PressThink is getting in this Eason debate, sbw's commnets are quite public, perhaps even more so that Eason Jordan's, since the Davos tape remains unavailable.
Jordan makes a public statement, one which surely was as calculated as sbw's were and one that is nasty with regard to its implication, as were some or all of sbw's were, but absolutely demands a response. Supposedly, as a journalist, Jordan knew the import of saying anything on the record. Yet many defend him and CNN as if they are part of the blogosphere, not the MSM.
What's occurred with Jordan and CNN is yet another example of a liberal and his organization who are hoist by their own petard. His delusion--CNN's delusion--of the alleged targeting of journalists by the U.S. military was yet one more attempt to justify the bad press that he, CNN and the rest of the MSM have given Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as the arrogance with which the MSM regards the public to which it supposedly reports and the subjects about which is supposedly reports.
Regardless of whether Jordan committed what was or is an offense for which CNN should've canned him, he committed a professional offense for which there's no excuse. And he knew it. Maybe in his next incarnation, he'll put a bit and bridle on his ego, or take some remedial course in the basics of journalism. And maybe the MSM--or, rather, the advocacy press, as I suggest we should henceforth call the MSM--will begin considering the manner in which they operate.
The latter is especially doubtful, but at least it will be enjoyable to continue to see the MSM continue to crumble, that is, until they decide to become journalists again.
Jordan's falling on his sword before the executioner's axe fell publicly is clear indication that journalists, of any rank, have to be responsible for what they say or broadcast.
His actions also, I hope, signal that the self-serving, we're-the-victim myths that the MSM and its journalists generate to justify their alienation from the military and the public for which they "report"--as well as their mis- and under-reporting of Operation Iraqi Freedom--are not just bogus, but won't be tolerated any longer.
John in London--you live in London, so you are more familiar with CNN International than I. On the other hand, you are less familiar with what passes for TV news in the United States. The MacNeill Lehrer news hour is respectable, accurate and fair, but I never seen a story broken there. The rest is just unrelentingly terrible.
Saying "we're not objective" is no excuse for the complete lack of standards, fairness, accuracy, context, and corrections on most weblogs. I'm not objective either, and yet I can do better than that. The New Yorker isn't objective, in that its writers usually come to conclusions, and yet they can do better than that. The attempt at objectivity is worth something even if does not completely succeed, but really, objectivity and quality are separate questions. My problem with Fox is not that it claims falsely to be "fair and balanced." It's that, it is only a slight exaggeration to say that it leaves you knowing less about the world than when you turn on the TV. Let's say I accept the false premise that every TV network save Fox, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, PBS, NPR, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the BBC, Time, Newsweek, the New Yorker, the New Republic, Newsday, C-Span*, most of the other major daily newspapers not owned by Murdoch--that these all form some monolith called "the liberal media." (Obviously I don't dispute that some of those are liberal;
Well. That leaves you with a United States "conservative media" that contains not a single reliable, even remotely fair, decent source of journalism except the Wall Street Journal. And in reality, the Wall Street Journal's news pages aren't liberal, and its editorial page isn't reliable. The rest is a train wreck. Fox News, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the Boston Herald, the National Review (the least fact checked political magazine out there). Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage for God's sake, Bill O'Reilly. I could go on and on.
It's not like this in other countries. In England--I can recognize that the Economist does better journalism than the U.S. Nation, that the Telegraph is much, much better than the awful Mirror and often more reliable than the Grauniad.
Some people wonder why the entire "mainstream media" is liberal; I wonder why the entire conservative media is so utterly indifferent to finding out the truth instead of pushing their partisan agenda. And then the answer comes to me.
And as far as whether right wing weblogs caused Jordan to resign: it's the combination of right wing weblogs, and the cowardice of Jordan's superiors at CNN.
*poll results show that U.S. conservatives consider C-Span less accurate and more biased than Fox. I ask you.