|
|
February 11, 2005
Eason Jordan ResignsJust 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. 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. 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
Comments
If his remarks were so easily misunderstood I think the tape would have been released by now, don't you? The tape should still be released so Mr. Eason can't be cast as the victim of the blood-thirsty blogosphere. Posted by: lezlies So Jay, gonna write about Jeff Gannon anytime soon? From the Brit side of the pond, it is now time for Nik Gowing to resign from the BBC for putting about similar slime about the US military. Eason Jordan's trip-up could well have stemmed from The US military that played a major part in freeing Europe, and has defended Britain and Europe for all the decades since WW2. Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 7:34 PM | Permalink "We'll always have Davos." Posted by: Van der Leun at February 11, 2005 7:37 PM | Permalink Poor Ollie. He watches the blogosphere win Rathergate and Jordangate, and all he has is Gannongate and (giggle) Humegate. I just doesn't get any better than this. Posted by: TomB at February 11, 2005 7:38 PM | Permalink Jordan says: "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists..." This is a total lie. Last November, he made the same kind of allegation: "Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1355027,00.html) Posted by: Bostonian To paraphrase a wonderful thing I found on some blog: Mr Jordan; I'd like you to meet my friend The Internet. Posted by: Bostonian Why are Jordan's comments such a surprise? Watch the DVD Control Room and you will see proof of his statements: (copied from a review of Control Room on Amazon.com) Editorial Reviews Posted by: blue_in_ohio at February 11, 2005 8:08 PM | Permalink gee Jay, are you proud of yourself? Perhaps you can get a picture of Jordan for your office with a target superimposed, and the word BULLSEYE! as the caption. you are pathetic. Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 11, 2005 8:11 PM | Permalink I'm a journalist (25 years in the trenches) and I have been following this stroy with great interest. A few things strike me that I haven't yet seen others pick up on. The "mis-spoke" defence is all very well, but if there's anyone who knows or should know how to be quoted, how not to be quoted and how to avoid being misquoted it's a journalist with Jordan's experience. If he were a "civilian" I could understand the "tempest in a teapot" view but this guy is a journalist who quotes people everyday. Ditto, for telling stories that CNN hadn't aired. If they hadn't broadcast the story about the Al Jazeera journo forced to eat his shoes, it's because they couldn't get people to talk about it on the record. A news executive can't go passing on those rumours in a semi-public forum. If the standard of proof wasn't good enough to get it on CNN, it 's not good wnough to discuss at a forum in Davos. Maybe at JOrdan's dinner table but not Davos. To me, these two mistakes are inexcusable coming from a news executive. And they are indeed grounds for firing or resigning. I still believe it would be better to show the tape because I think journalists can't possibly argue against that given the nature of the Davos forum. and I agree Jeff, that there's something very wrong about journos and power brokers attending huge "off the record" gatherings. Honestly, I would never agree to be off the record at such an event. Anyway that's my take -- inescapably bad errors of judgement. He had to go. Posted by: veteran journo at February 11, 2005 8:22 PM | Permalink Jay Others have commented that those of us with a service background - whether we lean right or left - are the ones most annoyed about so much of the media treatment of Iraq. The decency and bravery of most members of the coalition forces is seldom reported. Instead the media seem to delight in putting stuff like Abu Ghraib and the US Marine incident in Fallujah on a constant loop, endlessly repeating the stories and implying that this is general behaviour. This imbalance in reporting saps morale - and encourages the enemy. Members of the forces themselves want high standards of behaviour, they are proud of the discipline they normally exhibit even in battle. Eason Jordan's alleged statement was perhaps just the tipping-point. Incidentally - has anyone wondered whether the unwillingness to have the Davos videotape released might be due to the risk that Jordan could find himself being sued by military personnel ? If I was serving in Iraq, I would sure want someone to be exploring the chances of bringing suit. Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 8:23 PM | Permalink Eason Jordan has just been tire-necklaced by a bloodthirsty group of utopian, bible-thumping knuckledraggers that believe themselves to be bloggers but are really just a streetgang. Time Warner/CNN is spineless if not completely corrupted by its shareholders' thirst for petro-dollars. It is now clear that all pretenses to journalistic 'objectivity' benefit the torturing, gulag-building blood-cult known Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's Republican Party. All journalism must now be allowed to practice partisan advocacy, otherwise it is a pantomime, a bunch of mimics trying to reconstruct Cronkite and Murrow in front of a mirror that's no longer there.
Posted by: William Boykin at February 11, 2005 8:24 PM | Permalink Dear Blue and Dear P, Please obtain a large amount of sand, a funnel, and a sledgehammer. Enjoy. Posted by: Van der Leun at February 11, 2005 8:24 PM | Permalink Dear Boykin, Posted by: Van der Leun at February 11, 2005 8:26 PM | Permalink This is the worst possible outsome. All it does is harden positions and create a victim for a seige mentality, without addressing the issues implicit in those alleged remarks. I wanted the WEF tape, but I didn't sign the petition because it called for Jordan's ouster. Whatever the comments, had we seen them, we might have sidled up to a conversation about perception, confirmation bias, what a war correspondent thinks his job is and why doing it is worth the risk--all important things to talk about. Now, we're left with right-left and ashes. Posted by: alene at February 11, 2005 8:26 PM | Permalink Boykin, 1. Are you interested in knowing whether US troops have actually shot journalists deliberately? 2. If they have done so, don't you think the press should get to the bottom of it? 3. If they have not done so, do you feel it's OK for a news executive to claim that they HAD done so? Posted by: Bostonian Alene is being premature. Just because Jordan is out does not mean that the tape cannot be released. The two are and should be distinct issues. Now more than ever. Posted by: Van der Leun at February 11, 2005 8:33 PM | Permalink Alene, in addition to ashes we have Jordan's similar public remarks from November. Posted by: Bostonian alone, I think the tape will eventually come out simply because it's hard to see what grounds there are for opposing it. Posted by: veteran journo at February 11, 2005 8:36 PM | Permalink It doesn't matter what Eason Jordan said or didn't say; there's plenty of evidence that goes back 2 years, but only if you disbelieve the deceiptniks and their sycophants. The U.S. Military shut down hospitals in Iraq because they believed that injured Iraqi civilians are nothing but enemy propaganda. They are psychotic. Posted by: William Boykin at February 11, 2005 8:50 PM | Permalink Jay, Thanks for your coverage of this matter...I am sure it helped bring the issue to its conclusion. Posted by: stephen at February 11, 2005 9:00 PM | Permalink Thank goodness. Maybe CNN can begin trying to rescue its utterly shot, ruined, trashed, nullified, ciphered, disappeared reputation. Like a car with no wheels, or a shoe with no sole, or a house with no roof, a network with no trust is short a very critical component. Posted by: Buddy Larsen at February 11, 2005 9:00 PM | Permalink As the late, great A.J. Liebling pointed out, "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one." Blogging and online journalism has given new meaning to this... Memeorandum: Bloggers take another scalp? Posted by: Jozef Imrich at February 11, 2005 9:03 PM | Permalink 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. Van der Leun, I agree. In fact, Jordan's resignation may well mean the tape has somehow found its way out of the Davos vaults, will soon see the light of day, and CNN is simply bowing to the inevitable. Alene, left/right is not all we have. What I believe we have is an entirely new world in which the Rathers, Mapes and Jordans of the world can no longer get away with flagrant biases and untruths. Because people now have a way to respond. And that's a very good thing. And oh yeah, Boykin, was that you making goofy faces at the Lynne Stewart press conference yesterday? Posted by: Jon at February 11, 2005 9:16 PM | Permalink Aw, come on guys! Boykin's just satirizing like The Onion! No one in his right mind could actually believe such drivel as he typed! You're just kidding us, right? Boykin, right? Posted by: Earl T at February 11, 2005 9:23 PM | Permalink Now that Eason Jordan has resigned, I must clarify that my speculation that it would be an interesting turn of events if 1) a SEAL Team snatched Mr. Eason Jordan 2) tied him to a steel chair with both feet in a bucket of ocean water 3) used a Super DieHard on him in between mock executions until 4) he was dropped off without a change of underwear on the set of Fox and Friends Weekend Live! was in no way meant to advocate such events. My respect for the journalistic vocation is self evident, and I would be repulsed by such treatment of a well educated metrosexual big hair meat puppet infotainment executive, especially one who has such reverence for the US Military. Posted by: Dave Mac at February 11, 2005 9:30 PM | Permalink Earl, if you click on Boykin's link, you'll see where he's "coming from". Antiwar.com is perhaps one of the premiere anti-semitic sites on the net. I'm just amazed he was able to leave out any reference to "da JOOOOOOOOOZ". Posted by: Tom at February 11, 2005 9:33 PM | Permalink The CJR comes off looking stupid on all this ? Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 9:34 PM | Permalink sbw, I think this is the worst possible outcome - if we don't get the tape. Do you think Jordan expressed an idea, the military is targeting journalists, that he alone held? Was he seen as a spokesman for journalists who feel that way, even if it is untrue? Does his resignation improve the relationship between the media and the military? Does it make Jordan a martyr? Does it make those journalists that feel the military is "out to get them" less secure, more estranged, and perhaps more hostile? The tape, and Eason Jordan, would have allowed a full airing of this issue. Pull the skeleton out, shake out the paranoia, shake hands and go back to work. Jordan's gone. The idea remains. Posted by: Sisyphus Hey Tom: Antiwar.com is not anti-semitic in the least. It does contain writing which questions the apparent merging of Israeli and U.S. foreign policy, a debate which has not taken place in the so-called liberal media. Antiwar.com also does a great job in deciphering the strategically deceptive Perle/Wolfowitz/Kristol neo-con agenda, which is something your corporate media has not done. Why has this not been done? Because principled journalists live every day in fear of being labeled anti-semitic by bottom feeders like you and the Weekly Standard. People who question Israeli domestic and foreign policy are not anti-semitic. You people all operate under this misguided assumption that the corporate media has a liberal bias. It does not. It has a corporate bias. They are stenographers for the powerful. It is unconscious and ingrained and it is based on social fear. Posted by: William Boykin at February 11, 2005 9:48 PM | Permalink Sisyphus, read Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum". Just because you can map datapoints to history doesn't make your invented narrative true. It's very Capricorn to fill your brain's allocated worry-space with hypotheticals. Let's just get on with business. Antiwar.com is not anti-semitic in the least. Uh, yea. And the check's in the mail. So Billy, did you ever get all that money from that nice Nigerian fellow? Posted by: Tom at February 11, 2005 9:52 PM | Permalink Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily 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." Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 11, 2005 10:04 PM | Permalink Bill Safire: When infuriated by an outrageous column, do not be suckered into responding with an abusive e-mail. Pundits so targeted thumb through these red-faced electronic missives with delight, saying "Hah! Got to 'em." Posted by: Sisyphus at February 11, 2005 10:14 PM | Permalink Not a peep from Aaron Brown the "face " of CNN on his boss' resignation. He looks like his stomach is sour, then again, what else is new? Posted by: Dave Mac at February 11, 2005 10:20 PM | Permalink As other elsewhere in blogsphere have point out, there are a couple of possible reason Jordan resign: 1. Someone higher up in Time-Warner food-chain finally saw the tape, and realized that Jordan have place CNN in a indefensible position. 2. NRO have stirred up Congressional interest, especially Senator Coleman of the perminent Investigation Subcommittee. CNN really don't want to go there. Posted by: BigFire at February 11, 2005 10:24 PM | Permalink Steve Lovelady: The salivating morons... I tire of vague generalities. Names. We need names. Boykin, you do SO miss the point. The press has managed to do stories revealing all kinds of horrible scandals; it's their bread and butter. But the press has not been able to back up fables like Easons, and there's a reason for it. They are not true. And CNN knows his stories are not true. Hence the boot. Posted by: Bostonian at February 11, 2005 10:30 PM | Permalink Jay As I said earlier - the CJR is looking pretty stupid. First they published a really naive article on the Rather affair ((Cory Pein ?) that neglected to read the most important piece of forensic demolition of the forged documents by Dr Joseph Newcomer. Now Steve Lovelady is going berserk - after writing a really petty and incomplete review article. Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 10:41 PM | Permalink Jordan had better have a damn good reason for resigning. There comes a point when preventing your organization from being "unfairly tarnished" pales in importance next to more fundamental principles, and I think we've reached it. How do you stop a mob? Here's one suggestion: Another: I'm 85% sure this is true :-) Posted by: Anna at February 11, 2005 10:53 PM | Permalink Jay You are now reported by Howard Kurtz as saying you didn't think that Jordan had "engaged in a firing offence" How on earth do you come to that conclusion ? Absent the tape, are you saying he did not say what others allege he said ? On what grounds ? Or that even if he did, that was not a firing offence ? Really ? So it would be OK for any head of a news organisation to accuse the US military of widespread murder ? Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 10:56 PM | Permalink It's too bad he resigned. The accusation Jordan made against our military still stands and has not been addressed. For those who believe Jordan was telling the truth, he now becomes the poster child for 'persecuted journalists'. I wanted to get these accusations out in the open and have them examined, on a case by case basis, possibly by a congressional committee. 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? Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 11, 2005 11:00 PM | Permalink Don't you read the posts I write? Before Kurtz said it, I did. I told Howard Kurtz I was surprised and didn't know of any firing offense. Of course I haven't seen the tape. First of all, Jordan wasn't fired, as far as we know. He resigned. Under pressure? Probably. But it's entirely possible the biggest pressure was exerted by himself and professional pride. We haven't been told what the firing offense was, if there was one. The "how on earth?" stuff is just a lot of noise. It should be possible to ask a question without advertising your disbelief in advance. It's possible that if I ever view the tape, I will see a firing offense. Right now, I don't. There still could be reasons to toss Jordan overboard, or for him to quit, absent any "firing offense." Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 11, 2005 11:12 PM | Permalink OOOhhh!!! Jeff Gannon...his stint as a pseudo-reporter so compares to Eason Jordan's apologia for hiring Iraqi's who were to be tortured and then proclaiming and promulgating the rumor that US servicemen target journalists..yes yes so many similarites...AS IF. Posted by: cal-boy at February 11, 2005 11:13 PM | Permalink Now if we could just apply this new "one lie and you're gone" rule to our politicians... Posted by: Mark Gisleson at February 11, 2005 11:22 PM | Permalink Please...let's stay on target and topic. Why is Rony's original, professional report on Jordan's words and the subsequent lovefest from anti-American observers of such little interest or import to folks like Jay and the truly hysterical Lovelady? Why the lack of belief in either Dodd or Frank's first-hand recollection of Jordan's speech and behavior? Gergen gasped, we're told by all; Frank was incredulous, Dodd flabbergasted. The flustered Jordan backpedalled, stalled, retreated, advanced in a confusing manner--simultaneously repeating and modifying his language. Yet he happily took compliments for courage from his European and Arabic admirers in the audience. This much we know from eyewitness accounts. We also know the MSM circled the wagons to protect Jordan. The CJR did more than that; it actively attempted to debunk the story, slime the messengers and comported itself in a thoroughly unprofessional and disgracefully incurious manner. Anyone with experience in the media understands one important thing that trumps all others--Jordan wouldn't have quit had the tape acquited him or given him the slightest wiggle room for defense and/or apology. Especially after two decades of service. Please, don't insult our intelligence by pretending that his superiors haven't a clue about the content of Jordan's remarks, his intent or his previous impetuous assertions. He was shown the door because CNN knows precisely what he said; his exit prior to any MSM pressure assures that he is unambiguously a liability to the network's integrity. He was fired; the resignation letter is noblesse oblige for 23 years of service and provides a rather weak, tepid justification. Just parse the language: "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." Now who's responsible for the conflicting accounts? Jordan himself; or more precisely, the few members of the MSM not actually in attendance willing to defend Jordan. Everyone present agrees without conflict that the CNN jefe was rash, intemperate and accusatory--while providing no evidence of targeting of journalists. And not for the first time. There'd be no 'conflict' if he hadn't stonewalled, if he hadn't blocked the release of the taped evidence. I must say, however, the 'trenches' reference is amusing, given his cowardice on this occasion and his shameful coverup of Saddam's atrocities in order to secure exclusives in Baghdad. Had the MSM shown any courage following that stunning revelation, Jordan's resignation would've taken place years ago. Instead, incredibly, scandalously, he was given an oped column in the Times to defend himself and save his job. Moral? We can no longer trust the MSM to police itself. Posted by: John© at February 11, 2005 11:42 PM | Permalink Jay Your post says you told Kurtz you didn't know of any firing offence. (A remark in a very long post) But the Kurtz article says you told him that you "didn't think Jordan had engaged in a firing offence." Different wording. The first statement implies ignorance of what was actually said at Davos - fair enough, that has been your position. But the way Kurtz reported you might easily be construed as you suggesting that Jordan had NOT made the allegation. Which you say is not your position. So Kurtz misunderstood you, maybe, or you did not make yourself plain to him. Others coming new to all this might construe the Kurtz article as you suggesting that even if Jordan had made the allegation, it was not a firing offence. Maybe you can't you see those possible meanings in the Kurtz article. I bet others will. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17462-2005Feb11.html Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 11:50 PM | Permalink John c is more accurate- the MSM will not and cannot police itself. The mere attempt at spin is proof enough considering all we need is a transcript or video. Is that so tough for a MSM organization to dig up with hundreds of reporters? The MSM media becomes more like "The Onion" everyday. Sad really. Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 12:21 AM | Permalink My guess is Jordan was finished anyway, with the success of the Iraq election and the reelection of George W. Bush. CNN has been fully invested in a U.S. disaster in Iraq, thanks to people like Jordan... Some of us have known for years how MSM protects its own, but this unsuccessful attempt to protect Jordan clearly reveals that the old silence routine no longer works. It's just terrific the three senators on Kudlow were in the picture. Posted by: exguru at February 12, 2005 12:27 AM | Permalink From President Nixon on (and further back) I have wondered how much was missed Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 12:38 AM | Permalink Jay, as you know, I've been lurking. I'll de-lurk for just a moment given reasons that I hope will do more good than harm, though I may be wrong: With awareness that we live in a world of unclear moral choices, that hindsight is 20/20, granting every general philosophical defense, doing my best to phrase the following so it is not trivially dismissable partisanship, recognizing your essential humanity, and criticizing an action, not a person: I think you did the wrong thing!I believe your blog has passed a certain milestone. Not that you can't survive and thrive, not at all, by any means. But I feel extremely uncomfortable with the reward/risk ratio for participating nowadays. It's turned into a place where only the scorched-earth types can long endure. And it's not just the comment-trolls I mean by that. But as you said in your gem of a comment: "Perhaps he is wrong to feel that way; an argument can be made. It's sustainable. But still it is a loss." Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at February 12, 2005 12:38 AM | Permalink Look- you can debate whether we should scrutinize the entirety of all words spoken by people in positions of power or whatever. No one is contesting that really. The problem arises when the scrutinizers cry foul when it is turned upon them; thus we hear "freedom of the press" or "academic freedom" to avoid the pursuance of the truth or the deliberate hampering of bringing that truth to light. Jordan made comments which the MSM refused to even acknowledge(as per normal). We're just weary of it all, really. Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 12:50 AM | Permalink Sorry for using really twice. Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 12:51 AM | Permalink Sorry again-REALLY. Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 12:52 AM | Permalink "The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces," Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal." Guardian, UK 11-19-04 Where are those "true" reports? How are the remarks at Davos "a slip...a mistatement" given the fact he is already a true believer and on the record months before claiming "journalists...have been tortured by US forces." Now that's a story...how about a report on CNN on this journalist torture? By the way, Eason Jordan is on the board of the group he addressed in Davos...and fully capable of retrieving the tapes from his own organization any time he chooses. It's his call. And don't you think he's already done so by command of his bosses on the board at Time Warner? Your call, Jay; sceptical or naive? Can't play it both ways, as you tried with Kurtz; ignore Barney, Dodd and Rony...they were there! Not enough for you? How many sources did they need for Watergate? To pillory Bush at CBS? Posted by: John© at February 12, 2005 12:53 AM | Permalink Okay, Seth. Well, it might work better if you just write an Infothought post, "Rosen crossed a line" or something similar. Define line crossed. An invisible barrier, perhaps, but in your description we should be able to "see" it. Give some examples. You know, links. Analysis, of course. Blog it up. When you do "line crossed" criticism, the most important thing is to be able to say clearly about the crossing over: from what, to what? Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2005 12:58 AM | Permalink It has come full circle and now, amazingly, journalists have forgotten how to journal....darn that $120,000 education! Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 1:02 AM | Permalink Jay: YOU MUST TURN YOUR BACK ON THE SO-CALLED RIGHT BLOGOSPHERE. THEY ARE LED BY BLOODTHIRSTY TORTURE APOLOGISTS AND NARCISIST LIARS WHO CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MIRROR, A TV, A CAMERA, AND THEIR MOMMIES. THEY ARE AMERICAN IN NAME ONLY, A DISGRACE TO THE FLAG AND TO THE U.S. MILITARY. THEIR SOULS ARE DEAD, ESPECIALLY REYNOLDS. THEY ARE WEAK AND LIVE IN FEAR. THEY ARE 'WINNING' THESE WORTHLESS BATTLES BECAUSE YOU WASTE YOUR TIME PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM. STOP IT. THERE IS NO CENTRIST POSITION TO BE FOUND IN THIS ATMOSPHERE. Posted by: William Boykin at February 12, 2005 2:26 AM | Permalink Boykin -- how you so eloquently capture the very essence of the centrist position with such measured words of reason and balance. Until tonight, I did not realize that the state information ministry of North Korea, as well as Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al-Qaeda, were also centrist in their rhetoric. Thank you for enlightening me. -TS Posted by: The Sophist at February 12, 2005 3:26 AM | Permalink 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. "Sisyphus" wrote: 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.
Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 12, 2005 5:53 AM | Permalink The problem was not "the cover-up." The problem was, and is, that CNN's integrity is now suspect in the eyes of BOTH of the partisan audiences it serves: those viewers who dislike the US military will look at Jordan's weaseling and believe that CNN is pulling its punches. Those who fiercely defend the US military will now believe that CNN has it in for the military. Well done, Jordan. Posted by: thibaud at February 12, 2005 8:33 AM | Permalink In fairness to Jordan I can see Jay's point that he's trying simultaneously to defend his troops, assert the truth, and represent an organization that has a very large political dimension, ie appease different constituencies whose view of truth is diametrically opposite in this (and many other) instances. But it may be the case that the job as Jordan defines it is simply impossible. Can a global news organization that covers the middle east, the US military, Israel etc satisfy both the lukasiaks of the world and the mainstream US audience? I don't think so. Better for the viewers and readers to take every media report with more than a few grains of salt. And for the technologists to work harder to develop tools and technology platforms that will allow more news content to be developed, accessed, shared, stored and managed by more citizens. Let a thousand schools of news contend. Posted by: thibaud at February 12, 2005 8:40 AM | Permalink 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. Do you really believe what you wrote? Nobody was asking the network to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the allegations were true, they were asked to prove the authenticity of the memos. Something they were not even remotely able to do. Are you saying that if the video were released, and it exonerated Jordan, the blogosphere would claim it was faked?
Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 9:02 AM | Permalink Not just CNN's integrity's suspect. How do you take seriously the news organizations reporting Jordan's resignation over a scandal that they never covered? So he resigned over a non-scandal? Huh? If this was a non-scandal, then the story angle will have to be that Jordan resigned because of a witch hunt. Which will only distract us further from the crucial issue raised by this affair: CNN in moving beyond its original target market of US and multinational businessmen is now trying to tell two truths to two very different audiences, one (primarily US) that's favorably disposed toward the US military, and another (primarily European and arab) that's hostile to the US military and the Iraq War. Posted by: thibaud at February 12, 2005 9:13 AM | Permalink I had not thought about it, but when I read the flap over Jordan’s comments, I knew what he supposedly said was true. The right wing campaign to paint the MSM as being liberal bias and the conservative bias of most soldiers creates a situation in which the targeting of journalist is inevitable. The days of a journalist being one of the guys is gone. Did Ernie Pyle ever report servicemen killing prisoners or wounded enemy soldiers? I’m sure he knew about some incidents. It happens in every war. The broadcast of the American Marine shooting a wounded Iraqi in Fallujah is proof that the reporters in their midst are not one of them. Anyone who doesn’t believe journalists are being targeted, probably doesn’t believe that officers that were considered too risky or just too unliked came home in a body bag with an American bullet in their back. It happens. The shooting of the journalists at the Palestine Hotel and the camera man mistaken for someone with a hand held missile were probably unintended. I don’t know the story on the how the rest of the journalist were killed, but I would not be surprised if some were targeted with intent to kill. However, I don’t believe an investigation is in order. It would have a chilling effect on military’s ability to kill. War is not nice. Nice guys do not win wars. Bury the dead, say some words, and move on. The Necons have an agenda to keep and only four years to get us into something that will take decades to undo. Posted by: scout29c at February 12, 2005 10:07 AM | Permalink Lovelady is a devil of a male surname. Posted by: metapod at February 12, 2005 10:57 AM | Permalink It's probably been said, but the tape is probably worse than it's been portrayed. The evidence would be the reactions of participants from unlikely quarters--Barney Frank of all people being taken aback and honestly so because not in front of a camera and with no thought his reaction would be reported--and if you think about how the release of the tape with explanation would obviously have been the best defense for Jordan, as others have said, an easy path to quelling the ankle biters. If a man does something on tape and doesn't release the tape... what possible reason could there be? Posted by: Lee Kane at February 12, 2005 10:57 AM | Permalink There is another angle to this. Why does Jordan think the U.S. military is killing CNN reporters? One answer is that if he (Jordan) was in the military he would kill them because he knows CNN is on the enemy's side. This is why he was pushed out so fast. CNN really doesn't want anybody to start looking at CNN's conduct in Iraq. Posted by: Engineer The tape, and Eason Jordan, would have allowed a full airing of this issue. p. lukasiak: 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. The memos story is a good example, but a better one would be the Fallujah mosque shooting. Even with a tape plainly, starkly and unambiguously showing a US soldier shooting a wounded, unarmed Iraqi, the overwhelming reaction of the right wingers was to deny what was before their eyes and turn on the journalist who filmed the incident. If the Eason Jordan tape were released they would hear what they wanted to hear. I think Jordan's resignation was inevitable in this instance because no one in the media has come up with a successful way of dealing with blogstorm troopers yet. It will be interesting to see what defense mechanisms develop. Clearly, the status quo is unsustainable. TEX ...the overwhelming reaction of the right wingers was to deny what was before their eyes and turn on the journalist who filmed the incident Not at all. The reaction was that the video didn't tell the whole story and the the Marine was fully justified in what he did. The facts later confirmed that to be the case. Posted by: Engineer I had neglected the third school of thought on this, the scoutzge "It Happens" school, with the perfunctory sneer attached. Yet there are still those of us who would prefer to see the charges laid out clearly, with an evaluation of the evidence pro and con, in a, thorough, responsible, good faith manner. If the US military targets journalists for slaughter, then Congress needs to investigate and punish appropriately. Is it too much to ask of our media betters that they air and investigate this story instead of making offhand remarks that merely feed each side's conspiracy theorists and smirk-and-sneer brigades? Posted by: thibaud at February 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Permalink ..the video didn't tell the whole story and the the Marine was fully justified in what he did. QED The facts later confirmed that to be the case. The investigation is ongoing and the marine in question is still held off duty. Where do you people get this stuff? Engineer, my sentiments exactly. Why would Eason Jordan have to "defend his troops" if they were journalists seeking the truth? The problem is the journalists think they are as important as their subjects, and they send "troops" to achieve "objectives". The same network that considers GW Bush's National Guard service "newsworthy" in 2004 doesn't even smirk when Ted Kennedy mentions "waterboarding" as torture when it offers him a half hour with no opposition. I think Watergate was all about the hubris of the press, Clinton's impeachment was the watershed event that clearly marked their lack of ability to control the message, and blogs do not permit "gravitas" or other such Zeitgeist manipulations to stand for even an hour. In short, CNN and Eason Jordan were busted, and there are millions of new sheriffs in town, so get back to reporting. Tell me something I don't know, and make certain it is true. Posted by: Dave Mac at February 12, 2005 12:07 PM | Permalink "While not particularly emotional one way or the other about Jordan’s actual decision, I will say that this clearly was a case of blog-thuggery and unfair tarnishing, the kind of which I had spoken earlier in the week, and for which I was soundly whipped by Jim Geraghty of the National Review... ...When I see blogs being used in a way in which I believe American journalism will approach another step closer to being pure propaganda, I will say so. I’m saying so." From my comments at American Street today. Posted by: Jude Nagurney Camwell at February 12, 2005 12:13 PM | Permalink tex The investigation is ongoing and the marine in question is still held off duty. Where do you people get this stuff? And where did you learn that information? By the way, terrorists have no rights except those the U.S. military gives them. Since they are not under the control of a country that has signed the Geneva Conventions, we can do what we want with them as long as they are not US citizens. Posted by: Engineer "I think Jordan's resignation was inevitable in this instance because no one in the media has come up with a successful way of dealing with blogstorm troopers yet." I think tex said a mouthful with this one particular statement. I understand William Boykin's loudly-stated sentiment, but we certainly cannot turn our backs to it. We have to meet it dead-on, expose it for what it is, and weaken its freedom-crushing power. It's all about ethics. With reason and strength of conviction, we need to drown this right-wing machine they're calling "new media" in the bathtub. Even with a tape plainly, starkly and unambiguously showing a US soldier shooting a wounded, unarmed Iraqi, the overwhelming reaction of the right wingers was to deny what was before their eyes and turn on the journalist who filmed the incident. That is not even remotely true. The intial tape showed only a small portion of what happened, and, when viewed in the context that a "wounded, unarmed Iraqi" had blown himself up earlier, causing the death of at least one marine, the act is much more understandable. If the Eason Jordan tape were released they would hear what they wanted to hear. You mean "right-wingers" like Barney Frank, David Gergen and Chris Dodd? Are THEY making it up? I think Jordan's resignation was inevitable in this instance because no one in the media has come up with a successful way of dealing with blogstorm troopers yet. Maybe they need to ask Dan Rather, who, last time I checked, is still employed by CBS. But the bigger question is why Jordan found it necessary to resign if the vast majority of the MSM had yet to even report the story? Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 12:36 PM | Permalink blogstorm troopers BTW, I'm invoking Godwin's Law here. I win. Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 12:40 PM | Permalink Tom and engineer, This thread is trashy enough. I'm not debating the specifics here. The people who understand already know. I'm not debating the specifics here. Huh? How about the generalities? Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 1:02 PM | Permalink I'll close it down soon if the trash talking about unrelated episodes doesn't stop. And please: no Form 180 talk. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2005 1:12 PM | Permalink You mean "right-wingers" like Barney Frank, David Gergen and Chris Dodd? Are THEY making it up? Yeah. It's interesting how a lot of people who want to attribute the controversy to a right-wing attack machine don't acknowledge that the initial challenge to Jordan's assertions came from Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts. All the bloggers did was publicize what happened, call for the release of the video or a transcript, and complain that the MSM didn't think the story was fit to print. Even more interesting is seeing how putting integrity ahead of ideology is resulting in accusations of apostasy. It's kind of like watching a snake eat itself. Welcome to the right, Mr. Rosen. As you'll find, a party with enough intellectual room for Jerry Falwell and Rudy Guiliani to co-exist has enough room for you, too. ;-) Posted by: rosignol at February 12, 2005 1:25 PM | Permalink As soon as people on the right begin criticizing the White House for its information, propaganda, truthtelling, stonewalling and press policies, we can talk about "intellectual room." I haven't seen honesty like that yet, and I don't think I will. But one can hope. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2005 1:34 PM | Permalink Jude: "With reason and strength of conviction, we need to drown this right-wing machine they're calling 'new media' in the bathtub." You intend to "drown" speech you oppose? Posted by: Sisyphus Jay, you said of Dan Kennedy's assertion concerning Frank and Dodd, that it was a "much neglected factor". I disagree. Michelle Malkin interviewed both and their reactions were featured prominently. I dare say if it wasn't for Rep. Franks' initial reaction, this would have gone nowhere. And all the blogs I read emphasized that point. Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 1:54 PM | Permalink Jay: As soon as people on the right begin criticizing the White House for its information, propaganda, truthtelling, stonewalling and press policies, we can talk about "intellectual room." I haven't seen honesty like that yet, and I don't think I will. Snort. Chuckle. I have no truck for the White House approach. But why, Jay, do you suppose they might operate as you suggest. Let's see. Mendacity? That would be the easy answer of the unthinking. Been burned once or twice by MSM? Could be, don't you think? Jay, would you please rethink what you said to make a more constructive statement. Jay- the MSM uses any criticism or speculation BY a Republican OF a Republican ie McCain and beats our head with it 24/7(or should I say 365/24/7), whilst any criticism or exposure of actual events(ie Jordan in Davos or Rather or Kerry(unmentionable Form ###) of any Democrat or Liberal is simply ignored or downplayed(another vast right wing conspiracy!). The Dems attempt to nuance their way out of what average Americans see in everyday life as a sham is what is hurting them. The Dems need another "Sister Souljah" moment. Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 2:49 PM | Permalink Consider this view: CNN's simplistic branding lost. "Jordan's real job wasn't news as much as it was making "CNN: The Most Trusted Name in News". Branding that sells the impression is subtly different from trusted news itself." "With that in mind, it's easier to see that the blogging that undid Eason Jordan was less the persistent ankle-biting following Congressman Barney Frank's calling Jordan on his remarks at the Davos World Economic Forum that it was the constant drip, drip, drip of blogged but otherwise unreported news seeping underneath the facade to undermine the CNN brand. Internet-based alternative streams of information conveyed how narrow the CNN storyline was." Jay You suggest that some criticisms of White House attempts to manipulate the media would be in order. But they look no worse now than they have ever been. However, his side of the pond the media manipulation by Downing Street is far worse than I have ever known it - and I have worked in the Cabinet Office under Prime Ministers of both parties. The tradition of non-political departmental press officers has been jettisoned. It is deplorable. But none of this has any bearing on the Jordan affair. Many of us sensed that from Day 1 the reports by Rony have had the ring of truth, have chimed in with most other accounts, and have not been adequately answered by Jordan or the one or two people present at Davos who have defended him - without ever contradicting outright the charge in Rony's first report. I am surprised if people see this solely as a right-wing blogswarm. It could just as easily be characterised as a lot of decent people of differing political opinions taking grave offence at convincing charges that a very senior media exec had accused US troops of murdering a lot of journalists. You choose to suspend judgment. That is your right. Presumably you do not suggest that your stance is more righteous or worthy than that of people who have weighed the various available strands of evidence, including Jordan's previous statements which are not in contention. Posted by: JohninLondon at February 12, 2005 4:27 PM | Permalink 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. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at February 12, 2005 5:39 PM | Permalink Tom Grey I think you have hit on the reason CNN booted Jordan so fast. They DO NOT want people looking at their coverage of the war. If Mr. Frank starts hearings as he has mentioned he was considering, CNN's anti-American bias would be bare for all to see. I called CNN during the first Gulf war and the person that answered told me very firmly that they did not consider themselves Americans. I think they have proven that. Posted by: Engineer SOME BLOGGERS ARE THE SONS OF SENATOR MCCARTHY Sad conclusion in the Eason Jordan affair, sad day for the freedom of expression in America and sad day again for the future of blogging: the defense of the US army honor seemed more important to some bloggers than the defense of reporters' work (and sometimes life)! Posted by: bertrand pecquerie at February 12, 2005 6:51 PM | Permalink Tom Grey: "Guess Jay Rosen is happy, happy, happy to accept Saddam's standards of free press." When people speak of a right wing mob, Tom, they have you and your mentality in mind. Your wild, scattershot charges and over-the-top insults--like the one I quoted above--make you sound like a one-man mob. SBW: "Would you please rethink what you said to make a more constructive statement?" No. What I said was plenty constructive: it is the right's duty to criticize the Bush Administration and its information policies. There is no one left to reach the White House with criticism it might actually consider but conservatives and Republicans in the U.S., including influential right side bloggers. The basis for this "tough love" criticism would be Bush's telling remark on Jan. 26: "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda," he said. "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." There are many people ostensibly working for Bush who do not believe in the "own two feet" approach. That's why they put Armstrong Williams on the payroll, and plant softball questions, and have public relations people posing as journalists, and put up fake news sites to distribute propaganda. A responsible right side blogosphere would criticize anyone on the President's team who doesn't understand that "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." That kind of maturity is miles and miles away. All the effort is on vanquishing an all-but vanquished left, which is way more fun and creates solidarity. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2005 6:55 PM | Permalink 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: (first part) (second part) (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." Posted by: Katherine at February 12, 2005 7:12 PM | Permalink (BTW, I write the perspective of former journalist and blogger who has tried very, very hard to do actual journalism, with actual standards. I've been writing about "extraordinary rendition" since last January. It's had....I wouldn't say I've had no effect at all, but pretty darn close. No discernible effect. Though I haven't completely given up, just taken my efforts off line.) Posted by: Katherine at February 12, 2005 7:16 PM | Permalink Bertrand- McCarthyism has nothing to do with Eason Jordan and it isn't about hatred of him. You don't think that any questions about Bush have been raised since 2000?? All I hear on MSM is how Bush is the most evil thing in the world: all MSM is tainted with this affliction. Yes, the defense of the Army is at stake; a high-level journalist/executive of CNN accuses the Army of pre-meditated murder ie purposeful targeting of civilian journalists, and you are more concerned about the defense of the reporter's work?? P.S. The Blogospere has contributed a vast amount to the Populism in America today. Sometimes that "populism" falls into the Republican sphere, sometimes the Democrats sphere...that's just the way it goes. Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 7:34 PM | Permalink Katherine- do you not see that the majority of blogs/journalists you mentioned do not claim to be "objective". They admit to their partisanship which allows the reader to know what they are going to get, whereas CBS, NPR, CNN etc. ALL CLAIM TO BE WHOLLY OBJECTIVE (maybe your type of objectivity and that is fine) when in fact they are at best center left. The Right is beginning to "question the authority" and now we are told to shut up. And how is it possible to censor an executive making a million bucks or so? Something tells me Eason may have some friends in the "Corporate Media". Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 7:48 PM | Permalink Katherine, could you please explain exactly how the "blog noise machine" was able to force CNN to get rid of Jordan, when the story was for the most part ignored in the MSM? Do you really think they have that much power? If so, why is Dan Rather still employed by CBS? Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 7:50 PM | Permalink And let us remember how Trent Lott(no fan) was castigated by the MSM for at most making stupid innocuous birthday comments to Strom Thurmond which were parsed and speculated by the MSM to be racist...eason jordan made the comments he has been accused of-dont need to parse anything there but now they MSM is tell us not to "read anything into to them", or that he has 1st amend. rights(never questioned). Actually, the MSM was virtually silent on the matter. Look, if a person does something stupid my first response is not to ask their political affiliation.....is that where we are heading??? Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 7:57 PM | Permalink Jay: it is the right's duty to criticize the Bush Administration and its information policies. You're belaboring the obvious -- They get criticized where they deserve it. And that's with regularity. Jay: There is no one left to reach the White House with criticism it might actually consider but conservatives and Republicans in the U.S., including influential right side bloggers. Horsehockey. This HAS to be the academic equivalent of jumping the shark. Take a sedative, a couple of deep breaths, and try again. Jay: A responsible right side blogosphere would criticize anyone on the President's team who doesn't understand that "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet." No sh*t. But it doesn't have to pile on in that particular instance because Bush himself did. He had the good sense to get out in front of the issue. he's the one who said "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet". Doesn't that give it SOME traction of its own? Do you credit Bush for saying that? He didn't need to say it? Assholery is not the special province of one side or the other. It is where it is found. It was found on CNN. Don't jump on us for bloggers seeing it and responding. More than most were as measured as you were. Don't presume that the White House will get a free ride tomorrow. Katherine You may think that CNN International is a fine channel. The version I see in the UK is really poor - boring and often inexperienced talking heads, endless repetitive recycled items, brash glitter with little substance, a formular even worse than the BBC 24. It attracts very few viewers in the UK because it is beatedn hands down for relevancy by the 3 other 24-hour news channels. This is quite apart from the transparent anti-US stance it so frequently adopts. It is frankly irrelevant in the UK scene. If you really think CNN International is so wonderful, I think that calls into question your judgment about the Jordan issue. The CNN I see carrries a lot of sloppy journalism. And it looks like Eason Jordan is responsible for sloppy thinking - certainly for sloppy presentation. Posted by: JohninLondon at February 12, 2005 8:32 PM | Permalink [Off-topic Postscript] BTW, I shoot just as hard at the Right: 'We report. We decide: Junk Journalism". ... O'Reilly made an impassioned appeal to the prejudices and emotions of the populace, and that is exactly the definition of demagoguery. sbw: Your replies are too nasty and high handed to warrant a response from me. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2005 8:41 PM | Permalink Jay, Consider it retracted. I apologize. You may delete it if you wish. I'd be pleased if you did. Except I do think you should give Bush credit for "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet". I simply want journalists to journal. I understand that not everything can be related in a perfect objective manner. At this point, I think the hypocrisy of the Left is more hypocritical than the hypocrisy of the Right. If that makes any sense.... dont get too dialectical with that phrase please. Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 8:55 PM | Permalink Thanks for the retraction. I think when Bush said "our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet," it was the most serious and responsible--also truthful--thing he has ever said about press policy at the White House. So, yes, I give him credit for the statement, quite a lot in fact. It has not, however, characterized his Administration's approach. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2005 9:29 PM | Permalink 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. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2005 9:54 PM | Permalink Boykin should write for Leno or Letterman, because that's funny stuff! Posted by: idgit at February 12, 2005 9:54 PM | Permalink Jay- being a media guy that you are- do you think that journalism has gone too elitist, out of touch(meaning most journalists go to college as opposed to the old days-not insinuating that that was better), creeping Leftism or whatever..I dont know really what i am trying to ask and I am not trying to lead you. I guess what I am trying to get out : do you feel journalists today lead with their beliefs and biases and frame the story through that lens? BTW, Thank you for the forum! Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 9:56 PM | Permalink 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. Posted by: CK Amos at February 12, 2005 10:34 PM | Permalink No doubt there are those who can do a better job on this than, with my limited time and resources, can I: The legacy of Eason Jordan and his counterparts. Survey the wreckage and the solid reporting accomplished elsewhere is eclipsed. Survey the wreckage and what should the Bush White House trust? Survey the wreckage, and it is all that much harder to hold Bush's White House accountable for bad behavior for which they ought to be taken to task. 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. Others-- 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. Posted by: Katherine at February 12, 2005 11:43 PM | Permalink Katherine Posted by: cal-boy at February 13, 2005 1:39 AM | Permalink sbw, You're belaboring the obvious -- They get criticized where they deserve it. And that's with regularity." Is this a joke? The devil is in the "where they deserve it," isn't it? Can you point to a single policy proposal from this administration that was not presented to the American people in a fundamentally and essentially dishonest way? That wasn't supported by propaganda payola? That wasn't flakked by the $400 million dollar a year right-wing noise machine. THAT ACTUALLY STOOD ON ITS OWN TWO LEGS? ONE? And that was called for the BS it was on network news or at a major paper by anyone other than Paul Krugman at the time it was proposed? The media treatment of the social security debate may be something of a turning point, but the dishonesty is completely continuous with every other policy proposal ever made by this administration. The press is still the last to understand the bald-faced lying that goes into the administration's definition of politically correct speech codes they still cheerfully try to keep abreast of and follow as faithfully as they can (Not privatize, personalize, You can will it to your heirs, unless you can't, etc.). I take that back, Bush made the first constructive policy proposal of his four year administration in the state of the union address, more money for DNA test training in legal cases (no doubt there's a campaign donor tie-in). Can you name a second policy proposal by this administration in four years, etc.? Please provide links. Posted by: Mark Anderson at February 13, 2005 2:04 AM | Permalink For me, a simple 'I'm Sorry, I made a bad choice One part of being an Adult is when a mistake is sbw, Fake Reporter Unmasked at White House (Guardian) The extent of Gannon's links to an earlier White House scandal - the leaking of the name of the CIA agent Valerie Plame - also remained unclear yesterday. Gannon has been targeted for questioning in that case. Posted by: Mark Anderson at February 13, 2005 2:12 AM | Permalink I think the question you are asking, sbw, is: "who lost the adversarial (or watchdog) press?" Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 13, 2005 2:26 AM | Permalink Katherine, Posted by: Earl T at February 13, 2005 2:56 AM | Permalink I'm not a journalist. I was, really briefly, but I only had two summer internships and one six month paid job at the scrubbiest little community newspaper imaginable. I left the profession because I was pretty disgusted with the way they did things. I had been since I edited my HIGH SCHOOL newspaper, but I'd always assumed I could do a good job. I found that this was not so, even when I was the only full time news reporter at a dinky little weekly--in which case it would certainly not be true if I worked for a paper that people actually read. They do a bad job. But weblogs and talk radio and the right wing media, rather than doing a better job themselves, are actively trying to intimidate them into doing a worse job. The BBC is flawed; Fox is so much worse it is not comparable. The New York Times is flawed; the New York Post is so much worse it is not comparable. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter--all leave people believing more false things, and fewer true things, and hating their political opposition more, than when they turn the program on. If they have ever broken a real true story in their entire careers I do not know it, but they have told too many lies to count. Michelle Malkin has written a revisionist history that seeks to justify one of the worse things the U.S. did to its own citizens in recent history--and not only that, she fails to meet basic standards of historical research, as Eric Muller and Greg Robinson have shown in great detail. Again, people who read her book will believe more falsehoods, and fewer truths, when they finish than they did when they started. Don't go off on me about alternate versions of the truth, either. Funny how the relativists are more and more on the right these days. Posted by: Katherine at February 13, 2005 3:17 AM | Permalink Jay, It is a COMPLAINT about an adversarial press. From my perspective, it is editors like Stephen Waters that lost the adversarial press. What am I missing here Jay? Posted by: Mark Anderson at February 13, 2005 3:54 AM | Permalink Katherine, Posted by: Earl T at February 13, 2005 3:59 AM | Permalink Why is it that only the wingnuts see a vast liberal media conspiracy? Is it because they see crap like "fox news" as objective" and anything to the left of fox as "liberal"? Or do they recognize that fox news is right wing crap, an assume that we live in a dichotomous universe and assume that which is not right wing is therefore left wing? IF we had a liberal media, we would not be in Iraq right now. It was glaringly obvious to most progressives very early on that Bush was lying about WMDs (although we did not know the extent of the lies---personally, given the absolute confidence expressed by Bush and his lying cohorts, I figured they must have some hard evidence.) And if we had a liberal media, the worst president since Hoover would never have been re-elected. The "mainstream media" is a commercial media, it is driven not by ideology, or what is actually newsworthy, but by what will attract an audience. And a "liberal media" could only exist if the vast majority of American's were, in fact, liberal. The wingnuts love to point to surveys showing that majorities of one group or other in the news business considers themselves "liberal". They claim that this shows a political bias. Of course, it doesn't----journalists, like academics, tend to be liberal because they are trained to observe objectively, and think rationally, about their subjects. The inevitable result is "liberalism"---the smarter and better informed you are, the more likely you are to become a liberal. Those who demand "ideological balance" in newsrooms are demanding that the news be dumbed down even further than it is today. They are demanding that people who are incapable of objective observation and rational thought be afforded places in the newsrooms of America. Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 13, 2005 4:05 AM | Permalink Mark: Quick, tell us what powerful and influential news organization Gannon was with. Then, set up a pool to see how many people have ever heard of it. Posted by: RMcLeod at February 13, 2005 5:25 AM | Permalink RM, Gannon wrote attack articles on Daschle almost daily for a year. They were syndicated at GOPUSA as news items as an integral part of the GOP organization to oust Daschle (for which I am personally grateful). www.gopusa.com/news/2004/ july/0728_daschle_dem_convention.shtml Gannon articles were linked to by the GOP payola blogger working for Thune to defeat Daschle, Jon Lauck: http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001437.html That's the point, RM, it's a scam. You should be concerned that your elected president's press secretary was reading from the "Gannon is Guckert is a reporter" script and became part of the scam himself. The White House was involved in the process of enabling GOP political operatives to play journalists on TV. Is that cool with you? See the rest of this piece at my blog: Posted by: Mark Anderson at February 13, 2005 6:52 AM | Permalink It seems the Gannon/Guckert story did make the NY Times on Thursday. Here is the URL for the dKos diarists press release, the people who did most of the investigative work: Posted by: Mark Anderson at February 13, 2005 6:58 AM | Permalink Jay Any comments on this article by Michael Ladeen - especially on his comment that left-wing blogs and their comments columns are simply full of hate ? Now matched by Dean's "I hate Republicans". And therefore damaging to the Democrats' electoral chances. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050221/opinion/21barone.htm His conclusion, written before the Jordan affair, is : "So what has the blogosphere wrought ? The left blogosphere has moved the Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the credibility of the Republicans' adversaries in the Old Media. Both changes help Bush and the Republicans."
Posted by: JohninLondon at February 13, 2005 7:24 AM | Permalink Sorry - the article was by Michaael BARONE. Posted by: JohninLondon at February 13, 2005 7:25 AM | Permalink .... as far as I can see Daily Kos has made no mention of the Eason Jordan affair... What's the deal with Eason Jordan? Please note that almost 900 other bloggers have mentioned Jordan and the digital river is unprecedented ... Google engineers are amazed. Whos' Writing about Easongate? The Easongate blog has been created in light of Eason Jordan's recent statements at the World Economic Forum in Davos Posted by: Jozef Imrich at February 13, 2005 8:38 AM | Permalink tex Thanks for the Kos references. But they are hardly very full discussions of the matter - just brief attempts to brush off the criticisms. About 10 lines IN TOTAL of actual argument by the Kos writer, as far as I can see, over the week before the resignation. And NOTHING since the resignation. In other words - Kos has NOT given the Jordan affair any focus. "CNN boss resigns over allegations of sliming our troops - nothing happening here, move along please." Posted by: JohninLondon at February 13, 2005 8:54 AM | Permalink Jay Jack Kelly was one of the very few journalists to have written about Jordan. Here's a further Kelly article, suggesting the influence of legacy media is waning. His line is that they did not do much of the journalistic digging, the actual reporting, on the Jordan affair. The digging and the reporting was done mainly by bloggers. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05044/456368.stm So maybe the divide is no longer "we the legacy media report, bloggers only opine" - it is "we largely fail to investigate or report, so by default bloggers are doing much of the invetsigation and reporting" http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05044/456368.stm Posted by: JohninLondon at February 13, 2005 9:18 AM | Permalink "The "mainstream media" is a commercial media, it is driven not by ideology, or what is actually newsworthy, but by what will attract an audience. " HA. Let's talk about the Oil for Food scandal. We heard about it on the internet about a year ago. The press was SILENT until the summer. How do you explain that? Do you mean to argue that the media couldn't sell some papers with a story whose ingredients include an Enron-sized financial scandal, illegal behavior by politicians and wealthy businessmen, millions of innocent victims, and one megalomanical dictator? Geez. I'll repeat it: the timelag for the press to even mention this story was at least SIX MONTHS. *** "And a "liberal media" could only exist if the vast majority of American's were, in fact, liberal." ... or if there were no alternatives to that media. Alternatives have been growing for a decade, and yes, they are eroding the Old Media's circulation & viewership numbers. Viva the market! Posted by: Bostonian at February 13, 2005 9:19 AM | Permalink Katharine - while I sympathize with you regarding the lumpen quality of so much of right-wing talk radio and Fox commentary, it's not accurate to say that Fox's news coverage is "Fox is so much worse [than the BBC] that it is not comparable." The BBC's coverage of the US is as distorted and comical as Fox's coverage of Europe. The Beeb constantly elevates stories about idiotic celebrities, corporate thieves, and setbacks for NASA, Microsoft, Boeing, Intel etc-- in short, red meat for left-leaning amerophobes. And Germany's Der Spiegel is even worse. For that matter, the editorial line and the cartoons featured in Le Monde could have been lifted from Pravda ca. 1983-- no exaggeration. Perhaps the public deserves better, but I think this is a vain hope. News organizations aren't really any better than the people who write for them and edit them. Some of those people are brilliant, many less so; many have a very high regard for fairness and truth's complexity; some do not. Most importantly, many journalists today cling to the pretension of being above and beyond bias while retaining deep suspicions of the military, capitalism, and religion. My point is that rather than asking journalists to eb better than they are, we should encourage the development of technologies and processes for gathering, filtering, dispersing, discussing and refining the news so that intelligent and well-informed citizens can correct the errors made by their media betters. The current newsmedia product is a lot like Windows: error-prone, insular, reactionary. It's time we moved away toward an open-source model for newsgathering and reporting and comment. Blogs are a first step on this path. Posted by: thibaud at February 13, 2005 9:21 AM | Permalink Eason Jordan basically had a "put up or shut up" moment. He could follow through and get CNN to do stories on these deliberate targetings--in other words, stand behind his remarks and do his job. OR he could stop saying things publicly (to world leaders) that he could not document at a level of evidence good enough for a CNN news story. Ranters like Boykin above pretend that Jordan was being asked to prove himself in a court of law. Not so. Posted by: Bostonian at February 13, 2005 9:44 AM | Permalink Jay: I think the question you are asking, sbw, is: "who lost the adversarial (or watchdog) press?". Examine your phrasing. It presumes that an adversarial press is desireable, or even worthwhile, when actually, being adversarial should be incidental rather than primary. See: Inquiring or adversarial press. I expect this story to die now that Jordan has resigned. Like the fake memo story, once the MSM people were fired and Rather was brought down if not fired, the right wing bloggers had achieved their goal and no more was heard – except for the crowing and bragging. Who may have forged documents and faxed them to CBS in order to affect an election (a federal offence) or whether Bush got preferential treatment in the Texas National Guard are stories that go untold. Removing MSM people who will not go on the payroll is the goal of the right wing campaign against a free and objective press. I agree with p.lukasiak. A biasness exits in MSM but it is nothing so noble as partisan politics. It is corporate greed for readership and viewers and individual ambition for bylines or talking head positions. And of course the Holy Grail of journalism: the scoop. While I am not a reporter, I did major in journalism and do write reports, but they are economic analyses which involves my other major field of study. In the University of Alabama School of Journalism, ethics and objectivity was hammered into us constantly. If I thought a reporter could not consciously do a story with an objective point of view, then I would have to believe that lawyers can not represent anyone whose cause they do not agree and doctors can not treat enemy soldiers. Professionalism is attitude not a level of certification. A waitperson or clerk in a store can be a professional just as much as any credential professional with all matter of Greek abbreviation after his or her name. Professional journalism does exit. I have tried to see the liberal bias that the right wingers claim, but I just don’t see it. I have read about the Bush bias of Fox, but I don’t watch that network and I never liked Dan Rather since the days he was referred to as “Ratta-tat-tat,” so I can’t fairly judge whether the charges against them are true. Back to the subject at hand. While I don’t see the importance of viewing the tapes, what I do see as critical to this argument is the names of journalist who were targeted or collateral damage. The facts of the incidents surrounding their death would help paint Jordan as either someone crying fire in a crowded theater (one of ethical journalism topics we reviewed in school) as someone who has an inkling of a story. Posted by: scout29c at February 13, 2005 10:22 AM | Permalink Woops! Sorry Jay, I didn't turn off my stong html. What Bush was supposed to have said was, “My agenda needs two feet to stand on.” There was static in his earpiece and he misunderestimated what his handlers told him. The communication was monitored and recorded but is being kept quite by that radical left wing counter-conspiracy. Posted by: scout29c at February 13, 2005 10:26 AM | Permalink Mark Anderson, Please see Press Gaggle with Scott McClellan: Jeff Gannon Posted by: Sisyphus If Steve Lovelady's thinking of the movie version of "The Front Page", "His Girl Friday", he's got his facts wrong--it's Cary Grant, not Jimmy Stewart, who plays editor Walter Burns. Stewart plays a photographer in "Rear Window" but that doesn't seem relevant here. Posted by: Steve Gerow at February 13, 2005 10:45 AM | Permalink Actually John of London, what Michael Barone said was there is hate projected by right wing blogs too, but it is for the media. Your rendering--and this is what people mean by bias, isn't it?--has the left blogs as the haters, not mentioning the right. Barone: "The focus of hatred in the right blogosphere is not Kerry or the Democrats but what these bloggers call Mainstream Media, or MSM. They argue, correctly in my view, that the New York Times, CBS News, and others distorted the news in an attempt to defeat Bush in 2004." Did you catch that, John? The right focuses its hatred on the media, says columnist Michael Barone who is friendly to the Right's argument for why this hate campaign is necessary, and friendly to the right Blogosphere generally. I think he's right. The left hates Bush, true. The right hates the media, and it is acting out that hatred. It also has been disorted by its hate campaign. Look at your own one-sided and incompetent summary of a simple magazine article, John. Your hate is just, so it's not even worth mentioning that Barone wrote about it, too. All the haters of the media here feel totally justiified as far as I can tell. (After all, the Left hates Bush, and media is "left," so ...) You ought to be worried about the corrosive effects on yourselves. Barone spoke the truth. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 13, 2005 10:57 AM | Permalink Off the top of my head, journalistic standards: 1) Not printing false statements Posted by: Katherine at February 13, 2005 11:00 AM | Permalink scout29c I agree with p.lukasiak. A biasness exits in MSM but it is nothing so noble as partisan politics. It is corporate greed for readership and viewers and individual ambition for bylines or talking head positions. And of course the Holy Grail of journalism: the scoop. I don't agree. Most of the media has lost much of their customers because of their bias, but they refuse to change. Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined and sometimes more than CBS news. If they were after the money, they would go more right than Fox who is really in the center. After all, the election showed that there are a lot of people on the right. Posted by: Engineer Jay: All the haters of the media here... Jay, what seems to confuse is the generalization from explicit deplorable practices to the next level above it -- the media itself. The hatred of explicit practices within the media is spoken of as hatred of the media itself. That misrepresents the problem and makes it impossible to isolate, deplore, and correct what is wrong. Those who mischaracterize it as hatred of the media will see those who complain as misguided, and it will be more difficult to come to understanding of specific problems. Scout29c: If the press is being driven by The Scoop, then why, pray tell, did the press ignore the Oil for Food scandal FOR SIX MONTHS? Posted by: Bostonian at February 13, 2005 11:37 AM | Permalink Jay: Talk to Barone. Thanks. I sent him an email with my comment. It appeared from your post that it was a position that you supported. If not, I was mistaken. Will you guys please leave Mr. Boykin alone? Every one of his rants provides the blogosphere with the documentation and reminders demonstrating why his ilk are so out of touch with national and world events. And admit it, he's like Dean's "YEEAAARRRGGHHH". After your shock at the outrageousness of the act, you've got to burst out laughing at his obvious cluelessness. Isn't humor the personification of the absurd? We really need to keep him around for comic relief. Posted by: Tinker at February 13, 2005 11:55 AM | Permalink I think he's right. The left hates Bush, true. The right hates the media, and it is acting out that hatred. It also has been disorted by its hate campaign. Look at your own one-sided and incompetent summary of a simple magazine article, John. Your hate is just, so it's not even worth mentioning that Barone wrote about it, too. Why is it, Jay, that when sbw uses this tone on you it's "nasty and highhanded"? (Complete with "you take that back or I'm not speaking to you"--are you and sbw dating?) Was it not possible to bring up other points of the article without calling someone incompetent for mentioning one of them, or describing something incompletely? If you fail to mention some aspect of an article in future, do I get to sneer at you for being a hate-obsessed lunatic? (Hope these questions aren't too high-handed, professor, I would hate to rise above my place as a comment urchin.) I have a problem with MSM and its' coverage: please stop categorizing that as hatred. As I posted before, the MSM claims to be WHOLLY OBJECTIVE and replete with journalistic standards while blogs/talk radio tell you their partisanship up front. Posted by: cal-boy at February 13, 2005 12:02 PM | Permalink Katherine, your criticism of Fox (which I agree is awful) would have more punch if you could somehow distinguish it from the competition. How much of CNN's day is used up on punditry and other non-news? I would bet pretty close to Fox's. (Not even getting into how much airtime is burned up on simply repeating the same stories every hour.) And I doubt you believe that any of the mainstream television news orgs come near to satisfying your list of standards. The past year alone has shown it to be abysmal, and I think it is pointless to sift among the dung and say that Fox is a little more noisome and liquescent than the rest. Who cares? It's still all shit. It also doesn't help when you praise international press orgs without seeming to realize that they tolerate even lower ranges of quality. And National Review--less fact-checked than the magazine that employed Stephen Glass to make shit up? Katherine, you're not allowing anyone to take you seriously. Katherine, I agree with all those goals and standards. Who wouldn't? But I disagree with your statement that Fox is 70% opinion. Do you have support for that specific quantification? I don't watch Fox or any other TV news, but I am interested in how you singled out Fox so very precisely. And you did not offer an assessment of the other TV stations, which frankly weakens your argument. Surely their conduct is also interesting. As for talk radio, I have heard actual facts on talk shows, as the shows often revolve around the latest news, such as the Jordan story. It is not an "opinion" that Jordan resigned, for example; that is a fact. It is not an "opinion" that people have claimed he made certain remarks; those people did make those claims. It is not an "opinion" that Congressman Barney Frank called him out on it; that is a fact (and I have email from Frank to prove it!). It is not an "opinion" that there is a giant controversy here; the controversy is real. So that makes your "100% opinion" claim over the top. Your essay was perhaps meant as an editorial, but surely any specific claims therein should be supportable? *** Links are provided to all corroborating evidence or discussion, and there is a comment section if you believe they've made a mistake. Posted by: Bostonian at February 13, 2005 12:12 PM | Permalink Now, let's be nice. I am 200% sure -- nay, 400% sure that Eason Jordan's statement at Davos will be vindicated... as soon as he or some other intrepid journalist produces irrefutable evidence supporting his accusations. (Such as: sworn testimonies, video footage of assassinations, interviews with conscience-stricken soldiers and officers, eyewitness reports, autopsies of dead journalists with American bullets found in them, etc.) Real Soon Now, the story will break... any moment, the shocking scandal will be all over the news... hum-de-dum... any second now... Still waiting... I have faith... the truth will come out, to-morrow, to-morrow... la-la-laa... all good things come to those who wait... patience is a virtue... I can wait all year... -A.R.Yngve
Posted by: A.R.Yngve at February 13, 2005 12:18 PM | Permalink And Katherine, here are a few additional standards: Writing headlines that accurately reflect the content of the story. Not putting the statements of "the other side" of the story on page Z-12. Printing timely, prominent corrections, within the same section where the original story ran. Running stories in an appropriate section (I'm thinking of Jordan's resignation, reported in the entertainment section--hello?!). Avoiding use of all adjectives and adverbs unless their use can be defended in any argument. Using the most neutral nouns and verbs possible. I could make a huge list of words I have seen in NYT, Boston Globe, etc. stories that have no place in a news article. Posted by: Bostonian at February 13, 2005 12:25 PM | Permalink Jay I don't hate the media. I have enjoyed the press for 50 years - going back to the great days of the Manchester Guardian, which was certainly not on the right. I simply prefer a press that tries to cover ALL the significant news, that makes a distinction between news and opinion, that tries to respect accuracy, and that is willing to correct itself. I find that in the Financial Times and the Economist, for example. But I do not see it on CNN, and certainly do not see it at the BBC or at, for example. the LA Times. And I did not attempt to summarise the Barone article. I simply asked your comment on one aspect of it, the statement that many leading left blogs are based on hatred for Bush. That was not me attempting a summary. You set up a straw man there. I am surprised that you use words so loosely. nd that you accuse people here of being simply "haters" of the legacy media. You appear to dislike criticism of the legacy media - while contending that you are trying to discuss the interplay between legacy media and bloggers. Also, you did not respond to the conclusion of the Barone article - that left blogs have driven the Dems further left, whereas right blogs have undermined the credibility of the media. Posted by: JohninLondon at February 13, 2005 12:28 PM | Permalink The Left will vindicate him with book deals, TV apperances, a seat with Carter at the next DNC convention(and maybe a prime time speaking spot), and a bunch of 527 money simply because he did accuse the military of targeting journalists. He's endeared himself to the Left for life now. Now, his statement was false but who really cares about that...those nasty right wingers not understanding the 200 shades of nuance in his statement...havent those neanderthals read Foucault...the outrage!! Posted by: cal-boy at February 13, 2005 12:29 PM | Permalink Jay By the way, you ask for temperate comments here. But you feel free to accuse me of providing an incompetent summary of Barone's article. I did not provide ANY summary of the article. Maybe the work incompetent should be pointed elsewhere ? Posted by: JohninLondon at February 13, 2005 12:34 PM | Permalink Hugh Hewitt's book "Blog" has been selling very well, and has been widely discussed. So the LA Times finally gets round to reviewing it. They somehow could not find a senior journalist or academic or politician to discuss the blogging phenomenon. Instead they chose a total dilettante. Google the name Michael Standaert and have a good giggle at the vacuity of the stuff he publishes. I suppose this is par for the course for the LA Times in its decline. Their coverage of election year was appallingly incomplete and biased
Posted by: JohninLondon at February 13, 2005 1:46 PM | Permalink John: You asked me if I had any comment on the Barone article and you proceeded to characterize that article, emphasizing what it says about left wing hate, avoiding any mention that Barone talked equally of right wing hate-- for the media. That is what I called incompetent. It refers to something specific said, not to what you are. Would you prefer that it be called unfair? How about intellectually dishonest? But it's silly to argue about words this way. Let the fair-minded judge for themselves. Here's John, here's Barone. Did John go out of his way to avoid mentioning right wing hate, while emphasizing left wing hate? I say he did. It's not that it's a big thing. It's the opposite: a small thing that speaks to an attitude. By the way, John, why did you avoid mentioning Barone's conclusion that "the focus of hatred in the right blogosphere is not Kerry or the Democrats but what these bloggers call Mainstream Media, or MSM." Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 13, 2005 2:11 PM | Permalink It isnt hatred..move on..stop bandying that word around. It is pure disagreement on certain issues. Posted by: cal-boy at February 13, 2005 2:28 PM | Permalink Also- It isnt hatred of Eason Jordan and no it isnt some McCarthy witch hunt- it was EJ who made the McCarthyistic charges against the army...how ironic. Posted by: cal-boy at February 13, 2005 2:34 PM | Permalink I wonder, also, if any of you defenders of the military honor against Jordan's outrageous statements are upset at all, or find it the least bit outrageous, that media hater and military defender Tom Grey said in a comment in this thread that he believes US soldiers probably did deliberately target journalists, whom they justifiably saw as "the enemy." After claiming that CNN "has been on Saddam's side since the Gulf War," an outrageous statement in itself, he writes: 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. How do you read that passage? I read it as saying: soldiers are smart, they know that journalists who are unembedded with the U.S. are, in fact, the enemy (just as CNN is Saddamist) and well worth killing-- which is "prolly" what happened, he thinks. According to Tom Grey, the soldier decided to fire thinking he was firing on an enemy journalist. Meaning: a journalist who is an enemy of the mission. That's a lot more explicit than anything Jordan said, and Jordan's comments have been called a vicious slander against the military. Plus, Grey's are in writing, clearly intentional. Not a peep about it from anyone in this thread, though. So when someone who hates the MSM--and thus is on the "right" side--says U.S. soldiers kill journalists knowing they are journalists it's okay, and not worth a mention? (I'm just asking.) Media hate distorts the haters. I can hear the reply: Eason Jordan is chief news executive of a global news network. Tom Grey is some guy spouting off in a comment thread. True. Meanwhile, "William Boykin's" angry "necklace" comment, also from this thread, is all over the Internet by now. Tim Blair has it, for example.) He's just some guy spouting off in a comment thread, too. But there's interest in what he said. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 13, 2005 2:55 PM | Permalink They are both idiotic statements without any proof. But, yes, EJ is a high ranking executive at CNN which garners a slight bit more interest than Tom Grey(?) you would have to admit. It is nice to know though that Tom Grey gets as much MSM coverage as EJ for saying the same thing. Posted by: cal-boy at February 13, 2005 3:06 PM | Permalink I ignored "Tom Grey's" reprehensible remarks, just as I ignore "tex's" and lukasiak's reprehensible remarks. But Eason Jordan is not someone who should be ignored. Posted by: thibaud at February 13, 2005 4:00 PM | Permalink What do you want, Jay? Ritual denunciation of every crackpot who comments in your weblog? Good God, we'll be here all day. If Boykin is getting special attention it's probably because he went the extra mile to flavor his rantings with totally over-the-top language. Saying CNN was on Saddam's side is just boring drivel that misses every worthwhile point. "There's interest in what he said." No there isn't, he's just another malcontent good for a few laughs. Blair throws the quote in a final update and the only reference to it in the comments is someone who obviously got a chuckle out of it. The implication of your words is that now the "blogosphere" is up in arms about it. Get real. You're also misrepresenting Barone by summarizing the piece as right wing hate vs. left wing hate. Yes, he talks about Bush hatred and media hatred but you are grossly oversimplifying his point. As I read him his point isn't that two groups each hate something, it's that left and right weblogs aren't even playing the same game. The left is amusing itself with self-intoxicating orthodoxy that damns it to minority status while the right is crusading--effectively and with some justice, Barone implies--against an adversary that distorts its views. John quotes Barone's conclusion in full. "I can hear the reply"--no point in having a comments section then, just post your mind-reading over our names. Saying "we're not objective" is no excuse for the complete lack of standards, fairness, accuracy, context, and corrections on most weblogs. This is a steaming pile of horse-hockey. Most weblogs LINK TO THE MATERIAL THEY'RE COMMENTING ON. They do this so that the reader can go and see the original material for themself, in it's original context, as the one presenting it intended for it to be seen. How do you come to the conclusion that this is unfair, inaccurate, or lacking in context? It may be impolite, rude, and/or offensive... but those are not the complaints you made. Posted by: rosignol at February 13, 2005 4:15 PM | Permalink Uh huh. And why are the "necklace" comments from "William Boykin," taken from this thread, all.. over... the Net...while the "soldiers target journalists" comments from the same thread don't warrant a mention from anyone? Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 13, 2005 4:15 PM | Permalink By the way, if I had been Barone's editor I would have sent it back for revision. Barone makes a number of points that I don't think are quite supported--but he's writing for a newsweekly, so what's new? They often prize pithy summaries over good analysis. For a list of journalist killed in Iraq go here: Political Calculations: Eason Jordan's Claims I left the following comment at the site referenced above, but have expanded on them here. To judge what Jordan said we need to know the stories of the journalist killed in action in Iraq. Is there legitimacy in Jordan claim or is he some sort of McCarthy-like character waving a sheet of paper claiming he has a list of communist in the State Department. When I first heard Jordan’s claim, it was an “aha moment.” I had not thought about it, but the idea of soldiers shooting the embedded journalist seemed so overwhelmingly plausible that I thought it had to be true. Given today’s military has a conservative slant (maybe it always has) and the liberally labeled MSM, I could see journalist showing up at MASH units – like incompetent officers – with an American bullet in their back. But to be sure, I needed to know just which journalist was Jordan talking about – or not talking about; I understand what was said and not said is under discussion. And so I went Googling, collecting names and histories, and then came to your [Political Calculations, see above] site which had the list already done for me. But after looking at your list, I was wrong in my assumption. It’s not the first time; I believed Bush when he said he was against nation building and I thought for sure there would be WMD once the US went into Iraq. It’s not a case of American soldiers shooting American journalist in the back. No, many of the casualties listed here were not behind the American front – which in Iraq may have only been a platoon deep. To be in a city that is being invaded is to be in harm’s way and anyone who remains has to bear the consequences. I was against the invasion, but if the military is going to fight, it has to have weapons free. I hate what the Necons are doing to the greatest army in the world, but the army must fight war the best way they know how and with the limited resources the current administration will allow them. Many of the casualties listed are certainly collateral damage. A man holding a camera appears very much like a man holding a rocket propelled grenade or some similar device and a soldier has less than a second to determine which is which. I’d err on side of staying alive. War has always been and will ever continue to be hell. If those killed journalist listed are the majority of the twelve Jordan was referencing, then his comments were irresponsible given his position and he should have resigned. Posted by: scout29c at February 13, 2005 4:31 PM | Permalink Jay: You must not be trying to seek the approval via 'objective analysis' of people who support torture and death squads. Even if everything Eason Jordan said was objectively proveable by any scientific standard, he'd still be forced to resign because the blood-thirsty right-wing scalp-hunters like Reynolds and Hewitt are supported in their bloghunt by a huge media apparatus. So stop interacting with them please. Posted by: Otto Reich at February 13, 2005 4:53 PM | Permalink The blogosphere is really too hard on William Boykin. Despite the ranting, he seems to have a point. Maybe we should speak out more against the U.S. torture policy. Posted by: Geoffrey Miller at February 13, 2005 5:10 PM | Permalink "I don't watch Fox or any other TV news, but I am interested in how you singled out Fox so very precisely. And you did not offer an assessment of the other TV stations, which frankly weakens your argument. Surely their conduct is also interesting." MSNBC and CNN? Off-hand I'd say 50% opinion at least. TV journalism in this country is dismal. Posted by: Katherine at February 13, 2005 5:42 PM | Permalink Well, first I would like to thank scout29c for referencing my earlier post regarding Eason Jordan's claims - I really only did what a good fact-checker should do, and the fact that numerous professional media organizations had already done the basic work made my job easy. I should also point out that several other blogs did similar fact-checking too. The real issue to me though is the organizational environment in which the major media organs operate. A lot of time is spent in MBA schools in looking at organizational behavior, especially in understanding how people will make decisions within their work culture that, if they had been challenged, would have averted the disaster that befell them instead. It seems to me that until the various discredited newsrooms focus on changing their environments to allow their employees to be critical in the practice of their profession (meaning being free to effectively question their peers and superiors' news judgments without fear of personal or professional reprisals), that we will not have seen the last major media scandal to arise from within what has become the newsroom's cultural echo chamber. The air is very strange today. Apparently, to make a point, you must be politically correct enough to cover all the other bases at the same time or you are perceived to belong to one wing or the other. That's silly. One's point is not negated by failing to mention all others. And are we to blame if Tim Blair snags one excess of trollery to trumpet? How are we to stop Boykin or Blair except to ignore the excess or denounce it. Trolls, as you know, thrive on denunciation. Any attention to them is good attention. As far as more people Boykining than aghast at Jordan's assertion, we have not been addressing Jordan's accusation because, as far as we know, Jordan has offered nothing to substantiate it. As far as the generality, it is not being swept under the carpet. When it is more than a feeling, the issue will get legs. Still, war is war, and a nasty place to be (which is why I'm ticked at a U.N. that does not value liberty). Jay, you seem very frustrated today, but the comments you make that express your frustration, really aren't coming across clearly. Please try again. (I also don't know what to call the fluff stories like all the celebrity trial meshugas.) For what it's worth, if you want to know what I've tried to do and wish more weblogs would here's the stuff on extraordinary rendition. (Sending suspects to Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other countries that torture people for interrogation--there was a big New Yorker story on it recently.) Unfortunately it only makes sense if you read the posts in backwards order--start from the bottom and scroll up. There's not actually much original reporting; it's just putting together public domain sources in a single place. There's opinion and speculation in there, but it's clearly designated as such. Posted by: Katherine at February 13, 2005 5:47 PM | Permalink Jay, Tom Grey, your comment is outrageous, and wrong. Ann Coulter's remarks were equally unhelpful. [also at NRO] Please don't think you're defending anyone's honor with such commentary. Posted by: Sisyphus Jay, let's not move the goalposts. Jordan used the word "targeted." That means that it was official policy to kill reporters. It would be in the ROE. Now, I don't believe that at least one GI would not have come forward if his ROE said that. Jordan knows, or certainly should know, what the military means by the word "targeted" and used it in the same way when discussing the military. Now, did some GI shoot a reporter because he thought that they were an enemy? I have no clue. But this is a very different question than what Jordan is reported to have said at least two times. Posted by: Engineer Eason Jordan: "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." Bloggers:"For me, a simple 'I'm Sorry, I made a bad choice in what I said.' from Mr. Eason Jordan would have been all that was needed." "The accusation Jordan made against our military still stands and has not been addressed." "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?" Ad nauseum. Or did I miss something?
Posted by: SuzeC at February 13, 2005 5:58 PM | Permalink Withdrawing statements that you have not acknowledged nor allowd others to "hear" is not what I would think most newsman would accept. Posted by: Ginny at February 13, 2005 6:11 PM | Permalink The same standard(s) that the MSM applies/applied to Repubs or conservatives over the last 30 years or so is now being applied to them and now they cry foul! I dont understand this rock-star status given to someone with a journalism degree- somehow they are the purveyor of what is to be discussed or disseminated in our society as if they are the end all of knowledge. Oh! dont criticize a journalist who libels our military or a fake university professor who lies about his "ethnic" heritage- who the hell are you, you right wing nut(or to put it in otto's words-bloodthirsty right wing scalp hunters!). I actually like that- despite the fact that I have REAL Indian blood in me. Peace out dawgs! Posted by: cal-boy at February 13, 2005 6:12 PM | Permalink Fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined and sometimes more than CBS news. If they were after the money, they would go more right than Fox who is really in the center. After all, the election showed that there are a lot of people on the right. While the legitimate media struggles with the conflicting priorities of practicing journalism as it should be practiced, and practicing "journalism" in pursuit of audiences, Fox is "successful" because it really makes no pretense of covering stories fairly and accurately. Instead, Fox panders to the worst instincts of the dumbest people in America. It certainly came as no surprise to learn that people who got their "news" from Fox were overwhelmingly misinformed on virtually everything having to do with the war in Iraq. The sheer ignorance of the average Fox viewer is sufficient evidence to dismiss the claims that the "mainstream media" is biased. Of course conservatives think that the mainstream media is "liberal", they get their news from Fox, right wing talk radio, and the Moonie Times. Their frame of reference is so completely warped----their inability to differentiate between fact and White House spin is so overwhelming----that they can't be expected to play any kind of role in any serious discussion of media bias. Ultimately, that is where Jay Rosen "crossed the line" --- he took wingnuts like Hewitt seriously, rather than recognizing that Hewitt is too damned resentful of people who actually know stuff to be regarded as anything but an idiot. Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 13, 2005 6:13 PM | Permalink Withdrawing statements that you have not acknowledged nor allowd others to "hear" is not what I would think most newsman would accept. then you don't know jack shit about journalism. but then again, I doubt if you've ever written anything that suggest you did have a clue on the topic.... Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 13, 2005 6:16 PM | Permalink No, Suze, I think you're on top of something. Sbw: Maybe you're right, and we should draw a line under this thread and start a new thread-- fresh, as it were. But yeah, I do express my frustrations sometimes in comments. I try to put ideas in with them. Doesn't always work! In this case, I'm not calling out individuals and saying, "did you speak this way?" No one has to speak anyone's way. There's no admission ticket. I am drawing your attention to the fact that among all free speakers here, no one replied to Grey, or even noticed that he agreed, from the right, with Jordan's alleged claims of targeting. That's it. If you follow the politics of an issue--any issue--such moments are worth paying attention to (when the two ends touch.) How does claim X become a claim Danny Schecter and Tom Grey converge around? Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 13, 2005 6:17 PM | Permalink You are doing great Jay! Keep it up! To p.lakasia- what is your educational background, life experience, etc. that enables you to discern and evaluate the average Fox viewer and automatically know their intelligence and their warped-ness? Dissent from your point of view is treasonous- which gas chamber do you wish me to proceed to? Posted by: cal-boy at February 13, 2005 6:33 PM | Permalink Jay, could you please explain these comments you made in the Blog Storm Trooper post: "I am just trying to slow down your understanding so it might pick up more of the track...That's why half of you come here. to slow your own conclusions down."? Posted by: paladin at February 13, 2005 6:43 PM | Permalink Ms. Camwell's comments above and elsewhere gave me a good snort of disbelief. But her statement that "It's all about ethics" — with which I agree — prompted me to take another quick skim of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. Mr. Rosen, I'd be interested to know your assessment of how well or poorly both Mr. Jordan and the MSM adhered to the following items from that Code, which dictate that journalists should —
Sisyphus, I'll be surprised if we get farther than another pass from the press for an administration that presumes it doesn't have to answer questions about its policies because it won an election by further misrepresenting the policies it refused to explain in principle all four years it was in power. Posted by: Mark Anderson at February 13, 2005 7:14 PM | Permalink My first comments on PressThink, about the time of Bloggercon Boston, were in staunch defence of traditional media. Hell, I am traditional media, however small. Telescope forward to today, and I have many specific objections to major media, in particular ALL the major TV network news outlets -- and yes, that includes Fox. It is entirely distracting to have commenters on both sides try to frame "Right" or "Left" as if point of view dictated a particular villainy. The underlying bad practice stands apart from political persuasion and any attempt to characterize it as a fault of persuasion undercuts journalism as a whole. The problems of journalism stand apart from politics. The problems of politics stand apart from journalism. And too many who posture otherwise are cluttering up comments. Okay, thanks everyone. At 190 something posts, this thread has done its job. New Post: Will Collier E-mails With a Question "And I ask one back: Is the point to have a dialogue with the MSM or cause its destruction? Please advise." Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 13, 2005 7:21 PM | Permalink |
|
Print![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://archive.pressthink.org/nav-commenters.gif)
