EJR V: Big Media Finally Bites

Please see the Easongate category for the complete background on the developing Eason Jordan story.

See all the latest information below.
——————————————————————————————–

If anybody’s looking for Eason’s Fables (coined by Captain’s Quarters), here it is.
——————————————————————————————–

It took a few days, but major newspapers are finally covering the Eason Jordan story. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who wouldn’t take an Eason Jordan question at his webchat yesterday, writes the story. He quotes Rep. Barney Frank and journalist David Gergen, who both heard Jordan say that American troops were targeting journalists. What Frank says is particularly damning and damaging to Jordan and CNN:

At first, said Frank, “it sounded like he was saying it was official military policy to take out journalists.” But Jordan later “modified” his remarks to say some U.S. soldiers did this “maybe knowing they were killing journalists, out of anger….He did say he was talking about cases of deliberate killing,” Frank said.

There you have it. Just as we thought, but now it’s right there on paper. When I first heard about Jordan’s statements, I could almost picture him saying it, and I knew that he meant to convey this meaning: It was some sort of unofficial policy to “accidentally” kill journalists because the warmongers hate journalists, especially those exposing their warmongering deeds (including taking photos of terrorists with panties on their heads) to the world.

Barney Frank is a liberal and no friend of George Bush or supporter of the war in Iraq, but I believe him. And it’s not because I want to believe him. I already suspected that Jordan indeed said what he was accused of saying, and that he meant every word it. As an anti-war liberal who hates Bush, he probably wanted to say the most shocking thing he could think of, that Bush’s warmongering military was trying to squelch freedom of the press by doing away with the press.

Of course I couldn’t say that because I would’ve been not better than Jordan. He should be ashamed of himself especially for uttering such slander in front of an international audience of other influential people, and with no proof.

Back to Kurtz. He quotes Jordan’s canned response, the one where he tries to parse words and change his original statements. Some man Jordan is. He still won’t admit that what he said was stupid and slanderous. BBC World Services Director Richard Sambrook tries to back Jordan up:

BBC World Services Director Richard Sambrook, in a note to New York University journalism professor and blogger Jay Rosen, said Jordan was objecting to the phrase “collateral damage.”

“He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists, although there are others in the media community who do hold that view (personally, I don’t),” Sambrook wrote. “They had been deliberately killed as individuals — perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don’t know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion.”

Then why did Jordan say journalists were TARGETS? Sorry, Sambrook. Your response is as weak as Jordan’s non-response.

Notice something very important here. Journalists with access to sources we don’t have are turning to bloggers for information. Hugh Hewitt predicted that more blog swarms and blog citations like this are on the horizon for Big Media, as well as corporations, sports teams — whatever bloggers are blogging about should interest anyone trying to sell a product. He warns businesses, schools, the media, etc., about swarms and advises them to start blogging themselves to protect their brand. These entities must start reading blogs if they don’t already, and for the same reasons, they should set up blogs.

Kurtz quotes Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot:

Why would Arab members of the audience come up and congratulate him for having the courage to speak the truth?” asked Jim Geraghty of National Review Online. “One of the most senior news execs in the world tells a crowd of dignitaries from around the globe that the U.S. military targeted a dozen journalists for death, and there is no [mainstream media] coverage of that?” wrote radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt. Edward Morrissey of the Captain’s Quarters blog [The Post didn't link to these bloggers, which is another issue I'll address later, so I linked to them.] urged his senators in Minnesota to hold public hearings “to establish once and for all whether the U.S. military has a policy of assassinating and torturing journalists, in Iraq or anywhere else, and correct the terrible damage Mr. Jordan may have inflicted on our image abroad.”

A reader brings up an interesting point. The bigger issue is CNN’s anti-military, anti-America coverage to begin with. Eason Jordan is just a cog in the machine:

Ma’am,

I can’t help but note that during the current Easongate scandal, most attention has been focused on Mr. Jordan’s bias and how it might effect the way CNN presents the news. While this is important, I think too little attention has been focused on the pre-existing, anti-military bias that existed at CNN prior to Mr. Jordan’s arrival. CNN ran with the very anti-military, very false “Tailwind” nerve gas expose, Peter Arnett reporting, which they eventually had to retract. CNN was more than eager to run a story which damned the military even though a thorough journalistic vetting eventually showed it was an egregious lie.

One question that should be asked in this investigation is whether Mr. Jordan was hired at CNN specifically because he fit into a pre-existent, anti-military agenda there. As it stands now, bias is posited regards Mr. Jordan but not necessarily CNN. If Mr. Jordan takes the fall, it’s back to business as usual at CNN. One bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole
bunch and all.

The fact is that it’s quite possible that Mr. Jordan was brought aboard at CNN just because they knew his beliefs were consonant with their own and that he would steer the ship in the direction they wanted to go. I suspect that institutional, instead of individual, bias is the real story here.

Sincerely,

rcl

I agree. And to get to the bottom of it, to push for congressional hearings, letter-writing isn’t enough. It will take more blog swarms to finally crack Big Media’s wall of silence and show people what the founders really meant when they wrote these words: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press…”
——————————————————————————————————————————

Responses to Kurtz’s article: Captain’s Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Easongate, Hugh Hewitt, Roger Simon, The Sundries Shack, Myopic Zeal, Daddypundit, JunkYardBlog, Villainous Company, QandO Blog, Power Line…

Did you respond to Kurtz’s article? Trackback and I’ll link to your post.

By the way easonsfables.com, is for sale. Somebody bid!

For the record, I posted a link to Mick Stockinger’s post about a French translation of commentary on February 6, but Rodger does have scoop on this: a response from Justin Vaisse, who wrote about Eason Jordan.

Additionally, if you have an exclusive news tip, I’ll gladly post it. I’m tracking all the big players, so there’s no need to Cc me on the e-mails.

Addendum: Check out this cool shout-out from Scrappleface.

I know we’ve raked Jordan over the coals, but he deserves it. A reader points out something I hadn’t thought of before:

I have two questions that are bugging me….1. If US troops were targeting journalists why are there any journalists alive?….2. If US troops are targeting journalists, isn’t Eason Jordan sending them to their certain deaths by sending them to Iraq?….Only conclusion I can come up with is that US troops aren’ttargeting journalists….That couldn’t be true, could it?John D.

If troops are killing journalists, Jordan bears some responsibility if he knows they’re being targeted, does he not? He should keep his mouth shut about such things unless he can prove it. Speaking of which, guess who Ankle Biting Pundits picked as Buffoon of the Week?

The Boston Globe, the anti-Bush newspaper that was the first to jump all over CBS’s phony memos, has condescended to write about the Eason Jordan scandal. It must have been painful. No time to break it down now. Later.

A Straight Shot of Politics shoots from the hip: conservative witch hunters.

Be sure to check Hewitt’s updates, too.

More news coverage: Illinois Leader

Update (10:17 a.m.): Press critic Jay Rosen e-mailed this:

From the After section of my Sambrook post:

The New York Sun also chimes in [Feb. 8]. Its article has a new fact– this:

The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, who covered the panel for his paper, told the Sun that after the panel concluded, Mr. Jordan was surrounded by European and Middle Eastern attendees who warmly congratulated him for his alleged “bravery and candor” in discussing the matter.
Mr. Stephens broke the news of Mr. Jordan’s statements for his paper’s “political diary” blog.

The Wall Street Journal broke the story? I was able to check “political diary” for Jan. 27, 28, and 29 and there is nothing from Stephens. But if Stephens did break the story then he may also have broken the ground rules set by the World Economic Forum.

Update II (12:28 p.m.): Bloggers blogging about Kurtz, etc., are The Glittering Eye, Scribe Journal, Slublog…

Captain Ed reports: “No Video Will Be Forthcoming.” He also comments on the New York Sun’s article.

Blogger Sisyphus wants that videotape, and he asks for your help. He continues.

This just in. The Tennessean ran a letter from a reader, and Bill Hobbs blogs it.

SCSIwuzzy: “First, go over to La Shawn’s. She has the biggest Jordan round up out there.” I like this guy.

Rony Abovitz, the man who “broke” the Eason Jordan story, is indignant. He asks: “[W]ill Easongate end here, or will it ultimately target the source? Will anyone join me in saying ‘Enough!’?” (Hat tip: Kerry Spot)

Update III (4:10 p.m.): Blogger sighting — Hugh Hewitt will appear on CNBCs Kudlow & Cramer today at 5:35 PM, EST. Gee…I wonder what they’ll talk about?

Michelle has another round-up.

Joe Gandelman has a super round-up. Pajama Hadin is still on the case, and Slublog has done some investigating. (Via Captain’s Quarters)

Update IV (5:28 p.m.): Interesting perspective at American Digest. Gerard thinks MSM has won, but I see it different, as does Glenn Reynolds and Jim Geraghty, who writes:

If the Davos organizers refuse to release it, and CNN refuses to call for its release, and the BBC refuses to call for its release, and every other news agency refuses to call for its release…

…then remember this, the next time the media gets up on a high horse about the public’s right to know. Remember this the next time Dick Cheney has a meeting with energy executives. Remember this the next time reporters complain about Bush not holding enough press conferences, and not doing enough interviews. Remember this the next time they talk about the importance of a free press, and an informed citizenry.

It harkens back to my post this morning about the founders, the freedom of the press and all that jazz.

Also visit Double Toothpicks, and stop by The Question Fairy while you’re out.