Since Eason Jordan resigned last Friday, after the old-school “news cycle” ended, I haven’t written about the controversy since the last post. I don’t have the energy and momentum to keep blogging about Jordan. However, I’ll be on Kevin McCullough’s show today at 1:20 p.m. EST to talk about it.
While I commend bloggers who’ve worked hard on this story, I wish more of us had received recognition. But rather than focusing on what others are receiving, I’ll put my money where my mouth is and bring some attention to smaller bloggers.
The media tend to look to the same people for comments on these events. Even if I generated a blog swarm, reporters would probably still call the same well-known bloggers, and I’d still get lost in the shuffle. I can’t blame the media too much, though. It’s quicker and easier to contact people you’re familiar with, the ones you’ve heard of before. No time to track down obscure bloggers.
It’s no secret that I have high aspirations for my writing and my blog. One day, maybe, when I’m well-known, you’ll see me on shows like Kudlow & Company and Scarborough Country talking about the latest blog swarm controversy. I guess I shouldn’t put too much emphasis on trying to get on these shows. It’s just that once you’ve appeared, you get called back again and again, building a reputation for yourself and generating your own traffic independent of links from high-profile blogs. Oh, well.
I will use whatever writing talent I have and write about under-the-radar bloggers, the qualities of a blog swarm in general (which I find fascinating) and the one surrounding Jordan in particular. I call this the “after market” of a blog swarm, and it’s ripe with good material in need of a good writer. Never say never, however. I may blog about “Easongate” again, especially if something big happens. If I’ve been your go-to person on the Jordan story, I encourage you visit Easongate.com, where I contribute. A daily Easongate must-read is Captain’s Quarters, who’s doing a great job. Smaller blogger Prestopundit is also following the story.
I extend a special thanks to Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt for mentioning me in their latest columns. Both were unexpected.
In the meantime, I’ll have to generate my own press. 
Note: To the person who sent me Scripture Alone from my wish list, thank you. I will post a book review after I’ve finished reading it.
————————————————————————————————————-
Blogs and news stories: I Would Have Fired Eason Jordan, After Eason Jordan, Raines, Rather, Jordan, The Jordan Kerfuffle, Blogosphere Flexes Its Muscles Again… CNN’s Eason Jordan Resigns…
Update:
The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is what will be, that which is done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. (Source)
Update II: From a commenter: “ON THE MAKE, THE RISE AND RISE AND RISE AND RISE AND RISE AND RISE OF A MEDIA QUEEN by LaShawn Barber.”
That’s sort of funny, but I hope I don’t sound like that. I’ve got to rein the ego in now before it’s too late!
Update II (2/16): Another interesting post from the professor — Eason Jordan v. Jeff Gannon hit.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 13 comments }
Good Morning La Shawn,
You have absolutely no need to worry about your future in the media. I still remember when Ms. Malkin was just starting out. I had read a few of her articles and was excited by her viewpoint, style, and factual integrity. She was good and I knew she could be excellent if she continued (read some of her archived articles and you will actually ’see’ how she has developed over the years). She appeared on T.V. perhaps ‘once’ (then a year went by), then a couple of times, then several, etc. etc. I remember commenting to others to ‘watch her’ when she first came on the scene —- it was very clear she was talented (like so many other people), but she also provided a unique perspective that was largely unheard at the time. I have been tracking her career ever since. Although she doesn’t know me, those of us who followed her career ‘way back when’ can’t help but feel a little ‘prescient’ because we chose to get to know her (through her writing, then her media appearances) a long time ago. —I get the same feeling about you.
Don’t let the ‘15 min. of fame’ bloggers like wonkette get you down. She will be gone soon, but you will be with us for awhile. The present blog buzz gives a false impression that a lasting career should be launched through guest appearances. How many of these ‘commentators’ do you think will still be around 5 years from now?
Grow slow but strong and you will have a lasting talent that will influence/benefit your readers throughout your life, not over a short news cycle.
What an encouraging comment! Thanks, PDN.
Unless you have a huge case of microphone fright, which I doubt, and collapse into stumbling, stuttering babble, it won’t be long before you are on producers’ rolodexes as one of the go to people.
You’ll be on those rolodexes for a variety of reasons, not least because you are getting to be an essential read. As important, those producers will know that if you’re on the air they’ll be able to take a sip of coffee without worrying about the bleep button.
La Shawn,
I want to personally thank you for all of the information you afforded us (lesser known) bloggers. Because of you I was able to get more information than I certainly would have extrapolated from the MSM.
I can’t say it enough: I am liberal and I found this story to be shockingly under-reported (and reported WAY late, at that). Thank you for providing comprehensive coverage of all the sources on the internet, in general, and the blogosphere, in particular.
Personally, I’m upset more of my liberal friends didn’t report on this turn of events with Jordan. Perhaps it wasn’t so much my liberal politics as it was the staunch defense of my (soon-to-be?) profession as a journalist. Like I said on my blog, journalism should know no biases. Unfortunately, it does.
Again, great job on the coverage.
Now…back to substitute teaching my second graders!
Great work on this La Shawn. You are well justified in being proud.
Now, who wants to bet (bragging rights) that Kos, Odub and DU will continue to ignore this while going after Gannon? And continue to harp on Armstrong Williams, while ignoring Eric Wesson?
Dear Ms. Barber: I think this post of your is a mistake. Many folks will use this post to say that you (and by extension all bloggers) are glory hounds, greedy for glory and fame at the expense of finding out what really happened. They will say you are just accumulating material for your memoirs: ON THE MAKE, THE RISE AND RISE AND RISE AND RISE AND RISE AND RISE OF A MEDIA QUEEN by LaShawn Barber, first printing 800,000, thirty six city author tour, more media exposure than God Almighty could command for the Second Coming.
I don’t believe this is what you are about. But since so many of the elite MSM journalists behave this way (and have the hack books and lecture fees and talk shows to prove it), they will not hesitate to assume you are behaving the same way. Journalists are cynics, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, as Oscar Wilde said.
Next point: I think this story is nowhere near finished. Trouble is, the easy part is done. Consider: I think it fair to say that you think Jordan’s assertions about the US military targeting journalists are so much bunk (add your own noun if you don’t think “bunk” is strong enough.) I think they’re bunk myself. But millions of people will not, millions living in the Middle East, to say nothing of those in the US who could not pass a rabies nor an IQ test. I think it most likely that the withheld videotape will soon surface in the Arab media as “proof” that the US murders those who try to tell this “truth”.
First Assignment: A close watch needs to be kept of the Arab media for just such eruptions. Even if the videotape does not surface, reactions of the “See we told you so” variety from whoever in the Middle East would be valuable, if only to see how far this poison has gotten. The Middle East media Research Institute (MEMRI) (www.memri.org) and its offshoots would be the place to start.
Next: Three years ago, if you had told me that any US soldier would torture prisioners of war, and for sadistic ends, I would have laughed at you. Abu Gharib was a sobering wake up. It does not matter that I (and I believe, you, too) think that Jordan’s assertions are bunk. They need to be investigated to the ends of the earth. If even one instance is true, it will blow the lid off. It may be argued that this is wartime, and such revelations would aid the enemy. I can understand this view, but disagree with it completely. AL-JAZEERA will be investigating these rumors if no one else will. Should AL-JAZEERA find that the horrible is true, the lid will be blown off even harder than if “our side” reveals it. Even if the results are negative, and no journalist has been deliberately killed, it would be useful to have a definitive investigation, if only to have it ready to knock down propaganda from the other side.
To do this, I think
a) the videotape needs to be released. It seems likely to me, though I have no way to prove it) that CNN executives had a chance to see it, and they fired Jordan preemptively. If they can see it, why not the rest of the world? I am underimpressed with the “off the record” assertions I have heard. I’ve always thought that the way to keep something off the record was NOT TO MAKE A DAM RECORD.
b) Jordan and his supporters need to be pressed on all the allegations they made.
Trouble is, this will take a lot of work, highlighting a big weakness of the blogosphere: a lack of resources that are necessary to complete such a task. This videotape will not be found using Google. Someone will have to track it down, and wheedle it out, or find a “deep Throat” willing to provide it. Daunting? You bet. It is a challenge I wish Hugh Hewitt would take up. Having made a fair amount of money being an interpreter of blogs, a lot of experience as a journalist, and more contacts than 98% of the blogosphere, he would seem to be ideally suited. Yet it might make him swallow, and who can blame him. Should he get the tape and release it, he will be blasted, not just today, but for years. Blacklists will form, he will be gouged for any tiny mistake. Can I prove this? Negatively: what have you seen in the top twenty news sources on verifying Jordan’s assertions? The stakes are too high. The likely result of any such investigation would be that Jordan is careless at best, a liar and a prize swine at worst (with the worst being miles more likely.) Such a finding would hit too close to home. Jordan’s attitude fits Katherine Seelye or Howard Kurtz or John Carroll or Dan Rather or—well you get the point—much better than an objective look at the facts—and what the MSM has done to the facts.
I realize this blog is yours, and you must run it as you see fit. But I hope what I have written is worth thinking about—and acting on.
Many thanks for taking the time to read this enormous post.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
Bah on the last commenter.
Of course someone who’s looking for that Big Break hopes that they’ll get the attention that makes them a name in journalism. It’s normal and expected. It’s exactly the same impulse that drove Woodward and Bernstein during their Watergate coverage. It’s the same impulse that drive CNN to their bogus Tailhook coverage and Mary Mapes to swallow those ginned-up documents.
It’s pretty much the first rule of journalism: if you want to get big, you have to take down someone big. That rule is very nearly universal (though, yes, a few have done it other ways).
I think it’s completely appropriate that LaShawn chase the biggest stories she can find and report them with all the energy and tenacity she has. That’s how careers are made.
Anyone who derides that hasn’t been paying much attention to journalism over the last bazillion years.
i didn’t check the source of the quote, but, that is Ecclesiastes (sp?) isn’t it? Just checking my Bible knowledge.
Hey, I think there is nothing wrong with being ambitious, and in being up front and clear about it. One of the things I’ve admired about LaShawn is that she knows what she wants, demonstrates that she is willing to work very hard for it, and takes every opportunity that comes her way. This is not a bad thing. I have kids like this!
Some people are born to take center stage and some are not, and if a smart gal thinks she belongs there, and has shown that she’s got the goods to be a player, more power to her! LaShawn’s ambition sometimes all but crackles off the page, but in a good and refreshing way – it is up-front and honest enough to occasionally say, “Hey, look, I’m working hard over here, and I want the brass ring, and I’d appreciate it if you folks would link to me!”
I recall her post with the tiara, which shows that she has her head on right and has a sense of humor about it all – and a sense of humor is important. Keep your eyes on the prize, kid. Keep looking at Jesus, too!
Ms Barber:
First, I fully expect to hear much of your voice (both written and aural) in the future: you have a strong intellect, a clear vision, and a loyal following.
One question, you are mentioned as one of the “go-to” sources for Best of the Web. Can you explain (or have a clear understanding) of what has happened to the WSJ editors and Mr Tarranto regarding Eason Jordan? They seem fully to miscomprehend and mischaracterize the enormity of Mr Jordan’s numerous faults. What is your take on why they seem intenet to minimize (to the point of ridicule) the blogs? Why circle the wagons around one such as Eason?
Best of luck!
Hi Don – Power Line blogged about the WSJ article here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_02.php#009557
and Captain’s Quarters blogged about it here: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003841.php
Check out the 2/15/05 Cox and Forkum cartoon. That is so going on the fridge.
Why isn’t the Gannon story getting the play the Eason Jordan story got (other than the obvious fact that Gannon is a nobody while Jordan /was/ arguably one of the most powerful media execs in the world? Duh. Well I can think of a very good reason the media might not be beating the big bass drum on the Gannon story: do they really want to make the case that the White House should do more intrusive and exhaustive checks on reporters’ backgrounds, including their personal lives?
The thing is, the left blahgerz have serious envy over the Dan Rather and Eason Jordan stories and they are trying to make much more of this than it is. The culpability of the White House is merely that they were calling on a friendly reporter for questions. I’ve read lefty blahgers trying to say Bush is involved with a male prostitute.
I don’t really think Kos expects harsher vetting of the press corps. His point seems to be that they should harshly vet the reporters who ask softball questions. If this guy was a regular media liberal hack, Kos would have no problem with the guy, gay prostitute or not. He’s taking cheap shots at the Administration over a guy whose only real affiliation with George Bush is that he asked the guy a few easy questions. That’s a pretty lame hit. You aren’t going to start racking up scalps that way. You look weak and ineffectual.
They excuse it with “what if it were a lefty, imagine the hell raised!” Well that dog won’t hunt. They look hypocritical and petty in this entire episode: the guy is gone, he’s small potatoes, and do you really want all the White House Press Corps to go through FBI and Secret Service background checks of their _personal lives_ before they get a pass? I think the answer is obvious. I guess you play the hand you are dealt. Keep beating the Gannon drum lefties, its all you got. You just look kind of stupid doing it.
Comments on this entry are closed.