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.

Before the story was confirmed, this post title was “Eason Jordan Resigns: Truth or Rumor?”

(6:59 p.m. EST): National Review Online reporting. Developing…

Update (7:11 p.m.): Associated Press also reporting:

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amidst a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq.

Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being “unfairly tarnished” by the controversy.

During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum last month, Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted.

He quickly backed off the remarks, explaining that he meant to distinguish between journalists killed because they were in the wrong place where a bomb fell, for example, and those killed because they were shot at by American forces who mistook them for the enemy.

“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,” Jordan said in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.

But the damage had been done, compounded by the fact that no transcript of his actual remarks has turned up. There was an online petition calling on CNN to find a transcript, and fire Jordan if he said the military had intentionally killed journalists.

The “online petition” they’re referring to is on Easongate.com!!!

A fellow Easongate blogger reports that Larry Elder just announced it on his radio show. I’m going to be a guest on Kevin McCullough’s show next week. I wonder what we’ll talk about…

Thanks again, Lucianne! That’s what happens when you’re quick on the draw. Just think…I was about to turn off my computer!

Readers speculate that there’s more to this story, too. CNN decided to cut its losses for a reason. Another reader notes that Jordan announced his resignation after the news cycle, but there’s no such thing in the blogosphere. Bloggers were the momentum behind this story, and don’t ever let anybody convince you they (we) weren’t.

Old Media, Mainstream Media, Big Media, Legacy Media, Fourth Estate, Dinosaurs — whatever they call themselves — they’d be the wiser to read BLOG: Understanding the Information Reformation.
—————————————————————————————————-

Other bloggers blogging: “Simul-posting” at Easongate.com, Michelle Malkin, Power Line, Ed Driscoll, Blogs for Bush, blogicus, PressThink, Balance Sheet, Michael King, Outside the Beltway, Absentee, Mickey Kaus, Jeff Jarvis, Thirty Second Thoughts, Ankle Biting Pundits, Daily Inklings, Wizbang (and here), Captain’s Quarters, The Anchoress, Sisyphean Musings, Myopic Zeal, Jim Geraghty, Hyscience., Moderate Voice, The Question Fairy, Down with Absolutes (He’s only kidding)…

A special “thank you” goes to Bill Roggio, founder of Easongate.com. Check out his post.

Scappleface is always the comedian:

Even as embattled CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan announced his ‘resignation’ tonight, the ad hoc consortium of unedited writers known as the blogosphere met online to discuss which journalist should be the next to fall.

Still riding high from its role in the ‘memogate’ firings at CBS and the demise of two editors at the New York Times, the blogosphere took less than two weeks to turn rumors from Davos, Switzerland, into a pink slip for the 23-year veteran of CNN.

Update II (9:48 p.m.): CNN finally posts the story. An excerpt:

The resignation sent shock waves through CNN — with Jordan long admired by his peers, from executives to the rank-and-file. Jordan joined CNN as an assistant assignment editor in 1982 and rose through the ranks to become CNN’s chief news executive.

They were shocked by that? This is only the beginning, people. Words and actions have consequences.

Hugh Hewitt reacts:

The MSM missed this story, and whether it is out of sympathy for one of their own, agreement with all or part of the implied charge, or simple laziness, the assessment of their incompetence should be thorough as well.

Update III (10:51 p.m.): Breaking news at B4B regarding CNN internal e-mail sent to staff: “At 6:14 PM, Eastern Time, an e-mail was sent to CNN employees regarding Eason Jordan, from Jim Walton, president of the CNN Newsgroup….A source inside CNN has forwarded me the e-mail…”

Update IV (11:14 p.m.): Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz (registration req.) reporting.

Michelle Malkin has an Easongate Retrospective.

Update V (12:13 a.m.): The last update of the “night” is a comment from reader JohninLondon, quoting Hugh Hewitt:

Hugh Hewitt said on his radio programme this evening that major networks (and newspapers like the LA Times?) are now having to report that the boss of CNN is resigning over a scandal they have never reported on !

The absurdity of it all is too childish for words, isn’t it? Good “night.”

Update VI (Saturday, February 12 @ 8:00 a.m. and beyond): Yesterday morning on Easongate.com, I blogged on a post by a liberal blogger who implied that Hugh Hewitt was a Nazi. I took issue with that, but I had a bigger problem with his use of the word “blogstorm.” This is a new pet peeve, so I had to deal with it. You might find this useful/humorous/silly:

…I need to clear up something. What happens when bloggers descend on an issue is a blog swarm — two words — not a blogswarm, blogstorm or blog storm. In BLOG, Hugh devotes a chapter to blog swarms and opinion storms. The analogy describes what happens when dozens of bloggers “swarm” around an issue/story like…a swarm of bees. That’s the image. An opinion storm is the result of a blog swarm. This a pet peeve of mine, and I cringe whenever I see “blogstorm.” Grotesque.

I felt better after blogging that. (Note: Michael makes a “blogstorm” correction.)

More bloggers blogging: Blogger and journalist Rebecca MacKinnon (knows Eason Jordan and corroborated Rony Abovitz’s [he has his own blog now] version of events), The National Political Observer, PrestoPundit, Pajama Hadin (excellent round-up), The Key Monk, cerdipity, Isaac Schrödinger, Democracy Project, PoliPundit, BlackFive (For the record, this fellow Easongate.com blogger beat me to the punch. I first posted news of the resignation at 6:59 p.m. EST, but BlackFive reported at 6:51 p.m. EST.), Captain’s coverage continues, Spartac.us, INDC Journal, David Limbaugh, Okie on the LAM, VodkaPundit, Chrenkoff, The MUSC Tiger…

Hugh Hewitt’s most recent column…

In an unrelated note, my “blogsister” Ambra Nykol has landed herself a guest columnist spot at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. This is a great cross-over move by Ambra. A public and high-profile platform is highly-prized and very valuable.

Lorie Byrd asks: “What Consequences, If Any, For CNN From The Jordan Resignation?” More here.

This is funny. More comedy from Ace: Eason Jordan: Reporters “Deliberately Targeted” by Bloggers…

Skeptic Jeff Harrell reacts. Jimmie at The Sundries Shack bids Jordan farewell…

Paul “Deacon” Mirengoff:

Given its lack of desire to report the news objectively, only two things can motivate the MSM to report stories that are embarrassing to liberals. The first is the desire to spin the story and the second is the desire not to be embarrassed itself. Both motives kick in only after a story has gained a considerable amount of buzz, but it’s clear that blogs can generate that buzz in certain cases.

At least for the duration of Easongate, I’ll be doing double duty, blogging with the boys (and girl) over at Easongate.com.

But for tonight, I’m staying away from this computer.

While I’m gone, read the background posts on Eason Jordan. My first Jordan post was last Wednesday. I had no idea this thing would grow as it has.

I keep forgetting to tell you this. I’ve named my business, but I won’t announce it until the web site is ready to go live because the name is the URL and the site’s not ready yet.

Update (Thursday, February 10): Read Hugh Hewitt’s latest article, The Blogs Beat the Bigs Again. Also see two new Eason Jordan articles: Miami Herald (registration req.) interviews Jordan and blogger/writer James Lileks writes in The Sun Herald. Also see my post at Easongate.com.

I will update this post with the latest information, so be sure to trackback. I’ll include your link in the post. Blogs on Easongate: The Sundries Shack, Captain’s Quarters, Basil’s Blog…

The Wall Street Journal published a story today about Jordan and mentions a couple of blogs. If you have a subscription to the paper, I’d appreciate it if you’d e-mail the text. Ed blogs about it.

Michelle Malkin says the steam is building on Easongate. More from Hinderaker.

Important Note: Notice how quickly MSM has picked up on the conservative-reporter-is-a-phony story. More from Evangelical Outpost.

Update II (12:36 p.m.): A conservative blogger takes issue with Jim Geraghty’s post.

This is new. Democratic senator Chris Dodd, who heard Jordan’s slanderous statements, is calling for the videotape released. More about this from JustOneMinute.

Oh my goodness. (Hat tip: INDC Journal)

Update III: Regarding the Wall Street Journal article written by Bret Stephens, who criticized bloggers caught up in the Jordan scandal, has ethical issues of his own, according to Dinocrat.com. (Hat tip: Captain’s Quarters)

Here for the first time? To catch up, please see the Easongate category for the complete background on the developing Eason Jordan story.

—————————————————————————————————————
Update II (Wednesday, February 9) 8:02 p.m. — Yeah, yeah I said I was going to stay away from the computer, but I want to keep you informed. Columnist Morton Kondrake briefly discussed Easongate on FOX news. See this blog.

More updates from The Kerry Spot.

10:51 a.m. — From a reader:

[T]estimony by Danny Schechter, director of Weapons of Mass Deception, at the World Tribunal on Iraq (whatever that is). Near the end, he sites Eason Jordan’s statements at Davos and seems to be using those statements to support his statements that the military really does target journalists. I’m not sure who his audience is.

Investor’s Business Daily takes on Jordan.

Power Line’s Scott Johnson was on the O’Reilly Factor yesterday. Here’s the transcript. Be sure to check The Kerry Spot throughout the day.

Michelle Malkin has a new column up. Can you guess what it’s about? She also has updates on EJ. Captain’s Quarters also has lots of updates.

Vist Easongate.com for their take on Hugh Hewitt’s interview on Kudlow and Cramer and a link to a Hannity and Colmes video.

Truth Laid Bear has tracked blogs mentioning Eason Jordan.

Update (Tuesday, February 8 @ 9:23 p.m.): Transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s appearance on Kudlow and Cramer.

I will continue to update this post tomorrow. Unless something major happens, I don’t anticipate an EJR VII. But I’ll still keep you informed. Check this post throughout the day. Jim Geraghty writes about what I’m also feeling about the Eason Jordan story:

“I realize TKS has turned into all-Eason-Jordan, all-the-time for the past couple days. A few readers have said they don’t like it. A few people have said, ‘move on.’ (COUGHmrs.tksCOUGH) More than a few have said, ‘keep on it.’ … But it is a little maddening to hear ‘this has been covered too much’ when it hasn’t been covered at all by so many news sources.”

Scott Sala has a write-up on the Easongate discussion on Hannity and Colmes.

Conservative blogger Jeff Harrell has a different opinion about Eason Jordan: “I have so much respect for Mirengoff and his fellow Power Liners … but I have to disagree with him here. If Elvis really were alive and well and working the soft-serve machine at the Dairy Queen outside Waco, it would be a big story. But does that mean that every false assertion to that effect is news? It obviously does not.”

Reader Andi reports that Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight to talk about you know who.
———————————————————————————————————–

Actually, this is NOT an exclusive, but I’m the first (?) to post it during Easongate. It was sent to others, who may not have excerpted it. The information below is what Jay Rosen was looking for (scroll down to After Matter on his blog) to determine whether Opinion Journal broke the story.

The Opinion Journal’s Political Diary wrote about Eason Jordan’s antics on January 28, 2005. Here’s the relevant text:

Pandering, CNN-Style

DAVOS — Is the American military deliberately killing foreign
journalists — including Western journalists — covering Iraq?

Yes, they are, says Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN News.
Or, rather, no, they’re not. Or, perhaps, maybe, sort of, in a sneaky
kind of way. Speaking at a panel session on democracy and the media at
the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, Mr. Jordan startled
his audience and fellow panelists — including Massachusetts Rep.
Barney Frank and former presidential aide David Gergen — by implying
as much.

First, he noted that of the 60-odd journalists killed in Iraq, 12 had
been targeted and killed by Coalition forces. Then he offered the
story of an Al-Jazeera journalist who had been “tortured for weeks” at
Abu Ghraib, made to eat his shoes, and called “Al Jazeera boy” by his
American captors.

Mr. Frank, the liberal Democrat Congressman, asked Mr. Jordan to be
more specific: Had U.S. forces actually killed foreign journalists on
purpose? And had CNN done a story about it? Well, no, CNN hadn’t done
a story on that specifically. And, no, he didn’t himself believe the
U.S. government had a policy to target journalists. And besides, “the
[U.S.] generals and colonels have their heart in the right place.”

So what remained of the allegation? “There are people who believe
there are people in the military who have it out” for journalists,
said Mr. Jordan. He then offered another anecdote: A reporter who’d
been standing in a long line to get through a checkpoint at Baghdad’s
Green Zone had been turned back by the GI on duty. Apparently the
soldier had been displeased with the reporter’s dispatches, and sent
him to the back of the line.

It isn’t often that we feel grateful for Barney Frank. But had he not
spoken up, Mr. Jordan’s vague remarks might have been left to stand –
further proof, to the global elites assembled here, of the depths of
American perfidy.

– Bret Stephens

(Big Hat tip: New York City blogger Scott Sala)

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.

Please see the Easongate category for the complete background (especially useful for Kerry Spot readers) on the developing Eason Jordan story.
——————————————————————————————-

As much as I’d like to do original reporting on this story, as several of my fellow bloggers are doing, I can’t, at least not during the day when people are available. I have a day job.

So I’m doing the next best thing: consolidating links and steering you to what they’re doing. For example, Michelle Malkin just spoke with Rep. Barney Frank, who confirmed that Eason Jordan said the American military had targeted journalists. She writes:

Just got off the phone with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who spoke with me about Easongate. Rep. Frank was on the panel at Davos.

Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately “expressed deep skepticism.” Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, “explaining that he wasn’t saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined.”

Rep. Frank said he didn’t pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was “somewhat disturbed” and “somewhat exercised” and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan’s assertions were “disturbing if true.” I have a call in to Sen. Dodd’s office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

(Hat tip: Power Line)

Bill Roggio of Easongate.com comments on Michelle’s and Jay Rosen’s posts.

Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot wonders if this is a “right wing blogstorm.” If leftist bloggers aren’t touching it, then I guess it is a “right wing blogstorm.” I can live with that. Geraghty has more here.

Howard Kurtz’s of the Washington Post is taking questions for his webchat. So far no questions about Eason Jordan. Either that, or he’s not taking any.

Captain’s Quarters says that a mainstream newspaper is working on the Jordan story. Which one?

Director/screenwriter/blogger Roger L. Simon writes:

The blogosphere is effectively being stonewalled, because, so far, the blogosphere has won its duels with mainstream media. They have accused us of being fast and loose with the facts, but it is they who have had to back down. What is at stake here is great — money, jobs, power — and they know it.

Whoever thought just a few short years ago that from the new medium, the Internet, would spawn something as powerful and vibrant as the blogosphere? I’m amazed at the influence wielded by bloggers, some of whom are working journalists, but many tracking Easongate are ordinary people like me.

With day jobs.

Update (2:38 p.m.): Memo to CNN from American Digest — You’re not in Kansas anymore!

Says Sisyphus, the blogger who’s trying to get the World Economic Forum videotape that we can’t wait to see:

Just spoke again with Mr. Adams. He has not yet recovered the tape. They are not done unpacking. He remains confident that he has the tape, just needs to find it.

First Curveball: He warned me that the session WAS under “Chatham House Rule.”This means that after finding the tape, he needs to get a policy decision about making it publicly available, as that would violate the Rule.

I have arranged to speak with him again 5:00AM EST tomorrow to check if the tape has been unpacked and if there has been a policy decision.

Side note: Keep those e-mails coming; however, I’m very interested in getting exclusive information. That means news tips you haven’t sent to other bloggers.

Hey, we’re the conservative jihad! Check it out:

Along with the notion of the press being in bed with the resistance, the conservative jihad against the press aims to create enough noise to discredit selected “bad news” from Iraq, as well as whip up some manufactured outrage on their scandal du jour, which, if successful, will take out Eason Jordan of CNN. The noise machine run by the War Party is in full swing on this issue. Here’s a major conservative noisemaker tying it all together, with a little help from conservative propaganda tool Jack Kelly…

Update II (3:40 p.m.): Lots of new stuff. Will Collier at Vodkapundit goes off on Howard Kurtz for not taking “Easongate” questions on his webchat.

Hugh Hewitt speculates on the videotape. Will it be released after all?

Captain Ed calls for congressional hearings on this matter. And he writes his congressman.

Events are moving quickly. Michelle Malkin spoke with David Gergen, a journalist also present when Jordan uttered those infamous words, who also confirms what he said:

Gergen confirmed that Eason Jordan did in fact initially assert that journalists in Iraq had been targeted by military “on both sides.” Gergen, who has known Jordan for some 20 years, told me Jordan “realized as soon as the words had left his mouth that he had gone too far” and “walked himself back.” Gergen said as soon as he heard the assertion that journalists had been deliberately targeted, “I was startled. It’s contrary to history, which is so far the other way. Our troops have gone out of their way to protect and rescue journalists.”

Easongate probably has the same updates I have, but check it out anyway.

Rebecca MacKinnon, the journalist and blogger who corroborated Rony Abovitz’s recollection of Eason Jordan’s remarks, weighs in on the recent developments.

Eason Jordan, serial slanderer? (Hat tip: Jeff Blogworthy)

Got all that? I’m not even doing any reporting, and I’m tired!

About You and Me — Update III (5:27 p.m.): I’ll fill you in on Jordan in a moment. Right now I want to talk about you and me. I appreciate each of you, readers and commenters, and all the bloggers tracking back to my posts. Keeping up with the this story has been actual work, and I didn’t quite expect it to be.

The hardest work of all, I’ve discovered, is staying on the radar screens of high-profile bloggers also following this story. Getting inside the loop is one thing. Staying there is another. I have to constantly make people aware of my quest to be the go-to “Easton Jordan blog swarm background blogger.” I missed Rathergate, so I wanted to be involved in Easongate. Doing things like this is how you build readership and make a name for yourself in the blogosphere so that you’re not dependent on high-profile linkage if you’re trying to be high-profile yourself. Did that make sense?

I want to get called for interviews and appear in the news and magazine stories that will eventually come out about the blogosphere’s role in this story. Somehow, I suspect I won’t be.

If it weren’t for Lucianne Goldberg linking to my blog for two days (the link’s gone now), my efforts probably wouldn’t be as well-known as they are, and I’m grateful for the exposure. Sisters are doing for themselves! I wanted to shout that from the rooftops when she linked to me yesterday.

I’ve had a good time most of the time tracking the latest information, but trying to be one of the oft-mentioned or quoted bloggers working on Easongate has made me realize something: There’s no such thing as “affirmative action” in the blogosphere!

And it’s a good thing. Now on to the updates…

ThoughtsOnline has some thoughts about Jordan.

Sen. Chris Dodd’s staffer responds to Michelle Malkin.

John Hinderaker: “So it’s official: Eason Jordan has been hung out to dry.”

Non-Eason Jordan Update IV (9:06 p.m.): I won something. Want to see what it is? While you’re there, read the post, too.

Kudlow and Cramer talked about Eason Jordan tonight, and Glenn Reynolds has the video, but not the one from the World Economic Forum. Still waiting…

Meanwhile Sisyphus is still on the case:

Michelle Malkin has laid the groundwork to break this wide open by getting David Gergen, Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd on the record.

Here are the panel’s moderator, a member of the panel and a House Representative, and a Senator in the audience teetering on the precipice of calling for the video to be released. If they do, the pressure on Eason Jordan to join the chorus would be…well, a lot more than it is now. (Don’t miss the fact that none of them are known “right-wingers” involved in a blog-mob frenzy.)

Once these four men call for the video to be released, I’m in a VERY strong position to get AT LEAST those portions of the video and even more likely to get the whole thing. It takes the pressure off Mr. Adams.

The story is finally cracking MSM. Hugh Hewitt says the New York Sun will write about the story. He adds that the Baltimore Sun will write about it, too, as well as Howard Kurtz at the Post.

By the way, if you’ve e-mailed me in the past week, I’ll respond before the week is out. Another backlog…

Note (2/6 @ 9:45 a.m.): Thank you, Lucianne. It’s good to finally get some high-profile credit for all this tracking and linking I’m doing. I’ll see you all when I return from church!

Note II: HaloScan users, to trackback to this post, use SimpleTracks. Word Press and HaloScan don’t get along well.

Self-Promotion Note III: To editors of all kind, television and radio talk show hosts: In addition to blogging, I’m also a freelance writer. If my widely expressed disappointment in the media isn’t a deterrent, and you’re looking for real diversity, I’m available for assignments and interviews. True diversity includes different points of view, not just different colored skin.

Readers: If you have exclusive news tips, please e-mail me by clicking the “Contact Me” button on the left.

Please scroll to the bottom for the latest developments. For background information all in one place, see the Easongate category.

Note IV (2/7): Scroll to the bottom for the latest developments. Find out what CNN’s Judy Woodruff had to say about the Eason Jordan story.

Breaking News: Michelle Malkin speaks to Rep. Barney Frank. See update below.

———————————————————————————————–

For background on the Eason Jordan controversy, see the original post, the Eason Jordan Repository Part I and Part II. You’re reading The Eason Jordan Repository III. Additionally, blogger Sisyphus will have the videotape of Jordan’s remarks next week.

If you have the time, check out those posts, which contain dozens of links. If not, the following chronology from press critic Jay Rosen’s blog may be more helpful:

* Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq? (Rony Abovitz, ForumBlog.org, Jan. 28)

That’s the original account of Eason’s remarks. Abovitz, a vice president of a medical technology firm and a participant in the Forum but not a reporter, followed that up with:

* Journalists Killed in Iraq — The Core Issues. (Feb. 3)

Which was after he had returned to the United States. Then see:

* Rony Abovitz replies to Questions from Hugh Hewitt (Feb. 4)

Rebecca MacKinnon — journalist, blogger and Berkman Center fellow — was also there: “I was in the room and Rony’s account is consistent with what I heard,” she writes.

* Blogstorm descending on CNN (Feb. 2)

MacKinnon is a former correspondent for CNN: Eason Jordan was her boss then. She writes to him for an explanation and gets one:

* Response from Eason Jordan to MacKinnon. (Feb. 2)

Another statement from Jordan came to blogger Carol Platt Liebau:

* Response from Eason Jordan to Liebau. (Feb. 2)

In a nutshell: At the World Economic Forum (described as the “foremost global community of business, political, intellectual and other leaders of society committed to improving the state of the world”) Eason Jordan, a CNN executive and journalist, made the stunning accusation that American troops had targeted and killed journalists. These statements were made while on a discussion panel with journalist David Gergen, Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd.

Rony Abovitz wrote about it on the forum’s blog, and his account of Jordan’s statements was corroborated by journalist and blogger Rebecca MacKinnon. At the time Abovitz challenged Jordan on his assertion and asked if he had proof. Jordan said no and that he didn’t believe it himself. Abovitz adds:

[W]hen pressed by others, he [Jordan] seemed to waver back and forth between what might have been his beliefs and the realization that he had created a kind of public mess. His statements, his reaction, and the reaction of all in attendance left me perplexed and confused. Many in the crowd, especially those from Arab nations, applauded what he said and called him a “very brave man” for speaking up against the U.S. in a public way amongst a crowd ready to hear anti-US sentiments. (Source)

So why would Jordan say something like this, before an international audience, against his own countrymen fighting and dying in Iraq, if he had no proof and didn’t believe it anyway?

In the original post, I referred to Jordan as “some guy who works for CNN,” but we know at this point he’s much more than that. Back in 2003, he admitted to suppressing information about Iraqi thug Saddam Hussein’s murdering regime in,
The News We Kept To Ourselves. (Read the op-ed at Scripting News.)

Hugh Hewitt wrote about it in Cross-Examing Jordan. He asserts that the suppression, among other things, made Jordan complicit in Hussein’s regime. Based on Jordan’s own admission, Hewitt’s assertion is not an overstatement.

The aforementioned column by Jack Kelly was published today in the Toledo Blade. About the recent kidnapped GI Joe doll incident, Kelly writes: “[W]hy are major media so quick to disseminate anything that a terrorist group, or purported terrorist group, releases? For the terrorist, it is like being given millions of dollars in free advertising.”

Yes, why are mainstream media (MSM) so quick to report news releases from terrorists but not what I consider to be treasonous allegations made by an American journalist before an international audience of America haters during wartime? When it comes to anything even remotely damaging to U.S. involvement abroad, they’re all over it like flies on cow dung.

Now one of their own accuses the military of assassinating journalists, and it merits nary a paragraph. Why? In my assessment, they haven’t covered it because they know it’s not true. No American troops deliberately went after journalists, and they might be a tad embarrassed that Jordan “ran off at the mouth,” as they say.

In sharp contrast, MSM picked on statments made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis within 24 hours:

A senior U.S. Marine Corps general who said it was “fun to shoot some people” should have chosen his words more carefully but will not be disciplined, military officials said on Thursday.

Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, made the comments at a conference Tuesday in San Diego.

“Actually it’s quite fun to fight ‘em, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up front with you, I like brawling,” said Mattis.

“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis said during a panel discussion. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. (Source)

If one man’s statements merit so much attention, surely the same can be said for journalist-murdering American warriors, don’t you think?

But no. They go after a marine speaking at a conference: Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times, just to name a few.

The flies-on-cow-dung image is as disgusting as MSM’s selective coverage and “objective” reporting.

Update: A commenter reminded me of MSM’s coverage of Lt. General Boykin back in 2003. Boykin said, correctly, that the war on terrorism is a religious war. It was an un-PC thing to say. Muslims and religious “freedom” groups complained, and MSM wrote about it for weeks on end. Selective coverage indeed.

Sources: General Seeks ‘Satan’ Speech Probe, Senator Feinstein’s statement, Thank God for General Boykin…

———————————————————————————–

Power Line, Wizbang, Ed Driscoll…

Update II (Sunday, February 6): Hugh Hewitt speaks out on MSNBC.

Rony Abovitz expresses frustration with us “right wing bloggers,” quoting the often misunderstood Scripture, “Before Eason is stoned, are we sure that we are all without sin?”

Hewitt replies:

I appreciate RA’s candor and willingness to answer all posed questions — we wouldn’t know of this story except for Rony’s original post — but George Bush’s Iraq policy has nothing to do with the issue today. No one is about to “stone” Eason Jordan — he is catching hell for slandering the good men and women in uniform. That’s all. You can’t blast heroes as killers and walk off the field to a cocktail parties in Davos and pretend nothing happened. This isn’t an ideological debate about whether it was wise to invade Iraq and whether 25 million Iraqis are better off today than they were two years ago, though they most certainly are. It is about whether a senior American news executive can slander the people who are fighting — and dying or being wounded — and do so without consequence. Don’t try and raise the issue to one of “blogosphere ethics.” It isn’t that at all. It is about what Eason Jordan said and the refusal — thus far — of MSM to call him on it. It is solely about MSM ethics, or lack thereof.

Jay Rosen as PressThink says, “Eason Jordan’s Job is the Political Job in TV News.”

Michelle Malkin:

Washington Post media reporter / CNN host Howard Kurtz is scheduled to do an online Q&A tomorrow at noon eastern. As Mickey Kaus helpfully points out, the Post is already accepting questions for Kurtz here. So if there’s anything you’d like to ask Kurtz — for example, if there’s a certain story you think he should be covering but isn’t — here’s your chance.

More from Captain Ed here and here. Are MSM’s lights coming on???

Update III (1:36 p.m.): Leave it to innovative bloggers to “cash in.” The newly minted Easongate blog is a must-read site if you’re following the blogger-generated story of Eason Jordan and his outlandish statements.

Mick Stockinger at Uncorrelated has as international commentary on Jordan translated from French.

Blogger David asks why bloggers are all over Jordan but not Ward Churchill, who made some boneheaded remarks about victims of the 9-11 terrorist attacks:

[B]oth of these guys have said things that are beyond the pale. Both are suffering from intellectual dishonesty to say the very least. But the bloggers I mentioned above, and the blogosphere in general seem to be treating them differently.

While condemning what Churchill said, it appears that most bloggers are defending his right to say it and saying that it would be wrong to fire him for his “free speech.” But at the same time, these bloggers seem to be all for CNN firing Jordan for exercising the same free speech rights.

Actually, the blogosphere has been covering the Churchill story. (See AcademicBias.com as an example.)

The difference I see is that while Churchill’s nasty remarks about American victims of the war against Islamofascism are just that, nasty, Jordan’s remarks are much more damaging to our efforts.

Jordan is (or was) an internationally respected journalist and CNN executive, and I’m sure he wields a lot of influence. Before an international audience that already appeared hostile to the U.S. and our efforts in Iraq, he said that American troops are murdering journalists. It’s a slanderous charge, and whether or not he believed it, he should not have said it. No one is curtailing is freedom to speak, but speaking has consequences.

Jimmie as The Sundries Shack notes that today on Howard Kurtz’s show, there was no mention of Eason Jordan. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer had Sen. Chris Dodd on his show, one of the men present when Eason Jordan made the allegations, and didn’t ask him about Jordan. Nothing. Well, can you blame Blitzer? Jordan is his superior. And I’m certain CNN doesn’t have its story together yet. Yes, we’re all waiting for the videotape, but CNN should release a statement before then, and not the same canned e-mail statement they’ve been sending to bloggers.

Side note: Trey Jackson has compiled a birthday tribute to Ronald Reagan.

American Digest believes nothing will happen with the Jordan story:

You see you can blast heroes as killers and walk off the field to cocktail parties in Davos and pretend nothing happened if you and your cohort control the careers of all that might expose you…That’s how, absent a net worth of at least $500 million, you get to Davos in the first place.

My Sandmen has a good round-up of links.

More on Jordan v. Mattis from Malkin.

Update IV (3:30 p.m.): Hugh Hewitt interviews Rebecca MacKinnon, the blogger and journalist who corroborated Rony Abovitz’s version of Eason Jordan’s remarks. An excerpt:

Q: Is the blogopshere being “fair” to Mr. Jordan? Ought he to give an interview to one or more bloggers who are pursuing this story?

A: We can’t deny that there is a lot of herd and mob behavior in the blogosphere. Having been attacked in the past by real-life mobs as well as by blog-mobs, I feel pretty confident in saying this (and I say this as someone who is proud to be a blogger). I think there are definitely some mob dynamics going on with this story. That said, there are also many bloggers who are trying to get to the bottom of this in a fair and rational manner. It would make sense for Jordan to speak to those bloggers.

(Via Power Line)

Resonant Information defends Eason Jordan’s claims:

[T]o all the bloggers and commenters out there that never bothered to look this up, all out of easily found information, you have no room to talk about sloppy journalism or make accusations against Eason Jordan. It’s one thing to be wrong; it’s another entirely to not even try, and then decry others for their errors, and make accusations about “treason” and “slander”. I find it telling that out of all the blogs I saw talking about this, of all the comments, only one blogger and one commenter even bothered to look up the deaths in even a casual fashion…

Zed misses the point. It’s not that we need proof of journalists’ deaths. I’m certain journalists were among the collateral damage. But Jordan used the word targeted.

Hewitt responds to Zed:

Perhaps the new group will turn its attention to this pathetic attempt to buttress Jordan’s claim by attempting to provide evidence for the claim via the collection of data bursts on journalists’ deaths in Iraq. Keep in mind that Jordan specifically asserted that what he was talking about was not the sort of “collateral damage” death that folks know have happened. Jordan employed “targeted” which means the intentional killing. It will be interesting to see if this list and the “analysis” it offers is what Jordan had in mind.

Unasked question: Why isn’t Matt Drudge talking about this? Does he know something we don’t know?

A poster at Free Republic speculates about the death of journalists in Iraq. Captain Ed adds his own comments.

Update V (6:17 p.m.): The Press-Enterprise (fee registration required) has written an editorial about Eason Jordan:

If U.S. troops in Iraq targeted journalists for assassination, that would be a huge story. If the source of the story were a top cable news executive, it would earn continuous coverage.

CNN’s chief news executive, Eason Jordan, said Jan. 27 on a world stage that “he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by U.S. troops, but they had in fact been targeted,” according to Rony Abovitz of the World Economic Forum’s weblog.

Problem is, Jordan has provided no facts to substantiate this very serious charge. Now the claim, which Jordan floated at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is spreading through anti-American circles in Europe and the Middle East.

Jordan’s words matter because CNN is, in the eyes of much of the world, the “voice of America.” If its news chief is reporting fabrications to global leaders at elite summits, it’s another blow to media credibility at home, and to the United States’ reputation abroad.

(Via Easongate)

The Lone Star Times has a blog, and they’re blogging about Eason Jordan.
——————————————————————————————

Update VI (Monday, February 7): Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd were present at the World Economic Forum where Eason Jordan accused our military of targeting journalists for slaughter. What do these politicians have to say? Contact them and find out.

STATUS OF THE VIDEOTAPE: Blogger Sisyphus, who is trying to obtain a copy of the videotape of the conference, updated his post early this morning:

I just got off the phone with Mr. Adams. [Media Director at the World Economic Fourm] He confirmed again that he has the video. He also confirmed that he will provide the video, but they need to first unpack the boxes of 200+ videos from the conference today.

He will call me back today and confirm arrangements for delivery.

He also confirmed that I’m “not the only one who wants it”.

Tick, tick, tick,…

Many of us are wondering why Adams is making copies of a videotape and why the recording is not digitized for disemination online. Yesterday Sisyphus wrote:

I spent much of today on the phone with Robert Cox from Media Bloggers Association. We are trying to get a footprint in Geneva to work directly with Mr. Adams to get the video digitized and in our possession. Starting around 2:00AM EST tonight (8:00AM Geneva time, Superbowl should be over by then), we will be working contacts in Geneva and trying to reach Mr. Adams to expedite getting the video digitized and hosted online.

Make sure you read the whole post.

GayPatriot wrote about Eason Jordan back on January 31. He credits Rep. Barney Frank for pressing Jordan for proof that American troops were killing journalists. Check it out. (Hat tip: Myopic Zeal)

Update VII (8:50 a.m.): Nothing in the papers on Eason Jordan, but Hugh Hewitt will be on Bill Bennett’s show this morning, no doubt talking about the media blackout.

The latest from Captain’s Quarters:

UPDATE X, 2/7 06:39: Still nothing on any of the search engines. They continue to ignore the story…and us. We should be expanding our demands past CNN to all news agencies now, asking for answers for the dearth of honest reporting on Eason Jordan.

The Bear blogs about the controversy.

Press critic Jay Rosen has more. Also see Captain Ed’s comments.

Cassandra at Villainous Company has a hilarious take on the whole mess.

Update VIII (10:23 a.m.): From Hewitt:

Jon Lauck just talked to Judy Woodruff in the hallway and asked about Eason Jordan. Woodruff told Jon that she had not heard of the story, and after a quick summary, Jon reports she appeared to be stunned by the idea that Eason Jordan, with whom she talks nearly every day, would say that the American military targeted journalists.

Update IX (11:51 a.m.): Rep. Barney Frank confirms that Eason Jordan said the American military had targeted journalists. (Hat tip:Power Line)

Bill Roggio of Easongate will on Kevin McCullough’s radio show today to talk about the story.

Monday, February 7: Kerry Spot readers, please see the Easongate category for the complete background on the developing Eason Jordan story.
—————————————————————————————

If you’re following this story, make sure you’re checking the updates at the end of this post. The latest news: The videotape of the forum has surfaced.

An interesting question about the videotape was raised at Free Republic. See update below.
——————————————————————————————-

Read the original post and The Eason Jordan Repository I for background on this subject.

This is Day Two or Three of the Eason Jordan blog swarm, and the controversy finally made the papers. Is the Washington Times considered Big Media? So far they’re the only newspaper that picked up on the Eason Jordan fiasco, CNN’s line of fire.

The only blog mentioned is Forumblog.org, which is a good thing, but there’s no reference to Captain’s Quarters, who is in the lead on this and largely responsible for the blog swarm, the reason the story is still alive, or any other blogs (except for Carol Liebau, but they don’t link to her blog.) or the blogosphere in general.

Now that a newspaper has covered this story, I anticipate more media outlets will pick it up. Watch this post for updates throughout the day.

(Hat tip: Captain’s Quarters)

Related links: John Burns: ‘There Is Corruption in Our Business’, Roger Simon, KerrySpot, Michael J. Totten, Day By Day, Sensible Mom (”Where’s David Gergen?”)

Speaking of newspapers not linking to blogs, see this post by Patrick Ruffini. A new editorial policy for media: If you cite blogs, you must include hyperlinks.

Read Virginia Postrel’s The Cost of Blogging. As you can tell, I like blogging/writing about blogging. In fact, it’s probably my niche. See The Blogosphere’s Smaller Stars. I plan to write a non-Rathergate but related follow-up to this piece.

Update: Hugh Hewitt interviews Rony Abovitz of Forumblog.org, the man who heard Eason Jordan say that U.S. troops were targeting and killing journalists.

Power Line: “Jordan appears to be more or less in hiding. Where is the videotape? What this story shows, I think, is how badly the left-wing media have damaged the United States with their incessant accusations and over-the-top coverage of stories like Abu Ghraib.”

Agreed.

Update II: Should bloggers boycott CNN? (Via Captain’s Quarters) More information at Slublog, KerrySpot and Uncorrelated, who’s coined “Easongate.”

Interesting article by blogger and writer, Paul Geary.

Update III (around 1:30 p.m.): “UPDATE V, 2/4 12:25 PM CT: Every single search listed above still comes back empty. Every single major media outlet has ignored this story. How much longer can they hold out?” — Captain’s Quarters

How much longer? Anyone? Anyone? The blog swarm surrounding Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond (before my blog-time), along with pressure from other Republicans, forced Lott to step down from his leadership post. Bloggers and posters at Free Republic, along with MSM finally covering Dan Rather’s forged documents story, brought down CBS’s house of cards.

(I blogged on the double standard regarding Lott’s remarks about Thurmond and Sen. Chris Dodd’s remarks about Robert Byrd in Two Old Men, Two Different Standards.)

What will it take to get CNN to react, and more importantly, for MSM to cover this story? Granted, things move quickly in the blogosphere compared to MSM. That’s the “power of the blog,” the reason why blog swarms develop in the first place. Other bloggers are tracking the story and I recommend you follow the links; this post is only a place for links, updates and light analysis. It’s Friday and I can’t wait to get home.

Update IV (around 3:00 p.m.): CNN speaks! But not about Eason Jordan. Check it out. (Via Power Line)

Update V (6:24 p.m.): The Eason Jordan story goes mainstream. The latest from Captain’s Quarters:

Hugh Hewitt has a notice on his blog that he will appear on the Chris Matthews show Sunday evening — and he intends on making Eason’s Fables part of the discussion. Be sure to tune in to CNBC at 6:30 PM CT. Hugh also alerts his readers that Chris Wallace at Fox things that Eason’s Fables will make an excellent topic for his own Fox show at 4 pm CT Sunday, so tune in there as well. By Monday, the mainstream media may have Eason’s Fables forced down their throats.

I don’t get this. Every day the media tell us how bad things are in Iraq. Every day they warn us that we’re losing allies and that the whole world is against the war in Iraq. Yet when a top CNN executive accuses the United States military of assassinating journalists, it merits no media attention. Why? Don’t they want to know if it’s true? Don’t they want to know why Jordan made the accusation in the first place if it’s false? What is going ???

Blogger Sisyphus is about to get a ton of traffic. In a few days he’ll have the video (wish I’d thought of that) of the forum where Jordan Eason said…well, you know what he said.

My fellow Conservative Brotherhood member Michael Bowen comments on Eason Jordan. Check this out: “In the steady disintermediation presaging a major shift in the way industries do business, Eason Jordon is being hoisted on the petard of disclosure. Blogs do it better than major media, and as others in the blogswarm have noted correctly, we are going to hound down and parse the question of journalistic privilege during wartime.”

Too cool.

Here’s another link-worthy post: I Don’t Just Happen To Be Republican. Except for the part about open borders, I like it.

Rathergate.com offers a military perspective on “Eason’s Fables.”

Update VI (9:44 p.m.): The tireless captain updates again, commenting on the videotape we’ll see next week:

The blog Sisyphean Musings has contacted the head of media for the World Economic Forum at Davos, Mark Adams. Sisyphus got Adams to confirm Forumblog’s testimony that videotape was taken of the forum where Eason Jordan spoke, and agree to send a copy to Sisyphus….CNN has until Wednesday at the latest to come clean about Jordan. If they allow the blogosphere to get to the finish line first, they’re toast.

Update VII (11:16 p.m.): I was about to crash when I received an e-mail from a reader. He’s been in touch with the op-ed editor at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, who says Jack Kelly, their national security correspondent, will touch on the Eason Jordan debacle on Sunday.

Update VIII (2/5): A poster at Free Republic raises an interesting point:

The video has not yet surfaced…they just got a commitment that it WILL surface in the middle of next week. What I find interesting is the the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, who can manage to get an internet livestream of some forums, is copying a VHS tape and dropping it in the snailmail to a blogger. Without a doubt the ‘media director’ of the WEF has the capability to digitize and post it to the WEF site. The question becomes why isn’t he.

Press critic Jay Rosen speaks:

I can think of no good reason for the major news media not to investigate what Jordan said, and what he meant by it. It is somewhat surprising to me that we haven’t seen a story from either a journalist who was in Davos, or a media beat reporter like Mark Jurkowitz of the Boston Globe, Jacques Steinberg of the New York Times, or Howard Kurtz, who of course works for CNN. The event was on-the-record, and a tape was made. There are no obvious obstacles to investigating further….

CNN made sure many bloggers who were posting about Jordan’s comments had copies of his statements. That in itself is significant. Someone there is watching the blogs on this one.

True. I finally received my CNN form-letter e-mail.

Update IX (6:21 p.m.): This post will no longer be updated. Please see Media Blackout for the latest information.

I didn’t want “burial vault” in the title because I don’t want people to think I’m trying to kill him. The story is still developing because Jordan’s statement, a semantical gymnastics routine, is laughable. Read it on Carol Liebau’s blog:

To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists in Iraq. I said so during the forum panel discussion. But, nonetheless, the U.S. military has killed several journalists in Iraq in cases of mistaken identity. The reason the word “targeted” came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of “collateral damage.” Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the “collateral damage” statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists — not all — killed in Iraq were indeed targeted. When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is appropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine. But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of “collateral damage.” That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time. Further, I have worked closely with the U.S. military for months in an effort to achieve a mutual goal: keeping journalists in Iraq safe and alive.

I remind you of what Rony Abovitz said he heard: “Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.”

I’m so tired of weak-kneed and jelly-spined men, it’s not even funny anymore. Say what you mean and mean what you say, and stop backpedaling! I’d have more respect for Jordan if he admitted that although he said Americans were targeting and killing journalists, he said so out of frustration with the war or the death of his journalist friends. Be a man and tell the truth. Good grief.

As a liberal journalist, Jordan clearly hates the war and doesn’t feel too kindly toward George Bush. The world hates America, if you believe mainstream media. Jordan and other journalists have said these things before but were never called on it. That was before the blog swarm.

In BLOG: Understanding the Information Reformation That’s Changing Your World, Hewitt writes: “When many blogs pick up a theme and begin to pursue a story, a blog swarm forms. A blog swarm is an early indicator of an opinion storm brewing. which, when it breaks, will fundamentally alter the general public’s understanding of a person, place, product, or phenomenon.”

Blog swarms formed around Trent Lott and his disastrous birthday toast to Strom Thurmond, the New York Times and their plagiarizing affirmation action baby named Jayson Blair, John Kerry’s lies about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968, the Swift Board veterans’ account of the real John Kerry, and Rathergate, where CBS tried to pass off forged memos for the purpose of damaging a sitting president.

As Hewitt notes in BLOG, newspaper circulation, CNN and the networks’ readership is falling; the blogosphere, FOX News and talk radio is riding. Jordan will not be able to hide, and CNN will not be able to remain silent on this for much longer. CNN is trying to bury the lead on this.

I highly recommend Hewitt’s book. I quote and reference Hewitt a lot, and many of you are probably asking, “Why?” Good question. Read the book, and I think you’ll answer your own question. Whether or not you have a blog, if you’ve been reading this one regularly, you’ve also been caught up in the swarm.

One final thought about blogs, the new media. Hewitt writes: “The old information monopoly had an enormous ability to decide where and when news would be ‘news.’ That gatekeeping function is gone, and blogs have rushed in to decide for themselves what matters. The episodes detailed earlier were the first few rounds of conflict between MSM and bloggers.”

I, blogger, have decided that an American journalist accusing the military of his own country of murdering journalists is NEWS. This post will be updated throughout the day with links from bloggers and MSM. If you’re blogging about Eason Jordan or related matters, trackback to this post and I’ll include your link.

Myopic Zeal, The Baron, Pajamahadin, Rathergate.com, Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Roger Simon, Slant Point, OKIE on the LAM, Daddypundit, Stones Cry Out, Smoothing Plane…

Captain Ed notes that MSM has yet to report on this story (and here). Rony Abovitz (”gound zero”) makes another statement. SCSIwuzzy offers a link to list of journalists killed in Iraq.

Update: FOX News web site mentions Eason Jordan:

And CNN’s top news executive Ethan Jordan (search) has found himself called to account by none other than Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Barney Frank (search). This after Jordan seemed to suggest that the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last week, that American troops were deliberating targeting and killing foreign journalists in Iraq, including Western journalists.

It’s not much, but at least it’s something. But notice that FOX refers to him at “Ethan.”

Rebecca MacKinnon, the blogger/journalist who confirmed Abovitz’s version of events, writes: “The right wing bloggers have been very vocal on this story. The left and middle have been largely silent. We have yet to hear much from journalists working on the ground in Iraq. I heard back from my friend Brian Palmer who wrote…”

Update II: Power Line is on the trail. Abovitz notes the existence of a videotape of the conference where Jordan Eason made his infamous remarks:

This particular discussion at the WEF 2005 was videotaped (hopefully it is in a complete and unedited form). The debate about exactly what was said is easily resolved if an accurate transcript of the tape, or the tape itself, can be produced and made public. This kind of transparency lends itself well to global issues where subjectivity can taint any side of a topic like this. It is possible in this case that the subjectivity on one part of this issue can be removed entirely (with the complete videotape and transcript of the discussion).

Yes, let’s go to the videotape. Rather than parsing bits and pieces of who said what and how, we can hear and watch it for ourselves. I suspect that Abovitz’s version will hold up. Eason’s verbal gyration of an explanation will be seen for what it is: a man caught in a web of his own making, desperately trying to escape. But it’s the struggle that keeps you trapped.

Update II (8:25 p.m.): Slow Eason Jordan news day today, but writer and blogger Austin Bay shares his thoughts:

There are many reasons for CNN to make a full, complete disclosure, and they go beyond mere clarity of expression. I think this is the biggest: If Jordan did say he believes the US military “targeted” journalists (implying physical targeting) then we need to hear his evidence — premeditated murder is more than political scandal, it’s crime. This would be a bigger crime than Abu Ghraib.

There’s a second reason: CNN has a corporate skeleton rattling in its closet, and the skeleton involves Jordan. It also involves a deal with a local ruling class — in this case, Saddam Hussein and his pals.

This is no allegation. Jordan wrote an essay for the NY Times admitting his network regularly withheld information about Saddam’s evil regime — because that’s what it took to keep the bureau open. (Here’s a link to the abstract of Jordans’ The News We Kept to Ourselves which ran in the NY Times on April 11, 2003. The abstract doesn’t do justice to the depravity of Jordan’s op-ed.)

Serious stuff.

Update (2/4): This post will not be updated. For the latest developments, please see the The Eason Jordan Repository II. For background, see the original post.

Eason Jordan, some guy who works for CNN, has stirred up a blog swarm. He apparently said something really stupid (and false?), and mainstream media (MSM) doesn’t consider it newsworthy. From Forumblog:

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters.

Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real “sh–storm”. What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military. (Emphasis added)

This story is developing. I will update and link to other bloggers and news articles. Trackback to me, and I’ll trackback to you.

Captain’s Quarters (and here), Wizbang, Pajamahadin, The American Mind, Digital Brown-Pajamas (Sleepy Stormtroopers of the Religious Right), Kevin McCullough, Pejmanesque, Winds of Change, Myopic Zeal, The Glittering Eye (and here), The Baron, Ramblings’ Journal, Hugh Hewitt, Jeff Blogworthy, Okie on the Lam, Citizen Smash, Slublog, Shot in the Dark, Power Line, Red State Rant, Professor Bainbridge, Roborant, Kabasue, RedState, Flopping Aces, cerdipity…

This article may be of interest to you: Are Bloggers Journalists?

Update: A journalist and blogger who was present at the forum where Eason made the statement about American troops confirms Rony Abovitz’s (Forumblog) account.

(Hat tip: Captain Ed)

I’m having trackback “issues.” If I haven’t tracked your post yet, I’m working on it.

Update II (5:35 p.m.): CNN responds to an e-mailer:

Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan’s remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists. Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions.

Nice try, CNN, but this contradicts what “ear-witness” Rony Abovitz said:

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others. (Emphasis added)

Jordan said or implied that journalists were TARGETS, not collateral damage.

(National Review Online via Hugh Hewitt)

Update III (6:52 p.m.): CNN should release the transcript so everyone can read it for themselves.

Captain Ed received an e-mail from CNN. Could it be a subtle, “Please leave us alone!” plea?

Jim Geraghty of KerrySpot says he’s willing to give Big Media the benefit of the doubt for not reporting on this quickly. But Hugh Hewitt says:

First, this isn’t a story about media bias. It is a story where a senior American news executive accused the American military of assassinating journalists, and did so before an international crowd of influential opinion-makers….Second…I refuse to believe that not a single reporter/editor/producer in MSM knew about this before deadline last night, or that AP and Reuters are unaware of the story or its significance at this hour. In fact, we have been in contact with Rony Abovitz and he is being pursued by many major media outlets for interviews etc.

Read the rest. Hugh’s reaction and the ensuing “blog swarm” surrounding Jordan’s remarks are why his book BLOG is a prescient piece of work and one that every Big Media type should read.

Update IV (7:26 p.m.): Regarding the transcript, journalist and blogger Rebecca MacKinnon, who confirmed Abovitz’s account of Jordan’s remarks, added this update:

I have emailed people at the World Economic Forum requesting a verbatim transcript of what precisely was said during the panel in question. I have also emailed Eason Jordan asking him whether he’d like to confirm and/or clarify his comments, since I did not record the session myself and my notes are not verbatim. (Emphasis added)

Also, Glenn Reynolds received an e-mail from CNN:

Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan’s remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists. Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions.

Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of “collateral damage.”

They must be sending out a form e-mail. I’ll wait patiently for mine.

Good grief. Ed Morrissey is all over this. He’s found another Jordan faux pas. Little Green Footballs got a form e-mail, too. I guess mine is in the mail.

But wait. There’s more. Charles Johnson at LGF is reporting that Jordan has made similar statements before, and so has another CNN executive. And Ed suggests you to contact Time Warner, which owns CNN, if you want to see Jordan’s head roll.

Update V (9:12 p.m.): From Hugh Hewitt:

My producer Duane e-mailed blogger Rony Abovitz earlier today and got back this reply, which Abovitz had agreed I can post:

“Dear Duane,

I just returned to the US a few hours ago and have jetlag.
I am getting numerous requests about this story, including calls from
CNN.

Tonight would not work as I am very tired. I can let you know tommorrow
if appearing on your show would make sense. I am also getting requests from some major media outlets, and need to think about what is the best thing to do.

Thank you,

Rony”

Why is CNN calling Rony? And since other major media are on the case, can we expect thorough reporting tomorrow?

Update VI (10:35 p.m.): Eason Jordan responds! (Via Captain’s Quarters) Dig his backtracking, parsing and obfuscating:

To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists in Iraq. I said so during the forum panel discussion. But, nonetheless, the U.S. military has killed several journalists in Iraq in cases of mistaken identity. The reason the word “targeted” came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of “collateral damage.” Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the “collateral damage” statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists — not all — killed in Iraq were indeed targeted. When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is appropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine. But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of “collateral damage.” That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time. Further, I have worked closely with the U.S. military for months in an effort to achieve a mutual goal: keeping journalists in Iraq safe and alive.

Says Hugh Hewitt: “Why I am not inclined to believe that Jordan is telling us the truth? Perhaps because he accused American troops of torturing journalists just months ago? The transcript, Mr. Jordan, just the transcript. Not your interpretation of what you want people to think you said. Just the transcript.”

Captain’s Quarters has a rebuttal up already! More thoughts from ThoughtsOnline. Jordan’s probably sorry he ever heard of bloggers.

Update VII (2/4): This post will not be updated. Please see Part I and Part II of The Eason Jordan Repository.