PressThink: Richard Sambrook of the BBC: What Eason Jordan Said in Davos

Richard Sambrook of the BBC: What Eason Jordan Said in Davos

"This culture of 'closing ranks' coupled with hostile comments about the media from senior politicians and others, has led some in the media community (not necessarily Eason or myself) to believe the military are careless as to whether journalists are killed or not."

New at PressThink (Feb. 10): Blog Storm Troopers or Pack Journalism at its Best?

Richard Sambrook (bio) is Director of BBC World Service and Global News. He was part of the panel discussion at Davos that has become the focus of so much attention from bloggers. See PressThink, Weekend Note on Eason Jordan, for background.

Joining Sambrook on the panel were U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Abdullah Abdullah, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan, and Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN. David Gergen of Harvard’s Kennedy School and US News was the moderator. I wrote to Sambrook, told him of the controversy among some bloggers about Jordan’s comments, and asked him what happened on the panel. In particular, I asked whether the original account by Rony Abovitz was accurate. This is his reply in full.

Statement of Richard Sambrook
Director of BBC World Service and Global News

Eason’s comments were a reaction to a statement that journalists killed in Iraq amounted to “collateral damage”. His point was that many of these journalists (and indeed civilians) killed in Iraq were not accidental victims—as suggested by the terms “collateral damage”—but had been “targeted”, for example by snipers.

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). 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.

Some in the audience, and Barney Frank on the panel, took him to mean US troops had deliberately set out to kill journalists. That is not what he meant or, in my view, said; and he clarified his comment a number of times to ensure people did not misunderstand him. However, they seem to have done so.

A second point he made, which in my view is extremely important, is that when journalists have been killed by the military in conflict it has been almost impossible to have an open inquiry or any accountability for the death on behalf of families, friends or employers. Very little information is released, we know investigations do take place but the results are not passed on.

This culture of “closing ranks” coupled with hostile comments about the media from senior politicians and others, has led some in the media community (not necessarily Eason or myself) to believe the military are careless as to whether journalists are killed or not and to no longer respect the traditional right to report.

As yet, for example, there has been no adequate explanation for the attack on the media hotel in Baghdad, the Palestine, which killed one Ukrainian Reuters cameraman and one cameraman for Spanish TV in 2003. The US tank commander suggested he had come under sniper fire from the building. That is now clearly not the case; it was well known, including in the Pentagon, that the Palestine was used by the media and yet it was attacked directly and purposely. Why? An absence of explanation unhelpfully feeds suspicion in some quarters.

More than sixty journalists and media workers have been killed in Iraq since march 2003. Reporting from conflict zones appears to be more dangerous than ever. Check these reports from NewsSafety and the Committee to Protect Journalists.

I am leading an international committee of inquiry into the reasons for the major increase in journalist fatalities around the world. It will make recommendations for improving safety and reducing risk and possibly suggest some changes to international law which ensure that when journalists are killed we can get a proper and open investigation and sense of accountability.

Finally, some people say, if it’s so dangerous don’t go. I’m afraid I believe that bearing witness, first hand reporting from wars, is a fundamental duty of news organisations. We need to do all we can to ensure we can continue to bear witness, but to do so without carelessly losing lives.

After Matter: Notes, reactions & links…

UPDATE, Feb. 8: Howard Kurtz, who hosts a show on CNN, publishes an account in the Washington Post: Eason Jordan, Quote, Unquote. “CNN News Chief Clarifies His Comments on Iraq.”

What CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan said, or didn’t say, in Davos, Switzerland, last month has become a burgeoning controversy among bloggers and media critics.

In it, Barney Frank is more critical of Jordan and David Gergen is more sympathetic. Read the rest.

Mickey Kaus reacts in Slate (a Washington Post property): “…let’s just say that if a p.r. agent or damage control spinner produced a piece designed to try and save CNN exec Eason Jordan’s job, it would be the piece Kurtz wrote in the Post today.”

Joe Gandelman is critical of Howard Kurtz: “coupled with his delayed reporting on this raging controversy now leaves him looking like his CNN boss’ p.r. person and as if he balked on this story. And parts [sound] like the corporate stories newspapers officially put out when they assign an in-house reporter to report on a dismissed columnist, or to explain a major controversy over an error.”

Jude Nagurney Camwell at the American Street is critical of “those who are hot on Eason’s trail.”

I don’t think Eason Jordan should be professionally crucified for what we can liken to a motherly nature when discussing a delicate matter (out of the public eye, for the most part - the Jan. 27 Davos session was supposed to be off the record).
Those who are hot on Eason’s trail are only those who wish to inflict some political damage on the few in the mainstream media who still possess extreme courage of conviction. This is not a case of Dan Rather using fake documents. This seems to be more of a case where a professional journalist has called, in his own fumbling way, for better judgement and a higher degree of care and liability on the part of U.S. military in choosing their targets.

Read it. Her voice matters.

Jim Geraghty replies to Camwell. (And Camwell replies to Geraghty.) See also his Would Journalists Accept this Stonewalling From Any Other Industry?

“The dog has barked and, without the videotape, the caravan has moved on.” Gerard Van der Leun at American Digest says it’s over and Jordan won.

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? If Stephens did break the story then he may also have broken the ground rules set by the World Economic Forum. UPDATE: LeShawn Barber has the text, sent to her by a reader. It raises a lot of questions. First of all, the Journal did violate the rules the WEF is now invoking. But with bloggers running around trying to collect first hand accounts, and journalists who were there saying, “I don’t have detailed notes,” why does Stephens, who obviously had notes, remain silent? With the blog world heating up, why does the Journal’s editorial page not breathe a word? Odd.

Instapundit has links to bloggers’ reactions.

The Forum has now decided not to release a tape or transcript, on the grounds that the session was held under rules preventing participants from being quoted directly. See Sisyphus, here and here; Rebecca MacKinnon’s correspondence with a WEF official.

Mark Jurkowitz in the Boston Globe (Feb. 8):

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit organization based in New York, says nine journalists and at least two media support workers have been killed by fire from US forces in Iraq, according to the organization’s Middle East program coordinator, Joel Campagna. Campagna said that the group has not concluded that any deaths resulted from deliberate targeting of journalists but that some cases raised issues of ”fire discipline and indiscriminate fire.”

Stephen Silver: “I have great respect for the blog phenomenon and am proud to be a part of it. And I’ve certainly been known to occasionally criticize—or downright tear apart—examples of bad journalism that have appeared in ‘MSM’ newspapers and magazines. But the blanket denunciations of ‘MSM’ have mushroomed to the point of absurdity.”

Also listen to my On the Media interview about the rise of the term, MSM. And Matt Welch in Reason, Biased about Bias: “The hunt for ideology becomes an ideology.”

Jeff Jarvis:

This is also about the speed of news. Back in the day of the news gatekeepers — now long gone, whether they know it or not — journalists could take their time reporting a story, for news wasn’t news until they said it was. And that wasn’t all bad: It allowed journalists to check facts, call sources, get it right. But news got faster. All in all, that’s good; we’re informed faster… You can’t take your sweet time reporting a story anymore, for the citizens will get ahead of you even without your resources and access.

Blogger Michelle Malkin speaks to Congressman Barney Frank (Feb. 7):

Rep. Frank said 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.”

Captain’s Quarters has a skeptical reply to my post, but adds, “At least Sambrook spoke up, something so many others appear loathe to do.”

Michelle Malkin talks to David Gergen (Feb. 7):

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.”

Posted by Jay Rosen at February 7, 2005 8:59 AM Print

Sambrook's semantic contortions are worthy of Arafat. Yes, yes, snipers use gunsights, and through the crosshairs they distinguish individuals whom they, very "deliberately", then kill. This is all beside the point. The use of the word "targeted" can only imply an accusation of intentional killing of someone for who he is. The target is a quarry identified in advance and sought out, tracked, and then executed. Oswald targeted JFK. The Red Brigades targeted Aldo Moro and other Italian public figures.

Sambrook in his response to Jay glides over the crucial issue of whether the soldier knew that the target of his shooting was a journalist:
"They [the journalists] 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."

OK, they're different. But the core difference is not the efficiency and precision of the killing method but the intent of the soldier-- to repel a threat to his comrades or to dispatch a journalist-- and his awareness of the professional status of the person he killed. I love the weasel words "as individuals." Of course snipers shoot individual combatants. The question is whether they knew those indivudals were combatants or journalists.

By playing this semantic game Sambrook is avoiding the crucial question of whether US soldiers and their commanders prior to engaging in combat identified journalists as legitimate quarries and then intentionally sought out those quarries in order to kill them. Sambrook knows his game here: he is trying to assert, without saying so, that the sniper who kills a journalist intended to kill his victim because the man was a journalist. Intent is of course enormously difficult to prove, so the only possible way that Sambrook can be correct here would be if the sniper had reasonable certainty that the person in his gunsights was a journalist.

But Sambrook offers no evidence of such knowledge. Neither are we given to believe that the journalists killed were either segregated from the enemy combatants-- certainly not the case in the Baghdad Hotel incident, as tragic as it was-- or else clearly marked as journalists to all concerned. The latter seems extremely unlikely, given the terrorists' penchant for kidnapping and hacking the heads off of foreigners. Are there really any foreign journalists in Iraq who wish to advertise that fact?

The doublespeak is especially slimy because when the word "targeted" is translated into arabic, or french or german, there will be no semantic wiggle room in the translation.

Posted by: thibaud at February 7, 2005 3:40 PM | Permalink

Why do we have to choose, Jay? Some of us may want Sambrook fired, and/or Jordan fired, and some of us may want more "dialogue".

The press is the "fourth estate" of gov't -- but is NEVER covered, by the press, as if the individuals have decision making power over what is said or not.

It's not like Bush ("lied" about WMDs), it's like Trent Lott. Jordan, AND Sambrook, and even Mr. Jay Rosen, are all playing at 4th estate politics.

Your beloved MSM Contraption is broken. Either Jordan answers the questions of what he said, AND what he meant, AND what he meant earlier (US military tortures journalists), AND how reliable he is (he already admitted CNN only broadcast news Saddam approved up -- for access/ money/ ratings, NOT truth) (his admission nearly ignored by MSM).

Or he stonewalls, and others who heard him are reported on (yes, reports from the blogosphere -- MSM lost its censorship.), and he becomes guilty until the videotape shows otherwise. But, if he IS guilty (as I now believe), the videotape will only show it.

So then what? CNN should fire Jordan.

With or without the videotape, CNN should fire Jordan (Trent Lott lost his chairmanship for much, much, less.)
AND the BBC should fire Sambrook.

Not for talking with blogs -- for lying INSTEAD of being honest, while representing their news organizations and being charged with increasing trust.

You, Jay, should be on the side of revolution and transparency and truth. Resign or show the videotape (first?). You're having personal conflicts because you know the Contraption is broken, but you love the idea of an MSM that is honest.

The Rathers, Jordans (?), and ALL top TV news anchors get paid MUCH more than the US president (seldom mentioned, why is that?); they should get the same scrutiny. As individuals.

You know about Public Choice Theory? (J. Buchannan won a Nobel Prize in Economics for it.) It covers the individual incentives of gov't decision makers, and how they mostly make decisions based on those incentives.

We need a Media Choice Theory that would show how media personal ALSO make decisions on what they say, and not; and what stories they cover & publish, or not.

Right now, the MSM blackout on Jordan's lies are pretty damning.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at February 8, 2005 12:03 AM | Permalink

It would appear, on the basis on another attendee, that Sambrook himself brought up the Hotel Palestine during the Davos discussion. That does not invalidate Sambrook's comments, but it does suggest that he is not necessarily a neutral reporter with regard to what was said and what was meant.

I have to disagree with Mark Anderson. I myself called for judgement to be withheld by bloggers pending more evidence than the memories of two people, neither of whom was taking careful notes. (And I took some heat from a regular contributor to my group blog for my stance.)

At this point, however, we have nearly half a dozen reports from a variety of witnesses. And Mr. Sambrook's invocation of the Hotel Palestine incident is telling, because that case was well investigated and the results widely disbursed. By invoking that event, which occurred very early in the war during a period when the Iraqi forces had not yet disbanded, Sambrook a) rejects what I consider a fair investigation of the event and b) diverts attention from journalist deaths in places like Fallujah, where culpability is arguably more complex - and more relevant to what are likely to be more common situations in the coming years.

I repeat my earlier assertion: a large part of the problem right now is that both the bulk of the mainstream media and those who supported the war were deeply suspicious of each other well before the first shot was fired. Until that is addressed, I doubt that international conventions and demands for changes to law are going to solve the deeper problem facing the MSM -- which, I firmly believe, ultimately is a problem for us all.

I reject the notion that journalists are automatically annointed to an authoritative role in passing judgement on the structures or officials of government. I was around for Watergate and am unimpressed by the inflated sense of importance that event gave to many journalists. In my late middle age I find lots of holes in the MSM emperor's clothes.

OTOH I sure would like to have credible, fact-based reporting whose honesty and integrity I trust, which means I'd like to see serious discussion on both sides about how to make things better.

Posted by: Robin Burk at February 8, 2005 8:16 AM | Permalink

If we're talking about authority and gatekeeping, then let's examine the military and the political leadership as actors in the saga of the fourth estate as well, each with their own claim on authority and responsibilities to it as well. And let's examine the responsibility of the commenters on this thread, as well, as Mark Anderson does.

I'm a partisan left-wing blogger, and we've been pretty 'absent' from this controversy. We've never really bought into the whole 'MSM is evil' meme floating around here, though our frustrations with the MSM are as great as anyone else's. We just don't think they do a very good job at this point (which is not an inherent state), but we still recognize their necessity in the overall system of accountability in a democracy.

Anyway, to the notion of authority and responsibility, which I guess equals trust. For my money, trust seems to be constructed via a mixture of sound judgment, willingness to examine one's own assumptions and admit wrongdoing, and wide knowledge and appreciation of a diverse set of facts.

The MSM in general doesn't have an address, but to the extent that is one total entity, it often doesn't seek as wide a spectrum of facts as possible, and is influenced improperly by the screams of bias and by silly notions of how to structure its final product. Eason's claims probably demand more explanation, but this is not because of some political bias, but because journalists' being killed is not a well-known story, and it seems to be a very important one in the context of a war in which information and control of information is critical.

As for the military leadership and the political leadership, well, they kind of blew their credibility by openly and repeatedly lying about their intentions, capabilities, and actions, everything from the number of troops necessary to the reasons for war to the current budget to the glorious inaugural speech which seemed to but did not indicate any shift in policy. To the extent that they must be listened to, it is only to decipher how their words match their intentions. Literalist interpretations of the political or military leaderships' words are at this point just indicative of poor judgment on the part of the reader.

Finally, to the question of authority and responsibility of those on this thread. It's not clear to me how much intentionality matters, but there is a witchhunt tone going on here which seems to override a quest to 'know'. I have seen this before. I would assume that such a tonality, combined with the legacy of misinformation and ideological demands of right-wing punditry on the web and on TV, would strip many of the questioners here of any semblence of good faith.

For instance, you could look at the current spat between Juan Cole and Jonah Goldberg as another and seemingly more relevant discussion of what the MSM actually is, who is in it, and what kind of authority those who criticize from the right are actually demanding. I tend to think that's an important ground for criticism and examination as well. How did so many who know nothing about the Middle East become credible quasi-journalistic spokesmen about the region and what we should be doing there?

Posted by: Matt Stoller at February 8, 2005 11:56 AM | Permalink

As yet, for example, there has been no adequate explanation for the attack on the media hotel in Baghdad, the Palestine, which killed one Ukrainian Reuters cameraman and one cameraman for Spanish TV in 2003. The US tank commander suggested he had come under sniper fire from the building. That is now clearly not the case; it was well known, including in the Pentagon, that the Palestine was used by the media and yet it was attacked directly and purposely. Why? An absence of explanation unhelpfully feeds suspicion in some quarters.

Jay, please see my post here, which includes references to the Palestine Hotel investigations.

* Committee to Protect Journalists, May 27, 2003, Permission to Fire

* Reporters Without Borders, January 15, 2004, Two murders and a lie: An investigation of the US Army's firing at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad on 8 April 2003

* International Federation of Journalists, March 20, 2004, Justice for Journalists Killed in Iraq - April 8th Protest

* Committee to Protect Journalists, November 5, 2004, Army finds no fault in Palestine Hotel shelling

Posted by: Sisyphus at February 7, 2005 9:35 AM | Permalink

I want to be very clear about this. Sambrook (and others) are saying: "The US tank commander suggested he had come under sniper fire from the building."

I don't think that's accurate. BG Brooks in a briefing implied that and IMMEDIATELY corrected himself.

Things that happen in a fire fight are much more confused, and are also much slower in coming in details, because every fire fight that happens out there, obviously with the amount of combat action that occurs, we are not going to get a report on every fire fight that happens. This one is obviously an item of interest, and there's interest that's flowing in right now, so I can't characterize exactly where we've seen fire from. Any comment I made earlier was premature. And so at this point it's best for me to wait for additional information to come in.

We also have testimony from two journalists embedded with the tank's unit (Chris Tomlinson and Jules Crittenden) that were monitoring the unit's radio traffic and "on the ground" as witnesses. The tank fired ONE round to suppress observation from the hotel and end coordinated fire already coming at them.

CPJ's Permission to Fire

At about the time that Tomlinson was trying to locate the Palestine Hotel, in the late morning, one of the tank officers on the Al-Jumhuriya Bridge who was looking for the spotter radioed that he had located a person with binoculars in a building on the east side of the river. Exactly how much time lapsed between the tank officer identifying this target and the actual firing of the tank shell is not clear from Tomlinson's monitoring of the radio traffic.

Posted by: Sisyphus at February 7, 2005 10:01 AM | Permalink

"Sambrook (and others) are saying: "The US tank commander suggested he had come under sniper fire from the building.I don't think that's accurate. BG Brooks in a briefing implied that and IMMEDIATELY corrected himself."

My recollection is that in the immediate aftermath of the attack sniper fire from the building was the explanation given. I am happy to be corrected. The CPJ Report is the best summary of the event that I am aware of.

Posted by: Richard Sambrook at February 7, 2005 10:36 AM | Permalink

This account is more in line with my understanding of the spirit of what Eason said. While I can see hardcore conservatives not being overjoyed with this version of Eason's opinion, it is far less displeasing than their previous interpretation of his remarks. We all need to choose are battles. Somebody needs to let the people who are calling for blood know that this one is a non-starter.

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger at February 7, 2005 12:24 PM | Permalink

Jay,I enjoy reading your blog from time to time, and I certainly am no journalist, nor do I have an opinion one way or the other on this topic.

Regardless, the first thing it brought to mind was a blurb I read in a magazine which stated that in March of 2003, while on assignment covering the war in Iraq, Geraldo Rivera was told by American military officials that he was no longer welcome to accompany U.S. soldiers. It turns out that during an on-air appearance, he'd drawn a map in the sand revealing sensitive information about U.S. troop locations. In addition, I read in another article that he was carrying a weapon with intent on using it against the enemy prior to being asked to leave the country by the military.

Granted, Rivera is a sensational journalist, but if this information is true, and assuming American troops have access to US news reports, I can see how troops would have animosity toward other reporters, after the ludicrous actions of Rivera.

Posted by: Paul at February 7, 2005 12:28 PM | Permalink

There is a significant error in the CPJ report linked here. The report states:
"According to Tomlinson, the round that was fired was a heat round, an incendiary shell that is intended to kill people and not destroy buildings. If the tank had fired an armor-piercing round, the damage to the building would have been much more severe." This is completely inaccurate. A HEAT round is an explosive anti-tank munition, not an incendiary, and is extremely useful at destroying (small) buildings. It is used on personnel because the primary anti-tank round is basically a big metal dart that doesn't explode and would likely just have passed right through the building making a hole a few inches wide on the way. This information is basic knowledge and is readily available for fact checking purposes on the web. Moreover, Tomlinson, with his 7 years of military services is unlikely to make such a mistake. So either Tomlinson is misquoted, or he doesn?t know what he is talking about, or the CPJ writers are making baseless speculations. And the CPJ writers didn?t bother to do any basic fact checking to confirm what they were saying was accurate.

Mr. Sambrook, if the report is this sloppy with this one piece of information, why should we believe it is any more accurate in the rest of its particulars?

Posted by: Chris Sandvick at February 7, 2005 12:39 PM | Permalink

It's interesting, and irionic, that Sambrook mentions "this culture of closing ranks" and the lack of response of the military to journalists questions.

Gee, that sounds eerily like Gerard van der Leun's theory of why journalists close rank to protect members of their own profession, not to mention the telling lack of response of CNN and others in the media to questions about this whole affair.

But, of course, the media, rather notoriously, doesn't hold itself to the same standards that it insists others hold. It's own foibles are always excusable one way or another. Especially if it never looks too hard at them to begin with.

Posted by: alcibiades at February 7, 2005 12:48 PM | Permalink

None of this, while interesting, has anything to do with the root issue: why have the mainstream media ignored Jordan's provocative comments? Parse the comments all you like, after a full airing of them by the mainstream media.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 7, 2005 1:23 PM | Permalink

Mr. Sambrook: Thanks for providing the statement and answering some questions. I have two.

Would you object to the Davos organizers making the videotape of the panel available?

And I would also appreciate your reaction to Mr. Jordan;s comments made late last year, as quoted in The Guardian on November 19, 2004:

"Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces," Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal.

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at February 7, 2005 1:47 PM | Permalink

Richard Sambrooke's linguistic hairsplittings (and Eason Jordan's, as well) on the meaning of "collateral damage" vs. "targeted" are an absurdity. (See http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2005/02/eason-jordan-wordsmith-extraordinaire.html for a discussion of this.) So his apologia quoted here makes no sense, even if taken at face value. But of course this war is about far, far more than words.

Posted by: neo-neocon at February 7, 2005 1:48 PM | Permalink

If the press has an adversarial relationship with the military it's because they've earned it with decades of concerted effort. Our soldiers have every reason to believe that journalists don't care how many of them they get killed. Their holy calling is more important than any consequences. It doesn't matter what intelligence is broadcast worldwide. It doesn't matter that the enemy is encouraged to fight harder and longer. And all of this while having a sense of entitlement to protection and special treatment.

So a journalist gets sent to the back of the line at a check point and it's evidence that the US military is out to 'get' journalists? Did anyone ever think that maybe it was an issue of respect for the citizens who'd been patiently waiting to get through? Who deserves better treatment? And how many good-will points did that young soldier earn with the locals by what he did?

Posted by: Synova at February 7, 2005 2:04 PM | Permalink

The full Army report, with statements and map is linked from the Committee to Protect Journalists, November 5, 2004, Army finds no fault in Palestine Hotel shelling

Posted by: Sisyphus at February 7, 2005 2:15 PM | Permalink

It is not at all surprising we are hearing this from the media cartel. For some reason, they have what is a mistaken belief they are in some way special. In some cases, this feeling of being special ends up costing them their lives.

I would dare say most of the media who have died have been opposite US and collation forces in Iraq. In other words they have been in the target area. This is an area not controlled by the allies. Should a person in this area be hit, and probably hit from long range, even by a sniper, one cannot be sure until such time as the area is secured and the body recovered just who the person was. As far as conducting an investigation, I am sure those who could provide the most information about a particular incident are either gone or are dead by the time the area is secured.

What are you going to ask the sniper? Did you see a target? Was the target in the area from where we were receiving fire? Did you hit the target? [a press badge is very difficult to see at 800 meters, even at 400 meters]

This war, unlike previous wars involving the US, the idea of having media from your own side embedded with the enemy is a bit bazaar and needless to say dangerous.

Posted by: Joe at February 7, 2005 2:29 PM | Permalink

What doesn't smell right is the off-handed way Jordan dropped this bombshell. If it is true, why not do an investigative report?

Or has that genre been irretrievably tainted by CBS?

Posted by: AST at February 7, 2005 3:05 PM | Permalink

I really like this website as a neutral ground for reporters and their bosses to respond to the blogosphere. Jay is fair and thorough and he understands both worlds, as much as anybody can this early on in blogging history.

The comments section is and always will be rough and tumble, but Jay generally makes sure that the discussion begin in a fair exposition of all sides.

This is what journalism should be.

Posted by: AST at February 7, 2005 3:11 PM | Permalink

Mr. Jordan has not responded to Rep. Franks request for examples because his report is bogus. Our military never targets civilians or reporters. The USA’s military protects and serves its country. Mr. Jordan should be thankful some of that protection is for him, even though he downgrades our military. We all know that this character Jordan is severely deranged.

God Bless our President, and
God Bless our Troops

Posted by: Auggysblog at February 7, 2005 3:44 PM | Permalink

Perhaps a little background on Mr Sambrook might be helpful here. Remember the big trouble at the BBC over Gilligan's false report that the British Government had "sexed-up" its published dossier on WMDs, overriding the info of its security chiefs ? At the time Sambrook led the BBC defence against the Government complaints, and continued that defence against all the contrary evidence provided directly or indirectly by UK chiefs of intelligence. The Hutton report came down heavily agaoinst the BBC, and in the course of the report it transpired that sambrook had not taken the elementary precaution of checking Gilligan's notes. Some people were surprised that Sambrook himself did not resign, along with the Chirman and Director General of the BBC. He has subsequently been "moved sideways".

I would take anything Mr Sambrook says with a very large pinch of salt.

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 7, 2005 5:21 PM | Permalink

Here is a Guardian article summarising the criticisms of Sambrook by Lord Hutton's enquiry into the Gilligan affair.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1133221,00.html

But you would have to read the letters Sambrook wrote to Downing Street, published with the Hutton evidence, to get a full flavour of the vehemence of Sambrook's refusal to listen to the complaints about Gilligan's unfounded attack on the integrity of the UK Government. More here :

http://www.tvtoday.co.uk/article.php?p=124&more=1

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 7, 2005 5:51 PM | Permalink

Mr Sambrook,
Despite what you say, I find it hard to believe that *this* time Mr Jordan was so careful in his language.

He has previously (and quite recently) claimed that US forces had "arrested and tortured" journalists.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1355027,00.html)

It defies belief that he would say *that* last November but last week speak as you claim. I do not believe you.

Posted by: Bostonian at February 7, 2005 7:09 PM | Permalink

Senator Dodd has now confirmed that Jordan really did make those allegations. Sede the Michelle Malkin site.

That casts very serious doubt on the veracity of Sambrook's statement. That is - the CONSIDERED statement by the man who is effective head of the BBC's world news services, and who was on the panel at Davos. The real story now is COVER-UP by the MSM - with Sambrook's BBC as part of it.

Posted by: JohninL:ondon at February 7, 2005 7:38 PM | Permalink

I disagree completely with that. Sambrook told you in good faith what he heard. You are almost to the point of criminalizing the normal range of differences in how people hear things that are ambiguously stated to begin with. There is no call for that.

Read up on Sambrook? Yes, that is what the Web is for, so by all means do. But must you read his statements in this case as a continuation of his actions in another? Why should he comment at all, if that is the case?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 7, 2005 7:51 PM | Permalink

Jay

I feel that Sambrook's past actions may well be relevant here. Many people have argued that the BBC had a vendetta against Blair over the Iraq war. The BBC news service led by Sambrook that was reporting that US troops were not in Baghdad when plainly they were. Subsequently Sambrook defended strenuously the outrageous allegations that Gilligan made against Blair - while failing to check Gilligan's story properly. Hence the severe criticisms of Sambrook in the Hutton report -the BBC's equivalent to Rathergate.

Of course people expect some comments from Sambrook. He is a very senior journalist, and he was on the panel of the Davos seminar. You clearly put the questions to him direct - well done for that.

But some of us will regard his statement as failing to spell out exactly what Eason Jordan said at Davos. I find much of the statement sophistry, sorry.

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 7, 2005 8:26 PM | Permalink

Geez, Louise. I'm beginning to wonder if the video will resolve or inflame this now that so much time has gone by.

We now have Rony's account, Rebecca's account, Frank's account, Dodd's account, Gergen's account, Sambrook's account and Jordan's emails.

We've already visualized what's on the tape. At this point, the tape will be dissected for the parts that confirm our version or deny the other guy's.

Jordan interests me NOT.

Journalists that think the military is targeting them, whether it is based in reality or not, interest me.

Journalists that think the US military isn't doing enough to 'shoot around' unembedded journalists on the battlefield interest me.

Unembedded journalists that think it should not be problematic to point binoculars and shoulder mounted cameras at the muzzle end of tanks and infantrymen in combat interest me.

Journalists that speak in idealistic terms about covering the war as a fundamental duty of news organisations without mentioning the commericial motivations, the temptations of career advancement, fame and fortune, interest me.

Driving Mr. Sambrook away, that doesn't interest me at all.

I appreciate Mr. Sambrook taking the time to respond publicly on a controversial topic. He didn't have to do that. He went a further step, and commented here - a part of the conversation. Why are his comments, along with the others in attendence, interesting? Because we (still) don't have the video.

Posted by: Sisyphus at February 7, 2005 8:45 PM | Permalink

Alright, well, some of you guys have to decide what you want more-- dialogue with those you call the MSM (where, for example, if a blogger asks for a statement a news executive will give a statement) or do you want the opportunity for denunciation at close range?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 7, 2005 9:02 PM | Permalink

It is the enormity of the allegation that people present say that Eason Jordan made that is causing all the fuss. And the fact that the MSM are apparently not chasing this story - in stark contrast to the wide coverage given to the Marine General's remarks the other day.

What we want is the truth of what was actually said at Davos. Which means getting the tape released. Jordan's own comments appear to directly conflict with the reports by the two journalists who originally reported, and now by David Gergen, Senator Dodd and Rep Frank. Richard Sambrook's contribution does not appear to answer the specific question - did Jordan allege that US troops had targetted and killed 12 journalists. There was a lot of ducking and weaving - but nothing as crisp as what Dodd appears to be saying.

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 7, 2005 9:23 PM | Permalink

If what we want is the truth of what was actually said at Davos, then perhaps we should thank Richard Sambrook, a participant, for adding his statement of what he heard. For it is by the multiplication of views that something closer to the truth is obtained.

I didn't think he was ducking and weaving at all. Jordan said something that sounded like "U.S. targeting journalists." Jordan realized that he could be misunderstood. Jordan tried to clarify what that he meant. According to Sambrook, what happened was nothing as crisp as what Dodd appears to be saying. What happened was a bit of confusion. I have been on many panels where what a panelist said was not at all clear. You seem to regard this lack of crispness as evidence of Sambrook's will to obfuscate. To me that is unfair. Reality is usually messier than one's fighting words suggest.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 7, 2005 9:45 PM | Permalink

I'd like repeat here a point I made over at Rebecca MacKinnon's site. The issue of journalists on the battlefield will not get better in the short run, because the battlefield has changed in some fundamental ways.

It used to be the case that we more or less could identify a front line of battle and the "behind the lines" area. What we see in Iraq is what the military call the non-linear battlefield -- and that means, among other things, no clear distinction between the front lines and the rear anymore.

I am not attempting here to speak for the US military. However, I've had a chance to talk with combat veterans from Gulf 1 and 2. Traditionally, success in warfare was measured by terrain captured and enemy killed. It's a whole different ball game in Iraq because our intentions there are different. As a result, we do NOT bring the bulk of our military power to bear in most situations there -- we didn't even do so in Fallujah recently.

There are good reasons for restraint -- and by the standards of full warfare we HAVE been restrained -- but it does mean that in the coaunter-insurgency period there are places and times when our forces are open to unexpected attack from any direction.

Now add in journalists who are not embedded, including correspondents recruited, in some cases, from among the populace.

The result looks to me like an incredibly difficult situation for the military and a very frustrating and frightening one for the journalists as well. I personally have a hard time seeing why journalists don't see the difficulty here from the military's perspective. But then, I know the military and many members of our armed forces better than I know the mindset and culture of journalism -- no doubt if the situation were reversed so too would be my attitude.

I suspect the fact that many of the journalists covering the situation in Iraq appear to personally disapprove of our presence there is part of the problem, on both sides. It certainly doesn't help.

Posted by: Robin Burk at February 7, 2005 9:53 PM | Permalink

If John Kerry had signed Form 180, much of the controversy that swirled around his military record might have been settled back when it would have meant something. Don't let this videotape become the new Form 180. Demand that the WEF make it available to the public. We don't need to see the entire tape, just the remarks in question and any relevant context. Enough of this "she said he said/he said he said, but he didn't really mean it" BS. There are serious issues here. Please conduct yourselves accordingly.

Posted by: Kyda Sylvester at February 8, 2005 1:47 AM | Permalink

I think part of the issue many in the blogs have an issue with is that this is the second time Jordan has made a comment like this (previously he mentioned 10 Journalists being killed). If he really thinks it is the case why is CNN not investigating that...if he doesn't think it is actually happening why has he mentioned it twice now....his actions and the facts do not fit together..

Posted by: stephen at February 8, 2005 6:56 AM | Permalink

I have already thanked you for obtaining the statement from Richard Sambrook. But I am not the only one who feels that he is ducking the issue, confusing the picture. You say it is inevitable that people have different impressions of the incident. True - but it seems very convenient that Sambrook's line is defensive of Eason Jordan. Sambrook is MSM personified. Just google his name. Oh - and did he as a panel member intervene at Davos to say that there was NO deliberate targetting of journalists ? Or virtually none ? He is privy to all the BBC's info from Iraq - why did he not comment at the time, put the record straight ?

You have not commented on the point most people are making - let's see the tape, let us judge for ourselves what Jordan said at Davos. Do you want the tape released ? Are you joining in the requests for release ? And for that matter, is Eason Jordan asking for it to be released ?

Pending that, I refer to Stanley Baldwin's remark about the press, that "power without responsibility has been the prerogative of the harlot down the ages". And in the case of Sambrook and the BBC this has a special edge - many of us feel that BBC shows distinct anti-US bias, and we in Britain are forcibly taxed $200 a year to support its Guardian mindset. As a reminder - the crew of the Ark Royal in the Gulf demanded that BBC News be switched off/thrown overboard.

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 8, 2005 7:30 AM | Permalink

Most of the comments on this post clearly have no interest in drawing a line between a reasonable demand for "responsible media coverage" and a "blogswarm of destruction" trained on removing from power any and all (actual or perceived) high priority ideological opponents. The former is the stalking horse of the latter.

This is a self-appointed tribunal of ideological correctness, posing as an inquiry into journalistic practice. For these people, media coverage of facts and even political opposition to Bush's policies is tantamount to treason. The premise of the comments is, "While our soldiers continue to kill you, how dare you claim that our soldiers are killing you intentionally." Isn't it remarkable how treating reporters like the enemy by shooting and killing them reinforces the conservative storyline that the press is the enemy of "democracy" (understood as totalitarian ideological orthodoxy)?

The pile of bodies from this war of "liberation" is well over 100,000 in the latest round. The fundamental premise of most of these comments is that everyone in this pile deserved to die--especially if they were opposed to the Bush administration's sorry excuse for foreign policy. The moral of the story for these people is "Don't reveal Bush's mistakes, or die. And stop whining about it."

It will be a fine and probably distant day when the killing of human beings calls forth from these people anything approaching the level of attention devoted here to reestablishing this administration and its armed forces' purity of moral intent. Purity of moral intent of an administration that signs off on torture, whether domestic or outsourced, and doesn't even bother to count the bodies it "collaterally" produces by bombing civilian targets in Iraq on a daily basis.

These calls for the head of the press executive who made this "outrageous" statement are being made by people whose fellow travelers insist that the Geneva convention should not apply to this "war" and anything goes as long as the US calls its enemy "terror." You're fair-weather ethicists, all of you.

(See my blog for a version of this post with eight supporting links.)

Posted by: Mark Anderson at February 8, 2005 7:56 AM | Permalink

Robin Burk

Oh - so at Davos Richard Sambrook did NOT use his authority as a BBC chief to cancel ideas that the US military deliberately target journalists ? Instead - according to the post you linked to - it appears he poured more petrol on the fire by referring to the Palestine Hotel incident. An incident that had already been properly investigated and the US troops exonerated.

I think that tends to confirm how I view Jordan and Sambrook - they are peas in a pod. Singing mostly from the same songsheet of bias against the coalition's actions in Iraq. The Abu Ghraib stuff still crops up all over the place on the BBC and on its World Service news that sambrook runs. Guantanamo is a constant theme. The BBC's tone was that the elections were likely to be a disaster or should be deferred. Any misdemeanour by US or British troops and the BBC is all over it like a rash.

Sorry Jay - but those who have followed the BBC's record are bound to be very chary of Sambrook's comments on the Davos affair. He defended through thick and thin the traducing of Blair over Iraq, and all the records of the Hutton public enquiry are there to show it.

Now Jordan is accused of traducing the US military with allegations far worse than Abu Ghraib. What you in the US need is a similar public enquiry on Jordan's remarks, with power to call for witnesses.

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 8, 2005 8:37 AM | Permalink

To answer your question, John, I think the tape and a transcript should be released and it would be a mistake for the World Economic Forum to continue to refuse. Their instinct may be to protect members and speakers, but at this point they are hurting Jordan by not making it officially available.

"Sambrook is MSM personified." To me, that says it all.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 8, 2005 9:01 AM | Permalink

Does anyone else find it a little odd that the off-the-record, out-of-context comments of a news executive draw more attention than the on-the-record comments of the man who sends U.S. troops to war? You have the watch "The Daily Show" to see any coverage of the latter.

This isn't making me feel good about the "blogosphere," at least in the politics-only definition we're fond of using around here.

Posted by: Beau Dure at February 8, 2005 9:12 AM | Permalink

Again, thanks.

This article in the NY Sun seems a far more complete summary than the very late response of Howard Kurtz to the Jordan story :

With coverage like this, and the CNBC item yesterday on Kudlow and Cramer, the media blackout is beginning to crack.

Your final comment is a bit cryptic - isn't Sambrook MSM personified?

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 8, 2005 9:17 AM | Permalink

Actually the post referred to does not say I raised the Palestine Hotel incident. It says "another journalist" in the room did so. Sorry to throw an awkward point of accuracy and evidence into this swirl of - often unsupported - opinion. (Neither have I "lied" - where is your evidence for that? And John, not even Lord Hutton ever suggested I acted in bad faith)

Having said that, as a News Executive on a panel discussing the safety of journalists in Iraq I fail to see why I should not discuss any of these incidents. Unless they are properly, fairly and openly discussed, as I said in my original note to Jay, it will simply feed prejudice on all sides. Responsiblity for the safety of journalists in war zones rests with the news organisations. But unless we can have a full and open discussion with the military about how journalists have been killed we cannot understand what more we may be able to do to protect them. You are all entitled to your personal opinions about CNN, the BBC, me, Eason, the Iraq War and anything else. However this started with the question of journalists safety in war zones and the high number who have been killed. For those of us with friends and colleagues out there, we will continue to try to understand why the casualties among journalists are unusually high and what more we might do to protect them.

Posted by: Richard Sambrook at February 8, 2005 9:26 AM | Permalink

Mr Sambrook

I have not said that you lied in the Gilligan saga. I said that you defended through thick and thin the lie that Gilligan put out, the traducing of Downing Street. In spite of the fact that you had not asked to see Gilligan's notes to substantiate his claims. In spite of the fact that it was plain that Gilligan's story was contradicted by the chiefs of the UK intelligence services. And in spite of urgings from the Prime Minister himself. The record is there for all to see, including your own correspondence with Downing Street.

Nor have I said you acted in bad faith. But the trenchant criticisms of your executive handling of the Giligan affair made by Lord Hutton stand.

Questions of bias are of course a matter of judgment. Many of us feel that the BBC has been endemically opposed to the Iraq war in the balance of its coverage - or non-coverage, in its selection of commentators and panellists, in its refusal as a matter of policy to call head-choppers "terrorists", and in the tone of some of its key anchormen. The BBC has denied this - but as has been said elsewhere, does a fish know that it is wet ?

Do you wish the Davos tape to be released ? And can you state explicitly that Eason Jordan did NOT say that the US military had targetted journalists resulting in 12 deaths ?

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 8, 2005 9:46 AM | Permalink

Jay - you're missing the point. If our military is truly targeting journalists, then this is a scandal as big as Abu Ghraib, and Jordan is doing the nation and the world a grave disservice with his dance of the veils.

A better analogy is that Jordan and Sambrook are playing the Arafat game: one answer for the US audience, and a different one for the anti-US audience. Like the question of Arafat's support for suicide bombers, the question of whether the US military targets journalists for slaughter is a simple, black-or-white, empirical one that does not admit ambiguity.

Time for a simple, yes/no answer from Eason and Sambrook to this question: Do members of the US military intentionally seek to kill journalists?

The Arafat game is disgraceful. Answer the question, Jordan. Either retract your accusation or state it clearly and with supporting evidence.

Posted by: thibaud at February 8, 2005 10:03 AM | Permalink

Ah, transparency. The WEF videotapes the sessions explicitly so that those videotapes cannot be used subsequently. Brilliant. Apparently, there is nothing holding back any who attended from discussing what was said and even attributing what was said to particular individuals, but an actual transcript or videotape? Verboten! And, why isn't Eason Jordan calling for the release of his comments so that he might be vindicated? Are mainstream journalist now politicians that we should expect them to coverup and dissemble as much as possible?

Transparency, transparency, transparency. When will the media learn that is what it is all about?

Posted by: Ernest Miller at February 8, 2005 10:17 AM | Permalink

Questions for Jay: is it appropriate for journalists to drop bombshell accusations on major issues and then retreat into a cocoon of ambiguity? How does this further the cause of an enlightened citizenry? How can the media claim to speak truth to power when they use their own power to propagate untruths?

The worst possible situation is now developing: the anti-US contingent in Europe and the middle east can now point to the statements of the head of the leading US global news organization as confirmation of a scandalous charge against the US military, and yet the press is refusing to investigate his charges.

If the US military is targeting journalists, we need to see the evidence and Congress needs to investigate. If there is no evidence that the US military is not targeting journalists, then the arabs and Euros need to be told as much by Jordan and other journalists.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Rise and shine, Jordan.

Posted by: thibaud at February 8, 2005 10:19 AM | Permalink

"Time for a simple, yes/no answer from Eason and Sambrook to this question: Do members of the US military intentionally seek to kill journalists? "

Answer: No. As I indicated when Jay first invited me into this discussion. And as far as I am aware no-one has ever suggested that was my view.

John - it wasn't you who accused me of lying - it was another post on here. Thank you at least for acknowledging no bad faith on my part.

Jay - You'll understand next time you invite me to give an honest view on here I may think twice.

I'm now signing out of this discussion.

Posted by: richard sambrook at February 8, 2005 10:31 AM | Permalink

Richard Sambrook,

I'm angry that I've missed you.

"But unless [news organizations] can have a full and open discussion with the military about how journalists have been killed [news organizations] cannot understand what more we may be able to do to protect them."

Serious question: If the military answer is by embedding or pooling they can do their utmost to ensure journalist's safety, how do you respond?

The loggerjam seems to be that the military doesn't want you in front of their weapons and you don't want to only be behind their weapons.

Catch-22?

Posted by: Sisyphus at February 8, 2005 10:35 AM | Permalink

Thank you, Mr Sambrook.

Eason Jordan, do you agree with Mr Sambrook? If so, will you and CNN please issue a clear and unambiguous denial of this myth that is widely believed among your European and arab viewers and that was propagated by your own statements in Davos?

Posted by: thibaud at February 8, 2005 10:38 AM | Permalink

Richard Sambrook

You did not answer the burning current question - do you support the release of the videotapes.

Nor did you explicitly deny that Eason Jordan claimed at Davos that the US military had targetted and killed 12 journalists.

But now you choose to exit the discussion, leaving those crucial questions hanging.

You will not be surprised if people draw their own conclusions.

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 8, 2005 10:40 AM | Permalink

The lack of a tape damns

If Jordan asked that the tape of his comments be released, it would be released. That Davos has now belatedly come up with an excuse not to release it and that Jordan has not called for its release says everything anyone needs to know, doesn't it?

Posted by: Lee Kane at February 8, 2005 10:42 AM | Permalink

It's sure looking alot like Jordan made a gaffe and expects to have his buddies cover for him. Jay, how is your suspension of judgement doing now that it's possible we'll never see a tape or anything approaching a verifiable transcript?

Jordan of course has the right to have private conversations in which he says anything stupid he wants, but then if his remark had been purportedly racist or sexist...well, you don't need me to finish the parallel (ask Larry Summers if you have trouble). No amount of clarification or back-pedalling would have appeased those who want to give him a pass now.

Some of us find that what Jordan *might* have said just as serious a slur, and it is interesting to speculate who in the audience he was trying to impress. Certainly not the American politicians, who have expressed their surprise at what they heard him say.

Posted by: Brian at February 8, 2005 10:56 AM | Permalink

If Mr Sambrook would like to disabuse his arab and European viewers of what he agrees is a myth, then perhaps in future should not introduce into the discussion bogus semantic distinctions, or try to limit the range of Jordan's charges to cases of journalists killed by sniper fire. Mr Sambrook defended Jordan by writing,

"They [the journalists] 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."

Jordan never singled out snipers. Even if he had, what evidence is there that journalists who enter a combate zone in places where enemy combatants operate are visibly identifiable as journalists? Surely this is one aspect of the story that you do know conclusively.

Also, there was never any semantic confusion among Jordan's audience, which included arab and European journalists as well as US politicians. The former applauded and thronged Jordan, the latter were upset. By introducing this false notion of semantic ambiguity, Sambrook distracted his readers from the main issue.

Jordan knew his words were the equivalent of a loaded gun. He chose to fire it, half-cocked. Is this appropriate behavior from the head of a global news organization?

Posted by: thibaud at February 8, 2005 10:57 AM | Permalink

Lee Kane,

The WEF will revisit their decision not to release the tape if the participants call for its release.

That's not a guarantee the WEF will reverse, but the ball is in Gergen's, Frank's and Jordan's court.

That's as clear as I can be.

Posted by: Sisyphus at February 8, 2005 11:04 AM | Permalink

Kurtz:

Jordan said last night. "I have never once in my life thought anyone from the U.S. military tried to kill a journalist. Never meant to suggest that. Obviously I wasn't as clear as I should have been on that panel."

You're claiming there is some kind of ambiguity there? He says he doesn't think the US military intentionally kills journalists. Sambrook said the same thing in his statement here: some people in the media think there is that intention, but that is not my view.

If you see wiggle room there, then I do not find you credible as a reader.

You're beginning to sound like a shoe-pounder in demanding further "clarification" of what has already been stated.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 8, 2005 11:05 AM | Permalink

From a business standpoint, ambiguity works to CNN and the Beeb's advantage.

Who knows the truth, right? By letting these myths (Jenin "massacre", US targets journalists, etc) surface and then refusing to dispositively investigate them, the CNN and the BBC can expand their foothold with continental European and arab viewers without seriously denting their US/UK base.

Perhaps Mr Sambrook needed to run along to a corporate meeting with the BBC suits responsible for gaining market share in the middle east.

Posted by: thibaud at February 8, 2005 11:05 AM | Permalink

Mr. Sambrook,

Assuming someone reads this to you (well, probably not)...get a thicker skin if you're going to bother appearing in venues like this. If you are thinking twice about "giving an honest view" (what else would you give us?) on the basis of someone imputing unkind motives to you in weblog comments, then you're far too delicate a flower for this rather weedy garden.

I suspect there are alot of people in the press whose egos keep them from being more responsive to feedback, for precisely the reason that they expect polite deference from the plebs who read them, and none of this nasty back and forth. It would indeed be nice to have everyone take you at your word, particularly while stonewalling the release of a possibly embarrassing tape.

Unfortunately, the public has the tendency to be just as insistent as, say, a mainstream reporter doggedly pursuing the latest zippergate scandal or celebrity facelift news. My God, the questions they'll ask...and some of them rude, too!

As for your comments here, I didn't find them very illuminating (some passages were a bit too self-serving), so I regret to say your presence won't be missed by me.

Regards,

(Jay, please do not miss the point that Jordan may well want two separate audiences to have entirely different impressions of what he actually said.)

Posted by: Brian at February 8, 2005 11:14 AM | Permalink

Kurtz provides no source or link for Jordan's remarks, so I've no way of knowing whether they were made available to the arab and European audience that applauded Jordan at Davos and that see his Davos remarks as confirmation of the myth. How many people read Kurtz's column? How many people in Europe and the middle east read Kurtz's column?

Did Kurtz interview Jordan himself? Was there a press conference? I've searched CNN's website and can find nothing pertaining to them.

A dangerous myth has been created and has gained currency in no small measure due to Jordan's remarks. When will the public, not Howie Kurtz, hear Jordan speak?

Posted by: thibaud at February 8, 2005 11:16 AM | Permalink

Jay,

You know considerable more about the media than I will ever know. I grant you this. I probably know more about the US military than you will ever know.

There is one thing I can assure you if it was the policy of the US military to target journalists, then the body count would be a lot higher than it is today. I can also assure you it would be all but impossible to prove. Instead of one shot one kill from a sniper, you would have 155mm rounds taking out an entire city block or 500 and 1,000 pound bombs falling from the sky like rain on these journalists who have decided to be embedded with the terrorists.

As for Eason, he probably said what he has been accused of saying. He surely does not have a creditable track record to support his denial. Even you would have to admit this.

So this too will be washed away. As it goes flowing down stream and into history along with it goes a little bit more of the ever-shrinking creditability of the media. For some reason this saddens me.

Posted by: Joe at February 8, 2005 11:24 AM | Permalink

As I was the person who mischaracterized a post, I want to apologize to Mr. Sambrook for having done so. Jay, would you please extend that recognition and apology to him?

I have some sympathy with Mr. Sambrook feeling mobbed. I think there are some elements of piling on happening here.

That did not happen out of the blue, however, so I'll just repeat that I believe the press by and large went into Iraq opposed to our action there and the US military went into Iraq knowing that fact and feeling very frustrated that neither their professionalism nor the chaos of actual battle - nor the ambiguity of correspondent relationships with the insurgents - was adequately reflected in press accounts and press reaction to journalist deaths.

Joe, I personally am saddened at the loss of crediblity on the part of the press, because I believe the press can play an important role for us. What that role will be, in the face of digital technologies, whether the various sides decide to take each other seriously and with more respect and what the future of journalism might look like -- well, that's a different and bigger question IMO.

Posted by: Robin Burk at February 8, 2005 11:49 AM | Permalink

Jay -

Seems you've attracted a crowd intent on proving Matt Welch right.

Maybe one day blogs, at least those that attract a mob, will scrap the "comments" field and go with "trackback" only. That may be the only way to keep some sanity in the mix. You're trying to have a sound discussion here -- it's a noble effort. But there will always be people with more time and more anger who'll bog things down once they've made up their minds.

Posted by: Beau Dure at February 8, 2005 11:53 AM | Permalink

"examine the responsibility of the commenters on this thread"--that's a good one. I remember when Mark Anderson regularly favored PressThink readers with long, tedious, and off-topic comments because some bugbear of his wasn't getting due attention. Yes, he's a regular model of restraint.

For that matter, I don't see your post trying to engage anyone. "We still recognize their necessity in the overall system of accountability in a democracy"--well, of course you do, you're educated, the rest of us just crawled out of the primoridal muck an hour ago and I myself have barely learned how to read. No point taking our views seriously. Obviously no one criticizing Jordan values the press at all, right?

As for Juan Cole and Jonah Goldberg, they're tangential at best to the issue of Eason Jordan's purported remarks--Goldberg isn't by any stretch of the imagination a media establishment figure like Jordan. Completely silly comparison.

You call for responsibility and careful criticism from others and then call people who are getting noticeably irritated with Jordan and CNN witchhunting dolts brainwashed by too much Internet and TV and Bill O'Reilly. Oh, so that's the kind of *reasoned* discussion you like. Have fun.

Posted by: Brian at February 8, 2005 12:31 PM | Permalink

Beau... we may be in the process of an agonizing, decade-long proof that open comments are basically not viable. There are too many who would exploit them and waste our time. Too many who find in the thrill of destruction their "kick" online.

The city will be rid of rats sooner than the Internet will be free of trolls.

I don't have great hopes for these threads for that reason. I see them as temporarily, sometimes suddenly and weirdly capable of spontaneous and real dialogue, and constantly vulnerable to... well, to anyone. All the time.

It's one of the strange things about comment threads. They all die. In a sense each one is killed by the participants, but death can take place early or late in the thread.

If you have one great exchange, and it illuminates something for you, then right there you beat the odds. We beat the odds here often enough, but it's a tiny force. Just as e-mail is every year composed of more and more unwanted communication, so, I fear, comments will become.

Ungated may be a great thing. It may be the thing we want, the thing we celebrate. (I have certainly done my share of that.) Doesn't mean it works in an actual human situation, a concrete setting.

To turn on the comment feature is basically to say, "Okay, I'm going to run a tragedy of the commons case study here at my site." And that is what I feel I am doing. It's sorta like the laws of the casino. But in this case the house always loses.

When Richard Sambrook says, "Jay - You'll understand next time you invite me to give an honest view on here I may think twice," PressThink loses. Perhaps he is wrong to feel that way; an argument can be made. It's sustainable. But still it is a loss.

And I feel there is value sometimes in my "academic" interventions. For example: Trying to strike a neutral chord in a blog storm is