PressThink: Eason Jordan Resigns

Eason Jordan Resigns

Just got off the phone with Howard Kurtz. It's confirmed. Eason Jordan resigned today about an hour ago (6 pm EST). There are lots of reactions.

Here is an AP Story. Here is CNN’s account. And Howard Kurtz’s. See Instapundit.

This is the statement Eason Jordan released tonight around 6:00 pm EST:

After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq.

I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside.

While my CNN colleagues and my friends in the U.S. military know me well enough to know I have never stated, believed, or suspected that U.S. military forces intended to kill people they knew to be journalists, my comments on this subject in a World Economic Forum panel discussion were not as clear as they should have been.

I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise. I have great admiration and respect for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces, with whom I have worked closely and been embedded in Baghdad, Tikrit, and Mosul, in addition to my time with American soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen in Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the Arabian Gulf.

As for my colleagues at CNN, I am enormously proud to have worked with you, risking my life in the trenches with you, and making CNN great with you. For that experience, and for your friendship and support these many years, I thank you.

I told Howard Kurtz I was surprised and didn’t know of any firing offense. Of course I haven’t seen the tape.

11pm: Kurt’z story is out: “Eason Jordan resigned last night as CNN’s chief news executive in an effort to quell a bubbling controversy over his remarks about U.S. soldiers killing journalists in Iraq.” Read it. He quotes me correctly:

Jay Rosen [said] he didn’t think Jordan “had engaged in a firing offense.” Bloggers “made a lot of noise” about the Jordan flap, Rosen said. “But there was basic reporting going on — finding the people who were there, getting them to make statements, comparing one account to another — along with accusations and conspiracy thinking and the politics of paranoia and attacks on the MSM, or mainstream media.”

Here’s one try at an explanation. The primary sources are my earlier post on Jordan’s job being political and diplomatic (the Colin Powell of the news division but very definitely a journalist by tribal affiliation); plus the comments of Rebecca MacKinnon; and this comment from a “veteran journalist” in tonight’s thread, otherwise nameless. It also picks up from the terse Glenn Reynolds: “I think we know what the video would have shown, now.” It’s only a possible explanation, but plausible in my view.

The tape had to be a disaster. But what kind? When Jordan and others at CNN looked at it, they must have seen a man making statements that went beyond what the network had been able to prove in its news reporting. He had wandered into the territory of assertion, some hearsay, and of things you feel you know are true even though you can’t get anyone on the record to say it.
By speaking in this way before an audience of influentials, Jordan allowed there to be (some) daylight between the military reporting the rest of the world had seen on CNN and the “report” that Jordan, its chief news executive, was willing to offer the in crowd in Davos. But there can never be that daylight. As “veteran journo” said: “If the standard of proof wasn’t good enough to get it on CNN, it’s not good enough to discuss at a forum in Davos.”

Ordinarily the lapse would not be noticed, and would not become public. That was before the WEF created a participants’ blog. Rebecca MacKinnon, who once worked for Eason Jordan at CNN (bio): “I think Eason Jordan resigned because he knew that if the Davos tape came out it would make the situation worse, not better.” (Worse because the “lower standard of proof” is plainly in evidence at certain moments.) Her post is a must.

I know there are a number of people involved with the World Economic Forum who think the WEF needs to completely re-think its media/blogging and on/off record policies. It was a great thing that the WEF started a blog this year, inviting conference participants to post their impressions and thoughts. I encouraged them to do this. Unfortunately, the WEF’s operating norms are not compatible with the age of the blog. Jordan’s demise is the frightening result.

I said it in Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over: “A blog, you see, is a little First Amendment machine.”

After Matter: Notes, reactions & links…

Steve Lovelady emails: “The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail. (Where is Jimmy Stewart when we need him ?) This convinces me more than ever that Eason Jordan is guilty of one thing, and one thing only — caring for the reporters he sent into battle, and haunted by the fact that not all of them came back. Like Gulliver, he was consumed by Lilliputians.”

“We see you beind the curtain, Lovelady and company, and we’re not impressed by either your bluster or your insults,” says Will Collier at Vodka Pundit. “We’re not going away. Deal with it.” For more, check out the exchanges between Steve Lovelady and Vodka Pundit readers.

“Sad day for the freedom of expression in America and sad day again for the future of blogging,” writes Bertrand Pecquerie at Editors Weblog. “Nevertheless, there is one advantage in this story: masks are fallen!… Real promoters of citizen media would have to take some distance with those who have fueled and organised the Eason Jordan hatred. If not, the ‘new era of journalism’opened by the blogosphere will appear as the old clothes of American populism.”

Captain’s Quarters: “The moral of the story: the media can’t just cover up the truth and expect to get away with it — and journalists can’t just toss around allegations without substantiation and expect people to believe them anymore.”

An anonymous “veteran journo” in the comments is making sense on why Jordan had to go. I don’t know who it is, though. “I’m a journalist (25 years in the trenches) and I have been following this story with great interest.” That is evident.

Michelle Malkin does an instant restrospective: Easongate.

For those of us in the information business, this is truly an earth-shaking time. Who would have imagined that the downfall of one of the world’s most powerful news executives would be precipitated by an ordinary citizen blogging his eyewitness report at Davos in the wee hours of the morning on Jan. 27? It’s simply stunning.

Her narrative of events in the blogosphere is very useful. The column is impressively done— on deadline, as it were.

The Los Angeles Times tells readers about Eason Jordan’s resignation over the fallout from a story the Los Angeles Times never told its readers about. What is the name for that?

Rebecca Blood: “Journalists will take this personally. For many of them—and for a large segment of the public—this will cement their view of blogs as nothing more than a written form of talk radio. With regard to the weblogs most often quoted in the press, and apparently read by reporters, this perception will largely be accurate.”

Glenn Reynolds remarks on a telling little error in the Los Angeles Times story: “If, as many suspect, this will be spun by some Big Media outfits as a baying mob out for the blood of conscientious journalists, that spin will lose force when it becomes apparent that many of those describing the ‘mob’ have only the vaguest idea of what they’re describing.”

Don’t miss Digby’s take on it.

Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix: “Can we please interrupt the self-congratulatory hooting from conservative bloggers for a moment in order to offer some kudos to two liberals, Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd? It was their outrage that lifted this out of the usual left-right paradigm.” A much neglected factor.

Cory Bergman at Lost Remote:

This latest story will only lead to greater distrust between media execs and bloggers. Selfishly, it makes our jobs harder here at Lost Remote. Over the past few months, I’ve noticed that media execs who are not familiar with Lost Remote — the very people we’re trying to attract — are becoming less inclined to trust us simply because we’re a “blog.” Back in 1999 when we launched as an “industry news site,” we had trouble landing interviews because people thought we were insignificant. Now that we have a very respectable audience, we’re battling a blog perception problem inside the industry. Very unfortunate.

Timothy Karr at Media Citizen: “The problem is that much of the story was driven by those seeking to score political points. The new and accurate information that they often uncover is just a byproduct of the witch hunt. This controversy mounted as mainstream news reporters fed off the blogs; their resulting mainstream coverage stoked the ranting pundits on the endless cable talk shows. This media storm then spun back into the blogosphere, which ratcheted the frenzy up another notch. And so on.”

Jim Geraghty at National Review Online:

I would have preferred that the tape be released, that the public have a chance to mull over his comments, and then let Jordan face whatever consequences were appropriate. I have a feeling that the discussion of the “blogs as a lynch mob” is going to get a lot of coverage in the coming days.

“This was clearly was a case of blog-thuggery.” Jude Nagurney Camwell at the American Street:

The ‘Right-wing mouth machine’ would like us all to think that Eason Jordan was “bad” and “unAmerican” for saying what he said. CNN has been complicit by their reticence to talk about tough issues. They wound up to be the biggest loser. They lost Eason Jordan. Eason was guilty before being proven innocent by no other process except one: the blog-trial. The right-wing blogs seem to be the Supreme Court of the blogging community at large. Why should this be so?

From Howard Kurt’s account:

Gergen said Jordan’s resignation was “really sad” since he had quickly backed off his initial comments. “This is too high a price to pay for someone who has given so much of himself over 20 years. And he’s brought down over a single mistake because people beat up on him in the blogosphere? They went after him because he is a symbol of a network seen as too liberal by some. They saw blood in the water.”

PressThink, Feb. 10: “Whether you agree or not in the case of Jordan’s remarks, suspicion of the blog swarm is not crazy or wrong, and fear of mob-like actions by bloggers and others online is going to continue to speak to people, for the same reason invasions of privacy by the press always speak across ideological divides. It doesn’t take much to imagine the mob coming at you.”

From the New York Times account by Jacques Steinberg and Katharine Seelye: “Eason Jordan, a senior executive at CNN who was responsible for coordinating the cable network’s Iraq coverage, resigned abruptly last night, citing a journalistic tempest he touched off during a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, late last month…” A journalistic tempest?

See this interview in the Mudville Gazette with Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald, on what he calls the “myth” of targeted journalists. Crittenden was an embedded reporter in Iraq. Also see this letter from him.

Jeff Jarvis: “I honestly don’t get it. If he had been upfront about what he said from the start; if he had demanded that Davos release the tape and transcript; if he had admitted to putting his foot in his mouth and apologized and said he was wrong; if he’d done that, he’d still have a job… But he released obfuscating statements and didn’t level with the public he’s supposed to serve and now he’s slinking away like a criminal when he should be apologizing for saying something stupid.” (More Jarvis.)

The End of Honest Mistakes? Garrett M. Graff at FishbowlDC:

On any given week the Jeff Gannon saga or the Eason Jordan controversy would have been big news on the blogs, but the fact that they came in the same week—their virtual bloodletting separated by just a few days—marks a much larger sea change.
We now entering an age where journalists are so closely scrutinized by thousands of people with almost limitless time and limitless research power that the slightest misstep can end a distinguished career.

Rony Abovitz (before tonight’s news): “The challenge for Eason is how to both have real integrity on this issue and keep his job. The more spinning and denials, the harder this becomes.”

“The trouble was the cover-up.” — Hugh Hewitt’s verdict.

Posted by Jay Rosen at February 11, 2005 7:09 PM Print

Please...let's stay on target and topic. Why is Rony's original, professional report on Jordan's words and the subsequent lovefest from anti-American observers of such little interest or import to folks like Jay and the truly hysterical Lovelady? Why the lack of belief in either Dodd or Frank's first-hand recollection of Jordan's speech and behavior? Gergen gasped, we're told by all; Frank was incredulous, Dodd flabbergasted. The flustered Jordan backpedalled, stalled, retreated, advanced in a confusing manner--simultaneously repeating and modifying his language. Yet he happily took compliments for courage from his European and Arabic admirers in the audience. This much we know from eyewitness accounts.
The Times reports stories as 'factual' with far less confirmation and corroboration; the target of such reports are always required to defend themselves against the weight and integrity of the Grey Lady, even if a solo junior reporter presented the story. Fact.

We also know the MSM circled the wagons to protect Jordan. The CJR did more than that; it actively attempted to debunk the story, slime the messengers and comported itself in a thoroughly unprofessional and disgracefully incurious manner.

Anyone with experience in the media understands one important thing that trumps all others--Jordan wouldn't have quit had the tape acquited him or given him the slightest wiggle room for defense and/or apology. Especially after two decades of service. Please, don't insult our intelligence by pretending that his superiors haven't a clue about the content of Jordan's remarks, his intent or his previous impetuous assertions. He was shown the door because CNN knows precisely what he said; his exit prior to any MSM pressure assures that he is unambiguously a liability to the network's integrity. He was fired; the resignation letter is noblesse oblige for 23 years of service and provides a rather weak, tepid justification. Just parse the language: "I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks." Now who's responsible for the conflicting accounts? Jordan himself; or more precisely, the few members of the MSM not actually in attendance willing to defend Jordan. Everyone present agrees without conflict that the CNN jefe was rash, intemperate and accusatory--while providing no evidence of targeting of journalists. And not for the first time. There'd be no 'conflict' if he hadn't stonewalled, if he hadn't blocked the release of the taped evidence. I must say, however, the 'trenches' reference is amusing, given his cowardice on this occasion and his shameful coverup of Saddam's atrocities in order to secure exclusives in Baghdad. Had the MSM shown any courage following that stunning revelation, Jordan's resignation would've taken place years ago. Instead, incredibly, scandalously, he was given an oped column in the Times to defend himself and save his job. Moral? We can no longer trust the MSM to police itself.

Posted by: John© at February 11, 2005 11:42 PM | Permalink

If his remarks were so easily misunderstood I think the tape would have been released by now, don't you? The tape should still be released so Mr. Eason can't be cast as the victim of the blood-thirsty blogosphere.

Posted by: lezlies at February 11, 2005 7:23 PM | Permalink

From the Brit side of the pond, it is now time for Nik Gowing to resign from the BBC for putting about similar slime about the US military. Eason Jordan's trip-up could well have stemmed from The US military that played a major part in freeing Europe, and has defended Britain and Europe for all the decades since WW2.

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 7:34 PM | Permalink

Poor Ollie. He watches the blogosphere win Rathergate and Jordangate, and all he has is Gannongate and (giggle) Humegate.

I just doesn't get any better than this.

Posted by: TomB at February 11, 2005 7:38 PM | Permalink

Jordan says: "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists..."

This is a total lie.

Last November, he made the same kind of allegation: "Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces."

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

Posted by: Bostonian at February 11, 2005 7:49 PM | Permalink

To paraphrase a wonderful thing I found on some blog:

Mr Jordan; I'd like you to meet my friend The Internet.
Mr Internet this is Mr Jordan. I'll leave you to chat for a while. Have fun, and be careful. Internet remembers everything and he's a real blabbermouth.

Posted by: Bostonian at February 11, 2005 7:51 PM | Permalink

Why are Jordan's comments such a surprise? Watch the DVD Control Room and you will see proof of his statements: (copied from a review of Control Room on Amazon.com) Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Startling and powerful, Control Room is a documentary about the Arab television network Al-Jazeera's coverage of the U.S.-led Iraqi war .... The killing of an Al-Jazeera reporter in what appears to be a deliberately targeted air strike is horrifying.

Posted by: blue_in_ohio at February 11, 2005 8:08 PM | Permalink

gee Jay, are you proud of yourself? Perhaps you can get a picture of Jordan for your office with a target superimposed, and the word

BULLSEYE!

as the caption.
.
.
.

you are pathetic.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 11, 2005 8:11 PM | Permalink

I'm a journalist (25 years in the trenches) and I have been following this stroy with great interest.

A few things strike me that I haven't yet seen others pick up on.

The "mis-spoke" defence is all very well, but if there's anyone who knows or should know how to be quoted, how not to be quoted and how to avoid being misquoted it's a journalist with Jordan's experience.

If he were a "civilian" I could understand the "tempest in a teapot" view but this guy is a journalist who quotes people everyday.

Ditto, for telling stories that CNN hadn't aired. If they hadn't broadcast the story about the Al Jazeera journo forced to eat his shoes, it's because they couldn't get people to talk about it on the record. A news executive can't go passing on those rumours in a semi-public forum. If the standard of proof wasn't good enough to get it on CNN, it 's not good wnough to discuss at a forum in Davos. Maybe at JOrdan's dinner table but not Davos.

To me, these two mistakes are inexcusable coming from a news executive. And they are indeed grounds for firing or resigning.

I still believe it would be better to show the tape because I think journalists can't possibly argue against that given the nature of the Davos forum.

and I agree Jeff, that there's something very wrong about journos and power brokers attending huge "off the record" gatherings.

Honestly, I would never agree to be off the record at such an event.

Anyway that's my take -- inescapably bad errors of judgement. He had to go.

Posted by: veteran journo at February 11, 2005 8:22 PM | Permalink

Jay

Others have commented that those of us with a service background - whether we lean right or left - are the ones most annoyed about so much of the media treatment of Iraq. The decency and bravery of most members of the coalition forces is seldom reported. Instead the media seem to delight in putting stuff like Abu Ghraib and the US Marine incident in Fallujah on a constant loop, endlessly repeating the stories and implying that this is general behaviour. This imbalance in reporting saps morale - and encourages the enemy. Members of the forces themselves want high standards of behaviour, they are proud of the discipline they normally exhibit even in battle.

Eason Jordan's alleged statement was perhaps just the tipping-point.

Incidentally - has anyone wondered whether the unwillingness to have the Davos videotape released might be due to the risk that Jordan could find himself being sued by military personnel ? If I was serving in Iraq, I would sure want someone to be exploring the chances of bringing suit.

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 8:23 PM | Permalink

Eason Jordan has just been tire-necklaced by a bloodthirsty group of utopian, bible-thumping knuckledraggers that believe themselves to be bloggers but are really just a streetgang.

Time Warner/CNN is spineless if not completely corrupted by its shareholders' thirst for petro-dollars.

It is now clear that all pretenses to journalistic 'objectivity' benefit the torturing, gulag-building blood-cult known Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's Republican Party.

All journalism must now be allowed to practice partisan advocacy, otherwise it is a pantomime, a bunch of mimics trying to reconstruct Cronkite and Murrow in front of a mirror that's no longer there.

Posted by: William Boykin at February 11, 2005 8:24 PM | Permalink

This is the worst possible outsome. All it does is harden positions and create a victim for a seige mentality, without addressing the issues implicit in those alleged remarks. I wanted the WEF tape, but I didn't sign the petition because it called for Jordan's ouster.

Whatever the comments, had we seen them, we might have sidled up to a conversation about perception, confirmation bias, what a war correspondent thinks his job is and why doing it is worth the risk--all important things to talk about. Now, we're left with right-left and ashes.

Posted by: alene at February 11, 2005 8:26 PM | Permalink

Boykin,
These are all very interesting ideas you raise, sir, but do you have an opinion on the actual subject here. Here are some easy yes/no questions for ya:

1. Are you interested in knowing whether US troops have actually shot journalists deliberately?

2. If they have done so, don't you think the press should get to the bottom of it?

3. If they have not done so, do you feel it's OK for a news executive to claim that they HAD done so?

Posted by: Bostonian at February 11, 2005 8:32 PM | Permalink

Alene is being premature. Just because Jordan is out does not mean that the tape cannot be released. The two are and should be distinct issues. Now more than ever.

Posted by: Van der Leun at February 11, 2005 8:33 PM | Permalink

It doesn't matter what Eason Jordan said or didn't say; there's plenty of evidence that goes back 2 years, but only if you disbelieve the deceiptniks and their sycophants.

The U.S. Military shut down hospitals in Iraq because they believed that injured Iraqi civilians are nothing but enemy propaganda. They are psychotic.

Posted by: William Boykin at February 11, 2005 8:50 PM | Permalink

Thank goodness. Maybe CNN can begin trying to rescue its utterly shot, ruined, trashed, nullified, ciphered, disappeared reputation. Like a car with no wheels, or a shoe with no sole, or a house with no roof, a network with no trust is short a very critical component.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at February 11, 2005 9:00 PM | Permalink

As the late, great A.J. Liebling pointed out, "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one." Blogging and online journalism has given new meaning to this...

Memeorandum: Bloggers take another scalp?

Posted by: Jozef Imrich at February 11, 2005 9:03 PM | Permalink

Jordan: I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq.

Actually, it was Jordan who was tarnished by CNN's breathlessly strident, repetetive, speculative reporting style.

Jordan: I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside.

CNN does have many talented people, but if CNN used to be the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, that was before internet-based alternative streams of information conveyed how narrow the CNN storyline was.

Jordan: While my CNN colleagues and my friends in the U.S. military know me well enough to know I have never stated, believed, or suspected that U.S. military forces intended to kill people they knew to be journalists, my comments on this subject in a World Economic Forum panel discussion were not as clear as they should have been.

We may never know.

alene: This is the worst possible [outcome].

What is? Certainly not that Jordan was forced out. He wasn't. He didn't have to resign, despite some calls that he do so. You don't get where Jordan got being thin-skinned. And most of the comment threads, discounting the predictable threadnoise on both fringes, were moderate, persistently requesting clarity, explanation, and either admission or evidence. No, Jordan didn't have to resign.

If, alene, this is the worst possible outcome, all it means is that those who are thoughtless will label themselves more clearly, the easier to pass over their noise in the comment threads. Yes, Jay, it would be a good idea to put the names of commenters above the comment itself, the better to help us scan.

Posted by: sbw at February 11, 2005 9:08 PM | Permalink

Van der Leun, I agree. In fact, Jordan's resignation may well mean the tape has somehow found its way out of the Davos vaults, will soon see the light of day, and CNN is simply bowing to the inevitable. Alene, left/right is not all we have. What I believe we have is an entirely new world in which the Rathers, Mapes and Jordans of the world can no longer get away with flagrant biases and untruths. Because people now have a way to respond. And that's a very good thing. And oh yeah, Boykin, was that you making goofy faces at the Lynne Stewart press conference yesterday?

Posted by: Jon at February 11, 2005 9:16 PM | Permalink

Aw, come on guys! Boykin's just satirizing like The Onion! No one in his right mind could actually believe such drivel as he typed! You're just kidding us, right? Boykin, right?

Posted by: Earl T at February 11, 2005 9:23 PM | Permalink

Now that Eason Jordan has resigned, I must clarify that my speculation that it would be an interesting turn of events if 1) a SEAL Team snatched Mr. Eason Jordan 2) tied him to a steel chair with both feet in a bucket of ocean water 3) used a Super DieHard on him in between mock executions until 4) he was dropped off without a change of underwear on the set of Fox and Friends Weekend Live! was in no way meant to advocate such events. My respect for the journalistic vocation is self evident, and I would be repulsed by such treatment of a well educated metrosexual big hair meat puppet infotainment executive, especially one who has such reverence for the US Military.

Posted by: Dave Mac at February 11, 2005 9:30 PM | Permalink

Earl, if you click on Boykin's link, you'll see where he's "coming from".

Antiwar.com is perhaps one of the premiere anti-semitic sites on the net.

I'm just amazed he was able to leave out any reference to "da JOOOOOOOOOZ".

Posted by: Tom at February 11, 2005 9:33 PM | Permalink

sbw,

I think this is the worst possible outcome - if we don't get the tape.

Do you think Jordan expressed an idea, the military is targeting journalists, that he alone held? Was he seen as a spokesman for journalists who feel that way, even if it is untrue?

Does his resignation improve the relationship between the media and the military? Does it make Jordan a martyr? Does it make those journalists that feel the military is "out to get them" less secure, more estranged, and perhaps more hostile?

The tape, and Eason Jordan, would have allowed a full airing of this issue. Pull the skeleton out, shake out the paranoia, shake hands and go back to work.

Jordan's gone. The idea remains.

Posted by: Sisyphus at February 11, 2005 9:42 PM | Permalink

Hey Tom:

Antiwar.com is not anti-semitic in the least. It does contain writing which questions the apparent merging of Israeli and U.S. foreign policy, a debate which has not taken place in the so-called liberal media. Antiwar.com also does a great job in deciphering the strategically deceptive Perle/Wolfowitz/Kristol neo-con agenda, which is something your corporate media has not done.

Why has this not been done? Because principled journalists live every day in fear of being labeled anti-semitic by bottom feeders like you and the Weekly Standard.

People who question Israeli domestic and foreign policy are not anti-semitic.

You people all operate under this misguided assumption that the corporate media has a liberal bias. It does not. It has a corporate bias. They are stenographers for the powerful. It is unconscious and ingrained and it is based on social fear.

Posted by: William Boykin at February 11, 2005 9:48 PM | Permalink

Sisyphus, read Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum". Just because you can map datapoints to history doesn't make your invented narrative true. It's very Capricorn to fill your brain's allocated worry-space with hypotheticals. Let's just get on with business.

Posted by: sbw at February 11, 2005 9:50 PM | Permalink

Antiwar.com is not anti-semitic in the least.

Uh, yea. And the check's in the mail.

So Billy, did you ever get all that money from that nice Nigerian fellow?

Posted by: Tom at February 11, 2005 9:52 PM | Permalink

Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily emails:

"The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail. (Where is Jimmy Stewart when we need him ?) This convinces me more than ever that Eason Jordan is guilty of one thing, and one thing only -- caring for the reporters he sent into battle, and haunted by the fact that not all of them came back. Like Gulliver, he was consumed by Lilliputians."

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 11, 2005 10:04 PM | Permalink

Bill Safire: When infuriated by an outrageous column, do not be suckered into responding with an abusive e-mail. Pundits so targeted thumb through these red-faced electronic missives with delight, saying "Hah! Got to 'em."

Posted by: Sisyphus at February 11, 2005 10:14 PM | Permalink

Not a peep from Aaron Brown the "face " of CNN on his boss' resignation. He looks like his stomach is sour, then again, what else is new?

Posted by: Dave Mac at February 11, 2005 10:20 PM | Permalink

As other elsewhere in blogsphere have point out, there are a couple of possible reason Jordan resign:

1. Someone higher up in Time-Warner food-chain finally saw the tape, and realized that Jordan have place CNN in a indefensible position.

2. NRO have stirred up Congressional interest, especially Senator Coleman of the perminent Investigation Subcommittee. CNN really don't want to go there.

Posted by: BigFire at February 11, 2005 10:24 PM | Permalink

Boykin, you do SO miss the point.

The press has managed to do stories revealing all kinds of horrible scandals; it's their bread and butter.

But the press has not been able to back up fables like Easons, and there's a reason for it. They are not true.

And CNN knows his stories are not true. Hence the boot.

Posted by: Bostonian at February 11, 2005 10:30 PM | Permalink

As I said earlier - the CJR is looking pretty stupid. First they published a really naive article on the Rather affair ((Cory Pein ?) that neglected to read the most important piece of forensic demolition of the forged documents by Dr Joseph Newcomer. Now Steve Lovelady is going berserk - after writing a really petty and incomplete review article.

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 10:41 PM | Permalink

Jordan had better have a damn good reason for resigning. There comes a point when preventing your organization from being "unfairly tarnished" pales in importance next to more fundamental principles, and I think we've reached it.

How do you stop a mob?

Here's one suggestion:
Start asking bloggers, commenters, and pundits to disclose their financial and other interests in the subject they're addressing.

Another:
Don't just allow people to go into "spew mode"; ask - and expect - them to explicitly evaluate how sure they are of what they're saying. (With surprising frequency, table-pounders will come down to earth when asked what their confidence level is - 100% being ludicrous, and anything else being unthinkable...)

I'm 85% sure this is true :-)

Posted by: Anna at February 11, 2005 10:53 PM | Permalink

You are now reported by Howard Kurtz as saying you didn't think that Jordan had "engaged in a firing offence"

How on earth do you come to that conclusion ? Absent the tape, are you saying he did not say what others allege he said ? On what grounds ?

Or that even if he did, that was not a firing offence ? Really ? So it would be OK for any head of a news organisation to accuse the US military of widespread murder ?

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 10:56 PM | Permalink

It's too bad he resigned. The accusation Jordan made against our military still stands and has not been addressed.

For those who believe Jordan was telling the truth, he now becomes the poster child for 'persecuted journalists'.

I wanted to get these accusations out in the open and have them examined, on a case by case basis, possibly by a congressional committee.

As someone who has family in the military, the idea that someone in Jordan's position could believe them capable of targeting journalists is revolting. Why did he seem to hate our soldiers so much to slander them this way?

Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 11, 2005 11:00 PM | Permalink

Don't you read the posts I write? Before Kurtz said it, I did.

I told Howard Kurtz I was surprised and didn't know of any firing offense. Of course I haven't seen the tape.

First of all, Jordan wasn't fired, as far as we know. He resigned. Under pressure? Probably. But it's entirely possible the biggest pressure was exerted by himself and professional pride. We haven't been told what the firing offense was, if there was one.

The "how on earth?" stuff is just a lot of noise. It should be possible to ask a question without advertising your disbelief in advance.

It's possible that if I ever view the tape, I will see a firing offense. Right now, I don't. There still could be reasons to toss Jordan overboard, or for him to quit, absent any "firing offense."

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 11, 2005 11:12 PM | Permalink

OOOhhh!!! Jeff Gannon...his stint as a pseudo-reporter so compares to Eason Jordan's apologia for hiring Iraqi's who were to be tortured and then proclaiming and promulgating the rumor that US servicemen target journalists..yes yes so many similarites...AS IF.

Posted by: cal-boy at February 11, 2005 11:13 PM | Permalink

Your post says you told Kurtz you didn't know of any firing offence. (A remark in a very long post) But the Kurtz article says you told him that you "didn't think Jordan had engaged in a firing offence." Different wording.

The first statement implies ignorance of what was actually said at Davos - fair enough, that has been your position. But the way Kurtz reported you might easily be construed as you suggesting that Jordan had NOT made the allegation. Which you say is not your position. So Kurtz misunderstood you, maybe, or you did not make yourself plain to him.

Others coming new to all this might construe the Kurtz article as you suggesting that even if Jordan had made the allegation, it was not a firing offence.

Maybe you can't you see those possible meanings in the Kurtz article. I bet others will.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17462-2005Feb11.html

Posted by: JohninLondon at February 11, 2005 11:50 PM | Permalink

John c is more accurate- the MSM will not and cannot police itself. The mere attempt at spin is proof enough considering all we need is a transcript or video. Is that so tough for a MSM organization to dig up with hundreds of reporters? The MSM media becomes more like "The Onion" everyday. Sad really.

Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 12:21 AM | Permalink

My guess is Jordan was finished anyway, with the success of the Iraq election and the reelection of George W. Bush. CNN has been fully invested in a U.S. disaster in Iraq, thanks to people like Jordan... Some of us have known for years how MSM protects its own, but this unsuccessful attempt to protect Jordan clearly reveals that the old silence routine no longer works. It's just terrific the three senators on Kudlow were in the picture.

Posted by: exguru at February 12, 2005 12:27 AM | Permalink

Jay, as you know, I've been lurking. I'll de-lurk for just a moment given reasons that I hope will do more good than harm, though I may be wrong:

With awareness that we live in a world of unclear moral choices, that hindsight is 20/20, granting every general philosophical defense, doing my best to phrase the following so it is not trivially dismissable partisanship, recognizing your essential humanity, and criticizing an action, not a person:

I think you did the wrong thing!

I believe your blog has passed a certain milestone. Not that you can't survive and thrive, not at all, by any means. But I feel extremely uncomfortable with the reward/risk ratio for participating nowadays. It's turned into a place where only the scorched-earth types can long endure. And it's not just the comment-trolls I mean by that.

But as you said in your gem of a comment: "Perhaps he is wrong to feel that way; an argument can be made. It's sustainable. But still it is a loss."

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at February 12, 2005 12:38 AM | Permalink

Look- you can debate whether we should scrutinize the entirety of all words spoken by people in positions of power or whatever. No one is contesting that really. The problem arises when the scrutinizers cry foul when it is turned upon them; thus we hear "freedom of the press" or "academic freedom" to avoid the pursuance of the truth or the deliberate hampering of bringing that truth to light. Jordan made comments which the MSM refused to even acknowledge(as per normal). We're just weary of it all, really.

Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 12:50 AM | Permalink

"The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces," Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal." Guardian, UK 11-19-04

Where are those "true" reports? How are the remarks at Davos "a slip...a mistatement" given the fact he is already a true believer and on the record months before claiming "journalists...have been tortured by US forces." Now that's a story...how about a report on CNN on this journalist torture?

By the way, Eason Jordan is on the board of the group he addressed in Davos...and fully capable of retrieving the tapes from his own organization any time he chooses. It's his call. And don't you think he's already done so by command of his bosses on the board at Time Warner? Your call, Jay; sceptical or naive? Can't play it both ways, as you tried with Kurtz; ignore Barney, Dodd and Rony...they were there! Not enough for you? How many sources did they need for Watergate? To pillory Bush at CBS?

Posted by: John© at February 12, 2005 12:53 AM | Permalink

Okay, Seth. Well, it might work better if you just write an Infothought post, "Rosen crossed a line" or something similar. Define line crossed. An invisible barrier, perhaps, but in your description we should be able to "see" it. Give some examples. You know, links. Analysis, of course. Blog it up. When you do "line crossed" criticism, the most important thing is to be able to say clearly about the crossing over: from what, to what?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2005 12:58 AM | Permalink

Jay:

YOU MUST TURN YOUR BACK ON THE SO-CALLED RIGHT BLOGOSPHERE. THEY ARE LED BY BLOODTHIRSTY TORTURE APOLOGISTS AND NARCISIST LIARS WHO CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MIRROR, A TV, A CAMERA, AND THEIR MOMMIES. THEY ARE AMERICAN IN NAME ONLY, A DISGRACE TO THE FLAG AND TO THE U.S. MILITARY. THEIR SOULS ARE DEAD, ESPECIALLY REYNOLDS. THEY ARE WEAK AND LIVE IN FEAR. THEY ARE 'WINNING' THESE WORTHLESS BATTLES BECAUSE YOU WASTE YOUR TIME PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM. STOP IT. THERE IS NO CENTRIST POSITION TO BE FOUND IN THIS ATMOSPHERE.

Posted by: William Boykin at February 12, 2005 2:26 AM | Permalink

Boykin -- how you so eloquently capture the very essence of the centrist position with such measured words of reason and balance.

Until tonight, I did not realize that the state information ministry of North Korea, as well as Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al-Qaeda, were also centrist in their rhetoric.

Thank you for enlightening me.

-TS

Posted by: The Sophist at February 12, 2005 3:26 AM | Permalink

Chris Josephson wrote:

now, I'm not trying to criticize Josephson personally, because this comment reflect the views of all who engaged in the witch hunt against Jordan.

Now, imagine its a year ago, and Jordan said at Davros that the US military was torturing and abusing and killing Iraqi prisoners.

Does anyone here believe for a moment that the "Chris Josephsons" of the blogosphere would not have written:

As someone who has family in the military, the idea that someone in Jordan's position could believe them capable of torturing and killing Iraqi prisoners is revolting. Why did he seem to hate our soldiers so much to slander them this way?

The truth or falsity of the Jordan allegations was irrelevant to those who criticized him. What was relevant was that Jordan could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US military was targetting journalists, and thus opened himself up for criticism. The jackals of the right wing had another victim cornered.

"Sisyphus" wrote:

The tape, and Eason Jordan, would have allowed a full airing of this issue.

Nonesense. We saw with the "Killian memos" story that the focus would be on whether or not a network could prove what was specifically alleged beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not whether there was a legitimate factual basis for making the general claim in the first place.

And, as we saw with the Abu Ghraib pictures, if proof were to emerge that journalists were targeted, it would be chalked up to a couple of "bad apples." The fact that torture has become US policy in the "war on terror" has subsequently been established has had so little effect that one of the authors of that policy was just confirmed as the Attorney General.

There were lots of allegations of torture by the US prior to the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures, yet these allegations went unexamined by the corporate media. Given the current media environment, only an idiot would suggest that there would be any "airing out" of the evidence suggesting that the US has "targetted journalists" as a result of what Eason Jordan said at Davros.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 12, 2005 5:53 AM | Permalink

The problem was not "the cover-up." The problem was, and is, that CNN's integrity is now suspect in the eyes of BOTH of the partisan audiences it serves: those viewers who dislike the US military will look at Jordan's weaseling and believe that CNN is pulling its punches. Those who fiercely defend the US military will now believe that CNN has it in for the military. Well done, Jordan.

Posted by: thibaud at February 12, 2005 8:33 AM | Permalink

In fairness to Jordan I can see Jay's point that he's trying simultaneously to defend his troops, assert the truth, and represent an organization that has a very large political dimension, ie appease different constituencies whose view of truth is diametrically opposite in this (and many other) instances.

But it may be the case that the job as Jordan defines it is simply impossible. Can a global news organization that covers the middle east, the US military, Israel etc satisfy both the lukasiaks of the world and the mainstream US audience? I don't think so. Better for the viewers and readers to take every media report with more than a few grains of salt. And for the technologists to work harder to develop tools and technology platforms that will allow more news content to be developed, accessed, shared, stored and managed by more citizens.

Let a thousand schools of news contend.

Posted by: thibaud at February 12, 2005 8:40 AM | Permalink

Do you really believe what you wrote?

Nobody was asking the network to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the allegations were true, they were asked to prove the authenticity of the memos. Something they were not even remotely able to do.

Are you saying that if the video were released, and it exonerated Jordan, the blogosphere would claim it was faked?

If abusing a strawman were a crime. you would be on death row.

Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 9:02 AM | Permalink

Not just CNN's integrity's suspect. How do you take seriously the news organizations reporting Jordan's resignation over a scandal that they never covered? So he resigned over a non-scandal? Huh?

If this was a non-scandal, then the story angle will have to be that Jordan resigned because of a witch hunt. Which will only distract us further from the crucial issue raised by this affair: CNN in moving beyond its original target market of US and multinational businessmen is now trying to tell two truths to two very different audiences, one (primarily US) that's favorably disposed toward the US military, and another (primarily European and arab) that's hostile to the US military and the Iraq War.

Posted by: thibaud at February 12, 2005 9:13 AM | Permalink

I had not thought about it, but when I read the flap over Jordan’s comments, I knew what he supposedly said was true. The right wing campaign to paint the MSM as being liberal bias and the conservative bias of most soldiers creates a situation in which the targeting of journalist is inevitable. The days of a journalist being one of the guys is gone. Did Ernie Pyle ever report servicemen killing prisoners or wounded enemy soldiers? I’m sure he knew about some incidents. It happens in every war.

The broadcast of the American Marine shooting a wounded Iraqi in Fallujah is proof that the reporters in their midst are not one of them. Anyone who doesn’t believe journalists are being targeted, probably doesn’t believe that officers that were considered too risky or just too unliked came home in a body bag with an American bullet in their back. It happens.

The shooting of the journalists at the Palestine Hotel and the camera man mistaken for someone with a hand held missile were probably unintended. I don’t know the story on the how the rest of the journalist were killed, but I would not be surprised if some were targeted with intent to kill.

However, I don’t believe an investigation is in order. It would have a chilling effect on military’s ability to kill. War is not nice. Nice guys do not win wars. Bury the dead, say some words, and move on. The Necons have an agenda to keep and only four years to get us into something that will take decades to undo.

Posted by: scout29c at February 12, 2005 10:07 AM | Permalink

It's probably been said, but the tape is probably worse than it's been portrayed. The evidence would be the reactions of participants from unlikely quarters--Barney Frank of all people being taken aback and honestly so because not in front of a camera and with no thought his reaction would be reported--and if you think about how the release of the tape with explanation would obviously have been the best defense for Jordan, as others have said, an easy path to quelling the ankle biters. If a man does something on tape and doesn't release the tape... what possible reason could there be?

Posted by: Lee Kane at February 12, 2005 10:57 AM | Permalink

There is another angle to this. Why does Jordan think the U.S. military is killing CNN reporters? One answer is that if he (Jordan) was in the military he would kill them because he knows CNN is on the enemy's side. This is why he was pushed out so fast. CNN really doesn't want anybody to start looking at CNN's conduct in Iraq.

Posted by: Engineer at February 12, 2005 11:09 AM | Permalink

p. lukasiak: Nonesense. We saw with the "Killian memos" story that the focus would be on whether or not a network could prove what was specifically alleged beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not whether there was a legitimate factual basis for making the general claim in the first place.

The memos story is a good example, but a better one would be the Fallujah mosque shooting. Even with a tape plainly, starkly and unambiguously showing a US soldier shooting a wounded, unarmed Iraqi, the overwhelming reaction of the right wingers was to deny what was before their eyes and turn on the journalist who filmed the incident. If the Eason Jordan tape were released they would hear what they wanted to hear.

I think Jordan's resignation was inevitable in this instance because no one in the media has come up with a successful way of dealing with blogstorm troopers yet. It will be interesting to see what defense mechanisms develop. Clearly, the status quo is unsustainable.

Posted by: tex at February 12, 2005 11:17 AM | Permalink

TEX

...the overwhelming reaction of the right wingers was to deny what was before their eyes and turn on the journalist who filmed the incident

Not at all. The reaction was that the video didn't tell the whole story and the the Marine was fully justified in what he did. The facts later confirmed that to be the case.

Posted by: Engineer at February 12, 2005 11:21 AM | Permalink

I had neglected the third school of thought on this, the scoutzge "It Happens" school, with the perfunctory sneer attached.

Yet there are still those of us who would prefer to see the charges laid out clearly, with an evaluation of the evidence pro and con, in a, thorough, responsible, good faith manner. If the US military targets journalists for slaughter, then Congress needs to investigate and punish appropriately.

Is it too much to ask of our media betters that they air and investigate this story instead of making offhand remarks that merely feed each side's conspiracy theorists and smirk-and-sneer brigades?

Posted by: thibaud at February 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Permalink

..the video didn't tell the whole story and the the Marine was fully justified in what he did.

QED

The facts later confirmed that to be the case.

The investigation is ongoing and the marine in question is still held off duty. Where do you people get this stuff?

Posted by: tex at February 12, 2005 12:03 PM | Permalink

Engineer, my sentiments exactly. Why would Eason Jordan have to "defend his troops" if they were journalists seeking the truth? The problem is the journalists think they are as important as their subjects, and they send "troops" to achieve "objectives". The same network that considers GW Bush's National Guard service "newsworthy" in 2004 doesn't even smirk when Ted Kennedy mentions "waterboarding" as torture when it offers him a half hour with no opposition. I think Watergate was all about the hubris of the press, Clinton's impeachment was the watershed event that clearly marked their lack of ability to control the message, and blogs do not permit "gravitas" or other such Zeitgeist manipulations to stand for even an hour. In short, CNN and Eason Jordan were busted, and there are millions of new sheriffs in town, so get back to reporting. Tell me something I don't know, and make certain it is true.

Posted by: Dave Mac at February 12, 2005 12:07 PM | Permalink

"While not particularly emotional one way or the other about Jordan’s actual decision, I will say that this clearly was a case of blog-thuggery and unfair tarnishing, the kind of which I had spoken earlier in the week, and for which I was soundly whipped by Jim Geraghty of the National Review...

...When I see blogs being used in a way in which I believe American journalism will approach another step closer to being pure propaganda, I will say so.

I’m saying so."

From my comments at American Street today.

Posted by: Jude Nagurney Camwell at February 12, 2005 12:13 PM | Permalink

tex

And where did you learn that information?
The facts are:
Other Marines had been killed by terrorists playing dead. This gave the marine justification for fearing for his life from "dead" terrorists. The "dead" terrorist acted in a way that the Marine thought was threatening. That is all that is needed. Hell, with those facts, I could do the same thing in Texas and not be charged.

By the way, terrorists have no rights except those the U.S. military gives them. Since they are not under the control of a country that has signed the Geneva Conventions, we can do what we want with them as long as they are not US citizens.

Posted by: Engineer at February 12, 2005 12:25 PM | Permalink

"I think Jordan's resignation was inevitable in this instance because no one in the media has come up with a successful way of dealing with blogstorm troopers yet."

I think tex said a mouthful with this one particular statement.

I understand William Boykin's loudly-stated sentiment, but we certainly cannot turn our backs to it. We have to meet it dead-on, expose it for what it is, and weaken its freedom-crushing power.

It's all about ethics. With reason and strength of conviction, we need to drown this right-wing machine they're calling "new media" in the bathtub.

Posted by: Jude at February 12, 2005 12:26 PM | Permalink

Even with a tape plainly, starkly and unambiguously showing a US soldier shooting a wounded, unarmed Iraqi, the overwhelming reaction of the right wingers was to deny what was before their eyes and turn on the journalist who filmed the incident.

That is not even remotely true. The intial tape showed only a small portion of what happened, and, when viewed in the context that a "wounded, unarmed Iraqi" had blown himself up earlier, causing the death of at least one marine, the act is much more understandable.

If the Eason Jordan tape were released they would hear what they wanted to hear.

You mean "right-wingers" like Barney Frank, David Gergen and Chris Dodd? Are THEY making it up?

I think Jordan's resignation was inevitable in this instance because no one in the media has come up with a successful way of dealing with blogstorm troopers yet.

Maybe they need to ask Dan Rather, who, last time I checked, is still employed by CBS.

But the bigger question is why Jordan found it necessary to resign if the vast majority of the MSM had yet to even report the story?

Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 12:36 PM | Permalink

Yeah. It's interesting how a lot of people who want to attribute the controversy to a right-wing attack machine don't acknowledge that the initial challenge to Jordan's assertions came from Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts. All the bloggers did was publicize what happened, call for the release of the video or a transcript, and complain that the MSM didn't think the story was fit to print.

Even more interesting is seeing how putting integrity ahead of ideology is resulting in accusations of apostasy. It's kind of like watching a snake eat itself.

Welcome to the right, Mr. Rosen. As you'll find, a party with enough intellectual room for Jerry Falwell and Rudy Guiliani to co-exist has enough room for you, too. ;-)

Posted by: rosignol at February 12, 2005 1:25 PM | Permalink

As soon as people on the right begin criticizing the White House for its information, propaganda, truthtelling, stonewalling and press policies, we can talk about "intellectual room." I haven't seen honesty like that yet, and I don't think I will. But one can hope.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2005 1:34 PM | Permalink

Jude: "With reason and strength of conviction, we need to drown this right-wing machine they're calling 'new media' in the bathtub."

You intend to "drown" speech you oppose?

Posted by: Sisyphus at February 12, 2005 1:39 PM | Permalink

Jay, you said of Dan Kennedy's assertion concerning Frank and Dodd, that it was a "much neglected factor". I disagree. Michelle Malkin interviewed both and their reactions were featured prominently. I dare say if it wasn't for Rep. Franks' initial reaction, this would have gone nowhere. And all the blogs I read emphasized that point.

Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 1:54 PM | Permalink

Jay: As soon as people on the right begin criticizing the White House for its information, propaganda, truthtelling, stonewalling and press policies, we can talk about "intellectual room." I haven't seen honesty like that yet, and I don't think I will.

Snort. Chuckle. I have no truck for the White House approach. But why, Jay, do you suppose they might operate as you suggest. Let's see. Mendacity? That would be the easy answer of the unthinking. Been burned once or twice by MSM? Could be, don't you think?

Jay, would you please rethink what you said to make a more constructive statement.

Posted by: sbw at February 12, 2005 2:45 PM | Permalink

Jay- the MSM uses any criticism or speculation BY a Republican OF a Republican ie McCain and beats our head with it 24/7(or should I say 365/24/7), whilst any criticism or exposure of actual events(ie Jordan in Davos or Rather or Kerry(unmentionable Form ###) of any Democrat or Liberal is simply ignored or downplayed(another vast right wing conspiracy!). The Dems attempt to nuance their way out of what average Americans see in everyday life as a sham is what is hurting them. The Dems need another "Sister Souljah" moment.

Posted by: cal-boy at February 12, 2005 2:49 PM | Permalink

Consider this view: CNN's simplistic branding lost.

"Jordan's real job wasn't news as much as it was making "CNN: The Most Trusted Name in News". Branding that sells the impression is subtly different from trusted news itself."

"With that in mind, it's easier to see that the blogging that undid Eason Jordan was less the persistent ankle-biting following Congressman Barney Frank's calling Jordan on his remarks at the Davos World Economic Forum that it was the constant drip, drip, drip of blogged but otherwise unreported news seeping underneath the facade to undermine the CNN brand. Internet-based alternative streams of information conveyed how narrow the CNN storyline was."

Posted by: sbw at February 12, 2005 4:05 PM | Permalink

You suggest that some criticisms of White House attempts to manipulate the media would be in order. But they look no worse now than they have ever been.

However, his side of the pond the media manipulation by Downing Street is far worse than I have ever known it - and I have worked in the Cabinet Office under Prime Ministers of both parties. The tradition of non-political departmental press officers has been jettisoned. It is deplorable.

But none of this has any bearing on the Jordan affair. Many of us sensed that from Day 1 the reports by Rony have had the ring of truth, have chimed in with most other accounts, and have not been adequately answered by Jordan or the one or two people present at Davos who have defended him - without ever contradicting outright the charge in Rony's first report.

I am surprised if people see this solely as a right-wing blogswarm. It could just as easily be characterised as a lot of decent people of differing political opinions taking grave offence at convincing charges that a very senior media exec had accused US troops of murdering a lot of journalists. You choose to suspend judgment. That is your right. Presumably you do not suggest that your stance is more righteous or worthy than that of people who have weighed the various available strands of evidence, including Jordan's previous statements which are not in contention.

Posted by: JohninLondon at