Friday, February 11, 2005

Eason Jordan Update 11 February 2005

More on the Eason Jordan debacle. Looks like this finally moving into the MSM world. About damned time! - Sailor



From The War Blog
FrontPage Magazine

EASONGATE
By Lawrence Kudlow

Last night on Kudlow & Cramer, I asked three influential US senators about the CNN News scandal regarding Eason Jordan’s traitorous remarks at the Davos economic forum. George Allen, Jeffrey Sessions, and Norman Coleman all agreed with Michelle Malkin’s characterization that Jordan and his CNN defenders have “slimed the military.” They were furious at the whole story, with each expressing anger at Jordan’s liberal anti-US-military bias. Senator Sessions pointed out that episodes like this show why the mainstream media has lost so much credibility in recent years. Senator Coleman was not ready to open up an investigation, but he indicated it was worth looking at. Senator Allen was strong in his defense of both the moral character and the visionary mission of our troops in Iraq.

Importantly, each was aware of the story. And since this whole tawdry tale has been reported only through the blogosphere, it points out just how strong the alternative internet medium of blogging has become. The blogosphere has reported on this from day one, and refuses to stop. Only a few months after the Rathergate scandal during the presidential election campaign the blogosphere, if anything, is even stronger today in its influence and ability to widely disseminate alternative media coverage. Powerhouse bloggers such as John Hinderaker, Glenn Reynolds, and Hugh Hewitt, among many, many others, have flexed their muscles and badly bruised CNN on this story.

In case you’re returning to Earth after a brief sojourn on another planet, Eason Jordan accused the US military of deliberately targeting journalists in order to assassinate them. Besides the obvious anti-military bias, Jordan’s comments were incredibly arrogant and cynical. And, yes, I believe these remarks border on wartime treason, since they so clearly give aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies and anti-American Arab militants throughout the Middle East.

Essentially, Jordan has attempted to back off his remarks. Without denying that he said them, he is basically saying he didn’t mean to say them. Huh? On-the-scene eyewitnesses like liberal House member Barney Frank and the equally liberal Senator Christopher Dodd have corroborated Jordan’s scandalous remarks. Equally reprehensible, CNN itself refuses to take ownership of the anti-American behavior of their top news executive. Also reprehensible is the fact that the Davos conference organizers refuse to release the tape that would so clearly indict Jordan. The fact that CNN is trying desperately to make the story go away merely confirms the institutional anti-military bias of that news organization. If CNN had any patriotic backbone, or even good professional journalistic common sense, they would have, at the very least, suspended Jordan pending a thorough investigation.

Seeing as the blogosphere’s reporting has moved into the upper reaches of the US Senate, it is unlikely that CNN will succeed in its attempted cover-up. Freedom of the press is the best disinfectant for public corruption. Bloggers are doing their duty. Thursday, February 10, 2005

http://lkmp.blogspot.com/
*
'TIS THE EASON: STEAM'S BUILDING

By Michelle Malkin
There's a lot of new stuff and a weird turn from the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Bret Stephens' curious little account in the WSJ does not, contrary to the subtitle of the piece, settle the question of what exactly Eason Jordan said and how he said it. It's interesting, isn't it, that Stephens does not call for the videotape or a transcript of the panel to be released.

Run along, nothing more to see here, move on, huh?
Interestingly, Stephens ignores Rony Abovitz's role in directly challenging Eason Jordan during the event. In both his brief Jan. 28 Political Diary dispatch and his brief piece today, Stephens is silent on Abovitz's strong and immediate objection to Jordan's remarks at the forum.
Compare Stephens' incomplete squibs to the reporting done by the Miami Herald's Glenn Garvin. Garvin may not be able to say "I WAS THERE," as Stephens' piece declares, but Garvin gives us a much better sense of what exactly went down and how:


During a Jan. 26 panel discussion of threats to reporters, Abovitz was shocked to hear CNN's Jordan say American troops in Iraq had ''targeted'' journalists and killed a dozen of them.

''He was going on and on about it,'' recalled Abovitz. 'My first thought was, gee, have I been missing something? And I stood up and asked, `Is this documented? And if so, why hasn't it been on the cover of Time magazine? Because if it's true, it's much bigger than [U.S. military abuses at] the Abu Ghraib prison.'
''
Jordan seemed surprised at the question, said Abovitz. ``He kind of froze, and then he started backpedaling. But the crowd included a lot of people from the Middle East, who were cheering him on, so then he wiggled back and forth.''

Jordan was traveling Wednesday and could not be reached for comment, but a CNN spokeswoman said he used the word ''targeted'' only to mean that the reporters had been fired on by U.S. troops who thought they were enemy combatants.

''Mr. Jordan emphatically does not believe that the U.S. military intended to kill journalists and believes these accidents to be cases of mistaken identity,'' the spokeswoman said.


But several others who were in the room, including Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, told The Herald that Abovitz's account was essentially correct.

''It sounded as if [Jordan] was saying the killings had been deliberate,'' said Frank, who was part of the panel. ``I sat up, and I said, `That's very troubling to me, I feel an obligation to act on this.'

'He answered, `I'm not saying this is American military policy.' And my recollection is that he next said that American military personnel had deliberately shot at journalists and not been punished.''

Frank said he asked Jordan whether he was talking about cases of mistaken identity or itchy trigger fingers ''in the heat of battle,'' and Jordan said no.
After the panel, Frank said he pressed for more details. 'I called [Jordan] and said, `If you think there are cases where American military personnel killed reporters and weren't disciplined, I want to know, and [Congress] will take action,' '' Frank said. ''He said he'd get back to me.'' But Jordan called only after the controversy surfaced, Frank said, and then to say he had been misunderstood.

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who was in the audience, also agreed with Abovitz's account and ''was outraged by the comments.'' A spokeswoman for David Gergen, the U.S. News & World Report editor who chaired the panel, said that Gergen also felt Abovitz's report was generally accurate.

Garvin provides a lot of helpful context that Stephens' pieces lack. Ed Morrissey and Jim Geraghty react to Stephens' op-ed here and here. Lucianne readers respond here.

As for Stephens' petty comments about other bloggers and commenters who have tried to fill in the blanks and advance the story (which Stephens' pieces fall far short of doing), it's clear the only "meltdown" occurring here is the MSM's.

More voices weighing in...
James Lileks with Newhouse News Service:


In the olden days such rote tripe would have gone unreported. But these are not the olden days. The Jordan story has been roiling the blogs for some time -- possibly because some on the right are suspicious of CNN, and see Jordan's remarks as emblematic of that organization's biases and offshore courting of anti-American sentiment.


But perhaps the blogs recognize a simple truth: Either Jordan is right, in which case it's news he should report, or he's spinning humid fictions that conform to the darkest suspicions of America's foes. And surely that's news as well.

Check your local channel for details. Not to say you'll find them -- but hope, like hatred of America, springs eternal. It's almost as if some people enjoy killing our reputation for sport. Heck, it's a hoot.
Marvin Olasky with Creators Syndicate:

Bloggers have reported the story extensively, often accusing Jordan of giving aid and comfort to terrorists and their appeasers. This is the type of story that's harder to cover than one in which dollars clearly change hands, but it may be a more subtle form of bribery. Fox is beating CNN in the United States, but CNN is No. 1 around the world and wants to stay that way. What better way than to kiss up to Europeans and Middle Easterners than by telling them what they want to believe about those awful Americans?

The establishment media, instead of circling wagons to protect one of their own, should investigate. If anyone has evidence of soldiers knowingly targeting journalists, let's hear it. If there is no evidence, Jordan should clearly and loudly apologize, and CNN should stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough opines:

"If Jordan thinks U.S. troops are little more than hired assassins focused on killing journalists, it is time for him to name names. Otherwise his continued attacks constitute slander." (Trey Jackson has the video.)
Brit Hume and his all-star panel on FNC stay on the story. An excerpt:

KRAUTHAMMER: ...the crime here I think is intellectual cowardice on the part of Eason Jordan. I mean, if he said this and then he tried to walk it back, he wasn't trying to explain it, he was trying to undo it. But then he says in a statement that has been released, he never has believed that American troops have deliberately attacked journalists. Well, if he doesn't, why is he spreading a rumor that he believes is false, malicious, libelous, and will endanger American troops? I mean, you don't truck in rumors like that. He essentially says, now he was just reporting what others are saying. If he thinks it's a falsehood, why is he repeating it? So I think that is the real problem here, and I think as Mort indicated, he did, he's admitted that in the past he's sort of covered up and suppressed news in Iraq because he didn't want to, say, endanger his employees. Well, if you're going to give our news shaded by Saddam Hussein and essentially censored, you ought to either get out of Iraq, or say it openly on the air: the news you are now hearing is approved by this regime, so everybody will know it's not honest news. There's dishonesty here which I think is the real problem.

KONDRACKE: I mean, he is the news director of CNN, and it also raises questions about whether this is an attitude that informs all the reporting of CNN...
Veteran journalist Mark Tapscott says: "Expect much more coverage tomorrow and Friday..."
Captain's Quarters and La Shawn Barber are on top of other MSM mentions. Easongate and TKS are live with the latest. Hugh Hewitt on the blogs vs. the bigs.

I close with a letter cc'd to me by a military wife who has a simple request for the organizers of the Davos event. I echo her call: Release the tape or a transcript. Bret Stephens characterizes us as "hounds" who won't stop "baying." Eason Jordan no doubt agrees.

Howl on.

To: Mark.Adams@WEForum.org Cc: eason.jordan@turner.com Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 6:13 AM Subject: Release Jordan tapes/transcript
Dear Sir,I am a military wife and mother of two who has just heard about the outrageous remarks made by CNN's very own news chief, Eason Jordon, at your recent forum.

I can't begin to tell you how disheartening it is to hear of powerful media figures creating an image of my husband and his fellow US Marines as murderers and torturers of journalists--without backing his statements up. If they were true, isn't this a major news story? Why is CNN not covering it? If there are really US military members intentionally targeting journalists, we need to know who they are and hold them accountable.

If this Jordan's story is NOT true, why is he making these remarks at a public, international forum? Does he not know that his words will be used in the Arab media to further disparage men like my husband--putting them at greater risk of harm or retaliation? If journalists believe they might be "targeted" by the US military or coalition forces, wouldn't they be more inclined to report their stories with this in mind?

Really, this must be hashed out in the public. Jordan should not be able to drop such verbal "bombs" and then just walk away. Please let the public read for themselves what Jordan's words were, and in what context. Then we can determine whether this man was leaking a huge news story, or perpetrating slander on the US military and coalition forces who are dying every day for freedom in Iraq and elsewhere.

Sincerely,K. DoyleSolana Beach, CAUSA
Thursday, February 10, 2005

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment