Posted on 02/08/2005 4:50:32 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Right-wing blogs, including Little Green Footballs, have moved their sights from CBS to CNN. At the center of the blogstorm are comments made by my former boss Eason Jordan at Davos, in which he alleged that the U.S. military had been targeting journalists in Iraq. See the original post about it by Rony Abovitz (founder of the digital surgery company Z-Kat, attending the forum as a "tech pioneer"), which he posted on the Forumblog
- an "unnoficial" blog where World Econ Forum participants posted their impressions and views about sessions they attended. The official WEF summary does not mention Eason's remarks, and there is no transcript or webcast. But I was in the room and Rony's account is consistent with what I heard. I was also contributing to the Forumblog, but to be honest, Jordan happens to be my former boss who promoted me and defended me in some rather sticky situations after my reporting angered the Chinese government. As CNN's "senior statesman" over the years, Eason has done some things I agreed with and other things I wondered about. But at least when it came to China, he was no apologist and defended my reports on human rights abuses and political dissent. So I don't feel that I'm in a position to speak objectively on this issue, especially since I haven't been in Iraq and don't know the real situation on the ground. I would very much like to hear from other journalists working in Iraq. I'd like to hear, particularly, from other CNN reporters working in Iraq. Whether they'll be willing to speak out publicly on this issue is doubtful, but maybe others will. Maybe we'll hear from some of them anonymously. Maybe Kevin Sites and other journalists blogging from Iraq will let us know what they think.
UPDATE: I have emailed people at the World Economic Forum requesting a verbatim transcript of what precisely was said during the panel in question. I have also emailed Eason Jordan asking him whether he'd like to confirm and/or clarify his comments, since I did not record the session myself and my notes are not verbatim.
12:17 PM in Davos, Iraq, Webcred, Weblogs, journalism | Permalink
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., FEB 7, 2005
FNC O'REILLY 2,652,000 [VIEWERS]
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,904,000
FNC GRETA 1,568,000
FNC HUME 1,446,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,327,000
CNN LARRY KING 891,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 755,000
CNN ZAHN 550,000
CNN AARON BROWN 528,000
CNN ANDERSON COOPER 445,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 416,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 411,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 360,000
CNN Slimes Our Troops
Town Hall ^ | February 9, 2005 | Michelle Malkin
FNC rolling over them.
An article posted here today to the contrary, I don't think this one's gonna die. CNN is dropping like a rock, and whatever their politics, the other news orgs are not going to give up on this just because Howie Kurtz (who WORKS for CNN? Hello media watchdogs!) says so.
Considering the actions of so many 'journalists' in misrepresenting reality on the ground in Iraq, it hardly falls into the 'friendly fire' category, either...
Considering CNN's ratings I'm surprised Jordan hasn't opened fire on some of CNN's journalists.
Larry Kudlow nails this rotten mess:
"LK: He should be dismissed by CNN. He should have been dismissed last week when this story first hit. This is Rathergate, this is New York Times, this is the whole nine yards that has wrecked the mainstream media's credibility."
Revisiting some of the Blogs more carefully found this from :
***********************************************************
Investor's Business Daily: Crossing Jordan
Investor’s Business Daily breaks media silence on the Eason Jordan story: Crossing Jordan. (Hat tip: Easongate.)
Now Jordan’s in the stew again. Speaking last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Jordan made an arresting charge. He claimed the U.S. military, while pacifying Iraq, had targeted both American and foreign journalists.
Panel chairman David Gergen, according to insider accounts, gasped. The man who’d worked in administrations from Nixon’s to Clinton’s demanded evidence. Liberal Congressman Barney Frank, who was there, also demanded proof.
Jordan backed off — slightly. But afterward he accepted congratulations from Arab reporters who called him heroic.
That’s when the bloggers stepped in, including some who were actually there. Then master blogger Hugh Hewitt took up the case. Soon the blogosphere was electric with outrage over Jordan’s irresponsible charge. Now there’s an easongate.com, tracking the scandal’s every fact, every claim, every angle, and demanding CNN come clean.
Why “scandal”? Jordan was spouting outrageous charges with no basis in fact. In journalism, even in High Church Journalism, that is a cardinal sin. Rising to the topmost reaches of media power does not exempt one from the first rules learned in journalism class.
The bloggers, who’ve done so much recently to correct the elite media’s misbehavior — including sending CBS’s Dan Rather to newsman’s purgatory — now have Eason Jordan as quarry.
Deservedly so. It’s time for him to go.
******************************************************************
Media critic Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post finally broke his paper's long silence on the Eason Jordan matter this morning, coming down squarely on Jordan's side in an apparent effort to help Jordan keep his job. Kurtz's story is sub-headlined "CNN new chief clarifies his comments on Iraq;" Jordan gave Kurtz an interview in which he repeated the spin that CNN has been putting on the story from the beginning: that is, that Jordan made the point that journalists have not been "targeted," but have sometimes been killed on purpose under the mistaken impression that they were terrorists.
Kurtz provides a partial accounting of the eyewitness accounts, omitting Rebecca MacKinnon, providing a friendly quote from David Gergen, and adding an interview with a BBC representative who was present.
The most interesting aspect of the article is that Kurtz evidently asked Jordan about his allegation last November that:
[A]t 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,
Jordan explained the "torture" reference to Kurtz:
In the interview last night, Jordan said he and a group of other news executives have discussed with a top Pentagon official allegations by Iraqi employees of NBC, Reuters and al-Jazeera "who claimed to have been detained and tortured by the U.S. military. They all came out with horrific statements about what had been done to them."
Statements which Jordan believes to be true. Kurtz apparently didn't ask Jordan about his November statement that "at least 10 journalists have been killed by the U.S. military; in context, he doesn't seem to be referring to inadvertent deaths.
Kurtz does, however, add this tantalizing observation:
At the World Economic Forum, participants say, the only specific case cited by Jordan was the April 2003 incident in which U.S. forces fired a tank round at Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, killing a cameraman employed by Reuters and another for the Spanish network Telecinco. Military spokesmen said the troops were responding to sniper fire from the hotel, which was known to house about 100 foreign journalists, and defended the shelling as "a proportionate and justifiably measured response."But Jordan supplied a list of the other incidents, such as a tank firing on and killing Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana as he was filming outside Abu Ghraib prison in 2003. U.S. officials said the troops mistook Dana's camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
So Jordan supplied a list, presumably of twelve or more incidents, of which we now know of two. Let's see the list. And let's see the tape of the Davos session. For now, at least, CNN undoubtedly hopes that this story has ground to a halt with the "limited, modified hang-out" facilitated by Kurtz.
UPSDATE by BIG TRUNK: For an account of the Jordan scandal without the Kurtz spin, see Roderick Boyd's New York Sun article: "A CNN executive says G.I.s in Iraq target journalists."
The boards and CEOs of the companies who pay more per minute to advertise on CNN versus Fox News, need to start getting letters from those of us who own stock in their companies.
Hopefully someone will come out with a list of these advertisers. Then I can run a search on our mutual funds to see if we have any ownership of these companies.
If our mutual funds own stock in these companies, I will seen emails/letters to the CEO/fund managers demanding that they sell those shares unless CNN fires Eason. Then I will send letters/emails to the boards of these companies demanding action on their part.
From :
Forumblog.org - The World Economic Forum Weblog
***********************************************************************
Posted from the U.S
Richard Sambrook of the BBC, David Gergen of Harvard, and Senator Christopher Dodd have all weighed in their initial measures on Easongate. Much of this can be followed at Michelle Malkin's site, Hugh Hewitt, and Rebecca MacKinnon. We now understand that the WEF is mulling over the release of the videotape of the session with Jordan, and that there is a small debate brewing regarding the "on" or "off" the record nature of the session. I have also heard from the WEF's Head of Media, Mark Adams, just a few hours ago. Mark was kind enough to reply to an e-mail I sent him recently. Mark explained to me that the session was held under 'Chatham House Rules', which means that the general tenor of the debate can be reported but specific quotes are not attributable, which was done to encourage a full and frank exchange of views. Others have received a similar communication from Mark. I suppose this means that the public will not get to view a copy of the videotape, unless something changes. Unfortunately, this will likely only fuel speculation, feed rumors, and spawn numerous theories. The video would eliminate one part of this debate, and now what we will have is a pitched battle of memory, recollection, and context.
Senator Dodd's statement, "Senator Dodd was not on the panel but was in the audience when Mr. Jordan spoke. He – like panelists Mr. Gergen and Mr. Frank – was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel." is perhaps the clearest statement from a major figure present at the meeting. Thank you, Senator Dodd for at least expressing what I felt as well, and for adding some real weight to this issue. If the WEF suppresses the video, the chaff thrown out by CNN and Eason supporters may obscure and cloud all of this to a lack of contextual understanding by audience members. Let's be clear: that is a load of bull. What was said was clearly understood, and no amount of reverse engineering can undo that. If you shout fire in a crowded theatre and then try to say that what you really meant was for someone to just turn down the air conditioning, it just does not fly. There are a multitude of related issues that stem from what happened, but as I watch Easongate unfold, a line in the sand issue has emerged for me. Over dinner with a friend tonight a thought crystallized: the media is either for the right or for the left, and the lying, the twisting, and the skewing of the truth - these aberrations are just ok with us. We the public, the audience, have been accustomed to this way of living, and we are supposedly fine with it. Reporters can throw out half-baked ideas, partial truths, anything they want, as long as this plays into the political mindset of their core audience. We want to hear what they say, true or not, so long as it fits our particular system of thought. The American right is up in arms about Eason Jordan, but will a single Arabic, or European, or even Asian voice sing anything but his praise, or nod in quiet approval?
In Gergen's statement he says "Jordan realized as soon as the words had left his mouth that he had gone too far and walked himself back." I have the greatest respect for David Gergen, but he is being too kind. Jordan walked himself back because he was pushed back, and pushed back hard. It was an outrage to watch in the flesh the process of big media at work, this massaging of facts and distortion of reality to meet the needs of a specific group of news consumers. It was an outrage because these distortions fuel the minds of entire regions of the world, which propagates hatred, bias, and war. The unrestricted influence the media has on world and regional opinions and views is without parallel. I am a very strong proponent of free speech, but when will we achieve speech that is not only free, but factual and trustworthy? The concept of trust is a big one on the web in terms of data communication, password authentications, and machine to machine communication. Can this concept, or standard of trust be applied to the MSM (mainstream media)? What if MSM had to live up to standards of verification, authenticity, and the production of assertions supported by facts? What if viewers could know and understand that a member of the MSM was part of a chain of trusted information, or that he or she was outside the fold? The scientific community works in this very way: there are respected, peer reviewed journals, and there are rags of speculative nonsense. The consumer of the news, vital information that shapes all of our lives, has no such obvious choice.
Rebecca MacKinnon in a previous article writes: "Before we leap to moral judgments or condemnations, we must be realistic. In truth, it is unrealistic to expect commercially-driven TV news companies to do anything other than to seek profit maximization -- while at the same time selling a product that can still be defined as "news" in some way. The search for profit maximization means that these companies will shape their news to fit the tastes and values of the majority of their most lucrative potential audience. Citizens of democracies who want to be well informed must understand this. They cannot expect to be passive consumers of whatever news comes their way from a name-brand news source. They must question, contrast, and compare. They must demand better quality information".
Her observations define an entrenched reality, but Easongate is a challenge to that reality. It is a challenge which says "Enough!". Many people recently said "Enough!" to the tobacco companies, another amoral corporate institution driven by "profit maximization" and "lucrative potential audiences". The product of tobacco companies poisons the body and brings forth cancers and a host of disease and ailments. What of the product of commercially-driven TV news companies, where only profits matter? What does this "product" do to the minds of viewers? "The search for profit maximization means that these companies will shape their news to fit the tastes and values of the majority of their most lucrative potential audience". This is exactly what Eason was doing. Eason gave me his CNN business card after the talk. The back of his card is in Arabic, even though he is based in Atlanta. There is nothing wrong with Arabic - it is a beautiful, expressive language with a rich, wonderful, deep culture. But it is not hard to understand, or guess at, Eason's most lucrative potential audience. The news is being shaped, and it is time to say, "Enough!". Here is a crazy idea: The U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Asia - why can't we all see the same news, the same data, the same reality, and the same truth? Is the truth regional, or is a fact a fact, anywhere in the world? Science is universal - why is the news, merely a reporting of physical events, a distorted, biased mess? Is that too boring? Must we keep stirring the pot of regional conflicts? What Rebecca describes as the cold facts of commercial media, having worked for them, makes me sick. Yes, I am an outsider to this industry, but so are billions of us on this earth. We need a change. Start with Eason, but don't stop. Much of the house is rotten.
A lone blogger named Zed has posted his collected findings on the journalists killed in Iraq. The quality of Zed's work, in its very limited scope (put together with what looks like a hacker's ethic of just finding things out), overshadows the quality of anything that CNN, or most anyone for that matter, has done to defend CNN's chief, in over a week. This is not a comment on the accuracy of what Zed has found, but at least he has tried to pull together some semblance of data, given the lack of verified facts. A random, stray blogger seems to care more about the truth than the MSM. It does not matter if he is coming at this issue from the right or the left - at least he is trying. Zed and I are specks in the scheme of things compared to MSM - where are they on any of this? Easongate is not a good topic for MSM's audience, because it is pointing out the darker underbelly inside of MSM - not a great move for building profits. What we are seeing here is the blogging world practically dragging and forcing MSM to deal with this issue, perhaps even against their will.
The outrage of Senator Dodd is well taken, but will Easongate end here, or will it ultimately target the source? Will anyone join me in saying "Enough!"?
Posted by Rony on February 8, 2005 at 04:47 AM in Middle East | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1798657
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Easongate: The End of MSM As We Know It?:
» Easongate and the Davos Men from The Sundries Shack
Well, the WEF isn't going to release the videotape from last Thursday's panel discussion. They're going to use the "off the record" defense to not release it. You already know where I stand on that. Also interesting in Sisyphean Musings' ... [Read More]
Tracked on February 8, 2005 03:24 PM
» EASONGATE: MISSING IN ACTION from Michelle Malkin
Jim Geraghty asks a good question. Meanwhile, there's a petition to release the Davos transcript. The scandal has stoked Cassandra's creative juices at Villanous Company. Confederate Yankee takes on "Err" Jordan and CNN. Rony Abovitz, the original whis... [Read More]
Tracked on February 8, 2005 06:45 PM
» EASONGATE: MISSING IN ACTION & MISCELLANY from Michelle Malkin
Jim Geraghty asks a good question. Meanwhile, there's a petition to release the Davos transcript. The scandal has stoked Cassandra's creative juices at Villanous Company. Confederate Yankee takes on "Err" Jordan and CNN. Jane at Armies of Liberation do... [Read More]
Tracked on February 8, 2005 06:52 PM
» EJR V: Big Media Finally Bites from La Shawn Barber's Corner
Please see the Easongate category for the complete background on the developing Eason Jordan story. It took a few days, but major newspapers are finally covering the Eason Jordan story. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who wouldn't take an Easo... [Read More]
Tracked on February 8, 2005 07:45 PM
» Back to Davos from Easongate
Rony Abovitz, the blogger who broke the Eason Jordan story at Davos, has a thoughtful essay on the Easongate situation and the state of the media. He looks at the statements made by those in attendance, and this particular one... [Read More]
Tracked on February 8, 2005 08:51 PM
» The Untouchable Media from Calblog
Chalk up another win (h/t) for Big Media; not that anyone needed a crystal ball to see that the video of an unhinged CNN honcho, spouting the ludicrous slander that the American military assassinates journalists, would never be allowed to... [Read More]
Tracked on February 9, 2005 01:00 AM
» Eason Jordan Catchup from Who Can Really Say?
If it isn't obvious, I like to read blogs much more than I like to write this one. So I'm generally not one of the blogs at the front of the pack when a new meme starts flowing about.... [Read More]
Tracked on February 9, 2005 03:19 AM
Rony,
The spin Mr. Adams gave Sisyphus was that it was an off the record event. It was in a room that was supposed to be on the record, with a videocamera rolling. But their defense threatens you. If indeed it was off the record, you personally violated the rules, the penalty for which is being forbidden from future World Economic Forums. Any reaction?
Second, do you read the comments in your own blog?
Posted by: Blank | February 9, 2005 03:14 PM
The WEF website on the Democracy/Media forum lists Fareed Zakaria as a "contributor" to the forum. Was Zakaria in fact there either as a panelist or in the audience?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Duane | February 9, 2005 12:52 AM
Rony,
I am disappointed that you cited Zed's effort on another blog, but ignore my prior effort in the comments of your very own blog. I detailed the 12, and I think did a much better job of it too. If you go to Zed's blog pay particular attention to the now-closed comments which highlight some of the distortions and fact-avoidance.
Posted by: Blank | February 9, 2005 12:01 AM
If the comments are all off of the record with no videos for release, why did the evening news broadcast keep showing us clips of Bill Clinton telling the crowd at Davos that Pres. Bush was not like him, and the subsequent crowd (obviously anti-American) reaction?
Posted by: Neil | February 8, 2005 11:51 PM
Rony: thanks much for speaking out, and staying with the story.
Please note that it is NOT just "right wing" bloggers who are upset. Just because the MSM or a left/liberal blogger calls another blogger "conservative" doesn't make it so! Mickey Kaus voted for Kerry, Roger L Simon is a liberal from way back, Instapundit is for gay marriage and drug legalization, etc. There are bloggers across the political spectrum who are devoted to the truth, independent of the tired old left/right categories or of party affiliation.
Posted by: Scott Lawton | February 8, 2005 10:43 PM
Correction of typo in prior post: Mr. Jordan, not Mr. Eason.
Posted by: Edward Sisson | February 8, 2005 10:26 PM
Could the Davos folks please explain why a supposedly off-the-record session was videotaped? Usually people pay to video something only if they expect to have a use for the video. What did Davos intend to use this panel video for? Has Davos in prior years released videos of other similarly-structured panels in earlier years -- panels that one would think were also off-the-record? Has Davos already released videos of other panel sessions for this year's event? In other words, has Davos already established a precedent, in its release of other videos from other sessions, that impeaches the current claim that its policies do not allow the release of the Eason video?
And does Davos -- or more specifically, the individuals within the Davos organization who control release of the video -- now have special leverage over CNN and Mr. Eason by having this tape in its possession, but refusing to release it? Since the public knows Davos has a tape that might embarrass CNN, Davos would be wise to release the tape in order to dispel any appearance that it possesses undue influence over CNN's reporting. This applies not merely to CNN's reporting on Davos itself, but to CNN's reporting on any matter that may be of interest to the individuals who control the release of the video.
Posted by: Edward Sisson | February 8, 2005 10:20 PM
Senator Dodd was "outraged". Why? It usually takes quite a lot to outrage a Senator about something that is reported by their side(CNN). The answer is in the "we support the troops".
Somebody trashed the American troops in front of Congressmen for foreign pleasure. I am betting Rep Frank was "hot".
Thanks for a great job and try to get the tape.
Posted by: jt | February 8, 2005 05:13 PM
"Unfortunately, this will likely only fuel speculation, feed rumors, and spawn numerous theories. The video would eliminate one part of this debate, and now what we will have is a pitched battle of memory, recollection, and context."
Which is precisely why you will never have the tape. You didn't ever for a minute suppose that it would be handed over, did you?
You did note that the Chatham House Rules only entered the discussion with Mr. Adams after a day or two had passed. They weren't up there right at the top, were they?
Adams: Oh, I forgot... it just slipped my mind.... that we had Chatham House Rules going, lads. Those videotapes, they're only for internal use so we can improve how we give a panel. We need to always be improving the panels you know.
Posted by: Vanderleun | February 8, 2005 04:56 PM
While you make some excellent points (the truth SHOULD be the truth no matter where you are on the planet), I think it's silly to ascribe Jordan's statements and subsequent actions to profit maximization.
Eason Jordan doesn't care about profits, he cares about "changing the world for the better" (as he defines it). He knows that many, if not most, people, don't agree with how he wants to change the world, and that he must be guarded and careful in how he advances his agenda. He let down his guard at Davos, and he got caught. Period.
To oversimplify, the difference between the Left and Right is that the Left wants to define, filter, and distort the truth and control it, while the Right wants to report the truth and change it. Jordan and CNN are in the former camp. Pubs like the Weekly Standard and the WSJ Editorials are in the latter camp. Fox is in neither camp (which is where all journalists acting as reporters should be). This ALONE explains why Fox has achieved its dominant position, and why the Left is so angry about its success. Fox cares about profits too, but is smart enough to realize that if they present the news fairly and allow both (or all) sides of an issue to be heard, the profits will naturally follow, because fairness and balance is what viewers want.
The Jordan case microcosmically makes my point. We shouldn't have to work so hard to get at the truth. Look at how difficult CNN and Jordan and the WEF are making it to get to the simple truth about Jordan's session. Fox makes it relatively easy every day. Jordan and CNN could do the same by demanding that the WEF release the tape.
Posted by: Tom | February 8, 2005 04:20 PM
Your outrage is well conceived and well expressed. Welcome to the Party that has been raging since, oh, as the above fellow says, around Viet Nam. The Party swells and is reaching a fevered pitch... even the grannies are out on the floor. In moments we will see Eason Jordan attempting a stage-dive. The seas will part. Splat. Heh.
Posted by: megapotamus | February 8, 2005 02:54 PM
So the tape will be witheld and Jordan will get a pass. Can't say I am surprised.
Frankly I don't think its about the market he is playing to as much as it is he really believes what he said. That's just a theory I a have been developing about folks on the left (as distinct from normal liberals) though.
Beyond the tempest in a teapot nature of this current controversy what I think is happening in the US is that we are developing an advocacy press and have been for about 10 years or so...or even arguably since Vietnam. Much like in England where you have media of the left and media of the right. I think that's a bad thing.
I don't doubt that the MSM believe they are reporting straight news. You can see it in their corrections, in their surprised looks. So you see people like Moyers asserting that Christians think its a great idea to destroy the environment because that will bring about the "end of days" and inventing a James Watt quote out of thin air to support it. A reporter at the Washington Post thinks that sounds right to him so he repeats it. Today they are forced to correct. Not a surprising mistake really, after all everyone hates Christians and knows they are lunatics right? That's a perfectly normal, middle of the road position. No reason to even bother looking the quote up, just pass it on.
That's the very nature of bias; it is unconcious.
Posted by: dwilkers | February 8, 2005 11:08 AM
This just JUMPED out at me from that lengthy reply of yours!!!
Just THINK about what that says in relation to our societal protection of "free speech" and in terms of all our societal behavior in general withing our cherished "rule of law!"
ok, call me stupid, BUT I have been following this article everyday since it came out, and I just went to the list of Journalists that were killed, now here is my question....why are all the names muslims or arab, or iranian...they are not typical U.S. names, such as Hill, Smith, Jones...etc...can someone answer this for me? Maybe I have misread this whole thing, but I understood it envolves Eason Jason saying that our Military is killing our reporters.....with those names????? HELP!!!!!!!!!
I haven't even got to the list, (got a link for that ) but CNN
being the international organization it is , it hires many non Anglo people.
Perhaps he was referring to journalists of ALL
news organizations.
A CNN Executive Says G.I.s in Iraq Target Journalists
******************************************
BY RODERICK BOYD - Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 8, 2005
The head of CNN's news division, Eason Jordan, ignited an Internet firestorm last week when he told a panel at a World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland, that the American military had targeted journalists during operations in Iraq.
Mr. Jordan, speaking in a panel discussion titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?" said "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat of Massachusetts who was on the panel with Mr. Jordan.
In an interview with The New York Sun, Mr. Frank said Mr. Jordan discussed in detail the plight of an Al-Jazeera reporter who had been detained by American forces, was made to eat his shoes while incarcerated in the Abu Ghraib prison, and was repeatedly mocked by his interrogators as "Al-Jazeera boy."
A man who said he was a producer with Al-Jazeera at the network's headquarters in Doha, Qatar, said he was unaware of any such incident, "although we have had problems with American troops in and out of Iraq." The Al-Jazeera producer refused to give his name.
Mr. Jordan's comments - prompted by a broader discussion of the dangers of covering the war in Iraq, in which some 63 journalists have been killed - left Mr. Frank, usually an outspoken war opponent, speechless.
"I was agog," he said. "I took a few seconds and asked him to basically clarify the remarks. Did he have proof and if so, why hadn't CNN run with the story?"
A CNN spokeswoman did not return a phone call or e-mail seeking comment. Last week, CNN put out a statement that said Mr. Jordan's remarks had been taken out of context by several Web logs and that he was merely responding to an assertion by Mr. Frank that the dead journalists were "collateral damage."
Mr. Frank denied that he used the phrase. The panel's moderator, Harvard University professor and columnist David Gergen, did not return a call seeking comment, but he told online columnist Michelle Malkin yesterday that the remarks left him "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," Mr. Gergen said. He told Ms. Malkin that the remarks could have been due to Mr. Jordan's recent return from Iraq, where he was likely "caught up in the tension of what was happening there."
The office of Senator Dodd, a Democrat of Connecticut who attended the panel, released a statement that said he "was not on the panel but was in the audience when Mr. Jordan spoke. He - like panelists Mr. Gergen and Mr. Frank - was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel."
Within minutes of making the comments, Mr. Frank said, CNN's Mr. Jordan began to immediately "pull back" on the assertion that 12 journalists had been killed by American forces. He instead focused on the deaths of two reporters killed when a missile fired from an American jet struck the 15th floor of Baghdad's Palestine hotel, where many reporters and film crews stay when in Baghdad.
Mr. Frank said he tried to get information out of Mr. Jordan so that he could forward it to the appropriate congressional investigative authorities. " I think Congress has demonstrated with Abu Ghraib that we will aggressively pursue reasonable allegations," he said. Mr. Frank said he has tried repeatedly over the past few days to get Mr. Jordan to provide evidence of crimes against journalists. He said Mr. Jordan promised to get back to him, "but I haven't heard anything yet," Mr. Frank said.
This is not the first time that Mr. Jordan has spoken critically of the American military's conduct toward journalists. In November, he reportedly told a gathering of global news executives in Portugal called News Xchange that he believed journalists had been arrested and tortured by American forces.
And in October 2002, at a News Xchange conference, he accused the Israeli military of deliberately targeting CNN personnel "on numerous occasions."
Mr. Jordan's remarks might have shocked the American attendees, but they certainly played well among some in the audience. 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.
Since then, some blogs have made Mr. Jordan's remarks a rallying cry for conservatives who have long harbored an animus against CNN for an alleged anti-American bias.
Radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt has turned his well-trafficked blog into a clearinghouse of information on what he called "Easongate."
It would be a "pretty grave mistake on the part of CNN" if they failed to take into account the power of blogs to refocus popular opinion, said Mr. Hewitt, citing the popular outcry against CBS News's report on purported gaps in President Bush's 1970s Texas Air National Guard service. "You would think that they would learn their lesson."
*****************************************************
So I think jordan is referring to any and all journalists including those from even Al Jeezra....
**************************************************************
EASONGATE
During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.
| Blog | Ecosystem Rank | SiteMeter Traffic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Instapundit.com | #1 | 190,428 a.d.v. | |
| Power Line | #3 | 73,452 a.d.v. | |
| lgf: a sane moral compass | #4 | 92,700 a.d.v. | |
| Michelle Malkin | #6 | 34,608 a.d.v. | |
| Captain's Quarters | #8 | 26,918 a.d.v. | |
| HughHewitt.com | #14 | 33,550 a.d.v. | |
| Wizbang | #15 | 18,191 a.d.v. | |
| Blogs For Bush | #17 | ||
| La Shawn Barber's Corner | #18 | ||
| ScrappleFace | #20 | 11,830 a.d.v. | |
| the evangelical outpost | #21 | 1,764 a.d.v. | |
| Winds of Change.NET | #26 | 6,217 a.d.v. | |
| IMAO | #29 | 6,675 a.d.v. | |
| Vodkapundit - All the News Tha | #33 | 6,075 a.d.v. | |
| BuzzMachine ... by Jeff Jarvis | #38 | 11,229 a.d.v. | |
| The Truth Laid Bear | #39 | 3,152 a.d.v. | |
| Right Wing News (Conservative | #40 | ||
| The Command Post - A Newsblog | #41 | 5,407 a.d.v. | |
| Chrenkoff | #43 | ||
| TalkLeft: The Politics of Crim | #46 | 8,495 a.d.v. | |
| Roger L. Simon: Mystery Noveli | #47 | 18,529 a.d.v. | |
| The Indepundit | #50 | 5,623 a.d.v. | |
| The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler | #52 | 3,552 a.d.v. | |
| Mudville Gazette | #58 | 4,352 a.d.v. | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>........................ See Link above for a continuation of a Very Lengthy List....... |
Why do people "have the greatest respect for" David Gergen?
Why did he attempt to change the subject? Why should any moderator who changes the subject about such an important vetting of whispered rumor be "greatly respected"? Why do many DC/Davos types claim "repesct for" Gergen. Is he a Don?
yes it did and thank you very much helps clear up alot of things that I didn't understand.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.