Lovelady wrote himself way out onto thin ice. The statements by Jordan were unretractable due to their spectacular shock effect, and because there was no way to brush them off as misstatements. (And he has made similar comments in the past.)
If one assumes Jordan actually believed what he said (I'm one of those), it demonstrates a bias so deep, or a delusion, as to make him unfit to run a news agency.
If one assumes Jordan was lying just to smear the troops (et al), then he is a liar, also unfit to run a news agency.
He was gone as soon as he made the statement.
MSM is upset that the story of Jordan and Davos got out. MSM wrote nothing, the tapes were held, and only an independent attendee (forget his name) put the story on the web, scooping MSM because it wanted to sit on the story.
That's why Lovelady is mad....not because Jordan destroyed himself, but because the blogs got the word out. The blogs were kind of like the ear in the forest that heard the tree fall, while MSM hoped there would be no ear so no one would be aware that the tree had fallen.
Given what blogs have accomplished lately, it's my opinion that Lovelady could be described as a "slow learner".
Sometimes, slow learners have to be aggressive to retain their position. That happens, as here, when contrary information is right on the surface, and must be deliberately ignored. If I get a chance to debate at Columbia, I'll say exactly that to Steve.
John / Billybob
I would take a slightly different tack with your analogy. It used to be that if a tree fell in the forest and the MSM didn't report on it, it didn't make a sound. And if you claimed you heard something, the MSM would dismiss your claim. Now, with the blogsphere, they can't do either.