I'm not asking for his head, just asking that what he says in a public forum is factual.
Oh yeah. THAT'S the problem with the world. Not enough people on the internet ragging on George W. Bush.
So, what did the Soviets do? Did it really work (given the outcome of the Soviets leaving Afghanistan)?
That's right. Since this is an attack on the left, make sure you do your research, check all your facts, and have all your "t's" crossed and 'i's" dotted.
Attacks on the right don't require this, however.
"(2) For Eason: Admit your mistake, and use your power and capacity as one of the most powerful media figures in the world to turn CNN into a model of ethical, fair, and fact based journalism."
LOL. Kim Jung-Il, admit your mistake and turn N. Korea into N. Carolina.
If a "journalist" is running with the terrorists, and constantly feeding material to the enemy, and a 150MM shell blows him to bits along with the terrorists, How is it "targeting"?
Isn't that the chance you take being in the "line of fire" ???
How is it that when one of the "good guy" journalists takes one for the team, he becomes a "national hero" albeit briefly ??
Was "Mata Harri" and her "copycats" in past wars considered a "journalist"?
How about "Baghdad Bob"?
You are defending Soviet conduct in Afghanistan? What next? Himmler and Streicher? You must be a leftist.
Puh-leeze. Minimize harm? We're out to kick ass, not kiss it.
Nicely written piece...Thanks..PLEASE keeping blooging the story here on FR, and ping me...regatrda..
At this dumb question, I stopped reading.
Dan
We're seeing the same final defense here that Dan Rather used - namely, it is up to the critics to prove their charges, rather than the journalist to back up his initial assertions. Eason should be called upon to put up or retract - and we are simply demanding such - but somehow it is up to us to raise the burden of proof for our position.
How many chances does this jerk get? He confessed a couple of years ago to covering for Saddam throughout the 1990's now this.
No, it's time for journalism to wash this skid mark off it's shorts.
It's called accountability, simpleton. Eason made an inflammatory charge and can't back it with facts. Let the heads roll.
Where have we seen this approach before? Oh, yeah, that's right, it was a mistake when Clinton played with Monica in the Oral Office. It was a mistake when Clinton lied under oath.
Sorry, it wasn't a mistake. If Eason does not have proof, it was a deliberate LIE. And he should be fired for it. It is not up to us to prove he was lying. It is up to him to demonstrate he was telling the truth. Anything less is just a Dan Rather moment.
This guy is an idiot.
We went to Iraq to call Sadam's hand. Even if Sadam was bluffing it did not matter either way, he would have his cards on the table.
The mission was valid, as everyone knew the only way to find out for sure was to actually check.
"Hmmmm. Ok. I'll bite.
1. "we are entering an era of informational accountability."
Sixty plus years of network news. A century or more of modern journalism. Several decades of ethical thought and education in journalism school.
And only NOW are we entering into an "era of informational accountability"? I'd suggest that this makes a much more powerful statment than is probably otherwise intended.
2. "Right wing bloggers: are you holding our leaders to the same standard of accountability that we are now holding Eason Jordan"
Are you holding left-wing bloggers to the same level of accountability that you're holding right-wing bloggers to? I can't say that I've noticed Atrios or Kos following that particular "Blogger Code of Ethics". Please explain how you can be attempting to use that standard to judge right-wing bloggers when the left-wing bloggers don't even ackknowledge it. I must point out that this is a common tactic of the left. Create an artificial standard and then apply it solely to the right-wing all the while ignoring any and all infractions of this, artificial, standard by anyone on the left. We can see it every single day with an example of Howard Kurtz of CNN. Kurtz spent a great deal of time and effort to show conservative pundits in a bad light, yet nothing even comparable is done to anyone on the left.
Such is the partisan hackery in the MSM today.
3. As for the "Blogger Code of Ethics". When the foaming-at-the-mouth brigade of left-wing bloggers adopt it, and really adopt it and not just a symbolic gesture that is immediately ignored, let me know. Then I'll consider it.
4. As for President Bush and WMDs. Let me also point out the huge number of Democratic Senators who are ON RECORD that Iraq had WMDs, that Iraq was dangerous and that Saddam had to be dealt with. This includes Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid and Kerry. Oh and while we're at it why don't we also apply this interesting standard to Clinton, who ostensibly bombed Iraq for the same WMD reason on the day of Lewinsky deliberations in the Senate.
Goose, meet Gander. Gander, Goose.
5. "Admit your mistake, and use your power and capacity as one of the most powerful media figures in the world to turn CNN into a model of ethical, fair, and fact based journalism."
Any idea that Eason as a continuing role at CNN is laughable. As it is now the American MSM has mortally wounded itself in Iraq with it's blatantly false reporting. And CNN, with Amanpour in the lead, heads the pack.
And I'll also point out, again, that this is also indicative of the rampant corruption in the MSM. Unable, or unwilling, to police itself. It puts paid to the lie that the MSM is unbiased.
6. "The philosopher Karl Popper spoke of our inability to ever prove that something was true."
Oh give me a break. When I read philosophical claptrap such as this all I can think is that there is/was someone out there that really needed a good swift kick in the arse. This is right up there with that incredible question: "How can you prove you're hungry".
7. "(a) Do U.S. Troops specifically target American and foreign journalists in Iraq?"
My guess is that the answer is a big fat NO. One of the more important, and signal, directives in Afghanistan was the statement by the American military that they would NOT intervene nor intercede on the behalf of any journalist that got into trouble in Afghanistan. At the time it caused something of a ruckus but the reasoning is quite clear from the history of the Gulf War I.
Journalist do really stupid things in order sex up stories and when they get into deadly trouble, they always call on the military to get them out of the shithole they've dug for themselves. And if a helicopter full of soldiers crashes while rescuing their raggedy arse, well then that's just a tidy little bonus for the j-crew isn't it.
I don't think the question is whether or not American soldier target journalists. It's more of whether or not journalists target American soldiers.
And there is a shitload more evidence for this.
Summary:
Eason Jordan is a pimple on the Great Ass of Journalism. Irrelevant and worthless. He'll be pilloried, racked, burned at the stake and forgotten in a couple weeks. But what won't be forgotten is that the current MSM is already dead, but unaware of it. Amazingly enough it's not bloggers that killed the beast. In fact bloggers are almost completely irrelevant too in this circumstance. No what really killed the current MSM Journalosaur is the American military. Quite ironic isn't it.
No soldier will shoot it dead, but then again they don't have to. Ever since the start of Afghanistan the MSM has played up the negatives and hidden the positives. Even now the successful democracy in Afghanistan has been flushed down the "memory hole". But what cannot be flushed is the combined and cumulative experience of every soldier, marine, sailor and airman who knows the truth, and see the lies spread by the MSM.
As it is now many, if not most, active duty members of the military despise and distrust the MSM. They know the truth, and the truth is not being told. They can see with their own eyes the spin, and the lies. Having lost any trust garnered over the years of childhood, this trust is gone forever and can never be regained. With 100,000+ new members each and every year, the pool of distrustful grows constantly. Then you must add in members of their families, who being apprised of the truth, also distrust the MSM. There are 2.5 million active duty military today. Multiply that by the number of family members potentially influenced by first-hand knowledge.
Then there's the other aspect of military life. That the raw recruit today could spend the next thirty years in uniform. The distrust learned today from a revered NCO, could last his entire career and passed on to each successive generation. And each and every year another 100,000+ are primed for indoctrination.
hehe. Do you think this is new? What do you think has been going on since Reagan took office? Ever wonder why the Democratic Party's problems have become so great in almost exactly twenty years after Reagan's election?
It's a funny world."
Posted by: ed | February 6, 2005 07:32 AM
Don't we have a sniper on the job "targeting" him? < /sarcasm >
... The military may not have actually targeted journalists in Iraq, but the sentiment behind it all is accurate. </rather>
Eason Jordan – Isn’t this the scoundrel that more or less admitted that CNN did puff pieces on Saddam Hussein in order to stay in Iraq during his rein? NEVER ONCE did CNN report truthfully on the brutal dictatorship’s activities, murder, torture, rape, pillage, plunder, etc., because they feared being kicked out of the country. Why be in the country? The only answer can be they were a willing propaganda arm of Saddam’s rein of terror.
Personally I want CNN to carry on in their present and past mode. It will ensure Darwin’s theory of evolution takes place. They will fade into the dustbin of history.
Actually, if we had been tagging CNN people with tracking devices we'd have gotten Osama and his cohorts long ago. CNN always used to be able to find the bad guys for interviews when our intel folks couldn't.