Blogstorm descending on CNN ( Easongate situation )

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.

From the Transcript:

Radio Blogger Hewitt on Kudlow & Cramer

**********************************************

Tuesday, February 8

Larry Kudlow gets it.

Here's a transcript of the interview a little while ago on CNBC's Kudlow and Cramer program.

LK: You are one of my hero bloggers, by the way. A must read every single morning. This has been a blog story from day one. The so-called mainstream media hasn't really touched this. I think Kudlow & Cramer is the first actual show to put it on the air.

HH: Well, actually Chris Matthews had me on to flog "Blog" on the weekend, and I predicted that this week there would be a breakout of the Eason Jordan story, and it's in the Washington Post, page C-1, Howard Kurtz, The Boston Globe, The New York Sun today. You did talk about it last night with Ann Coulter and John Fund, which immediately spread around the blogosphere instantaneously, as validation that this was indeed controversial. Eason Jordan has a problem. CNN has a problem. Time Warner has a problem. They've spent a lot of time building this new brand, "The most trusted name in news," and now they're the most busted name in news.

Because the fact is he made claims about which the weight of evidence suggests, the weight, there's some contrary evidence out there, and we can't get the videotape, that the American military targeted and killed twelve journalists. In November of last year, Larry, Eason Jordan told a different foreign audience that he believed that an American military had abducted and were torturing journalists. Clearly a lot of paranoia here, a lot of controversy at the Davos conference where on January 27th, Eason Jordan made these remarks, and the blogosphere has probably had 1,000 posts from big bloggers to little bloggers that have reported the story.

LK: We've got eyewitnesses, here. And one of them is liberal Congressman Barney Frank, usually no friend of the war and so forth. But apparently, he is up in arms. Hugh, big question is, there is a tape of the proceedings. So if Jordan says, "I didn't say it," then the tape is going to tell us one way or another. Who's hiding the tape?

HH: The Davos beauracracy. My producer, my radio producer (me) contacted the gentleman who's got the tape last week. At first he said I don't think I'm going to give it out. Then another blogger called him and he said okay, I'll get it to you as soon as I unpack it. Someone got to him, and they retreated, and now they're declaring that it was an off-the-record session, which is odd since so many people have reported on it. Senator Chris Dodd as well as Barney Frank, another Democrat, Senator Dodd, reported yesterday he's outraged by the comments that were made by Eason Jordan at the time. David Gergen up at the Kennedy Institute of Government has kind of helped out Eason Jordan. But most of the evidence that is out there, that is moving at the speed of sound around the blogosphere, is coming to the conclusion that Eason Jordan has something to hide, and that he's very happy this tape isn't out there. The question that needs to be asked of him and CNN and of Time Warner are 'are you in favor of the truth?' Ask Davos to release the tape. Ask them to put it out there so we can see it and decide.

LK: And I want to speculate hypothetically. I can't back it up factually. If the tape shows that Jordan said what other eyewitnesses like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd say he said, and what you all have reported, isn't that grounds for immediate dismissal? Isn't that just the most traiterous thing against the U.S. military ever?

HH: I don't think it would be traiterous. I think it's paranoid. And I also think it infects a news organization with a kind of sinister approach to the American military which is not justified. There are reports that after his speech, he was surrounded by delegates to Davos from the Arab countries congratulating him on his bravery and his courage. This is the sort of anti-American propaganda bashing we don't need. And the blogosphere is out there to hold people accountable when they do things like this. That's why I wrote the book, is to warn people there is a new information system, and you cannot stand up in Davos, Switzerland, bash the American military, insinuate that they may have murdered people, then try and backpedal and expect the story will go away. That's the old media.

LK: Hugh, I don't see why this isn't just as bad or worse than Rathergate. And I don't see why he shouldn't be dismissed by CNN.

HH: Oh it's much worse than Rathergate.

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.

HH: If he said what people think he said, that were reported by bloggers there, you're absolutely right. But I'm willing to withhold judgement, as many of the blogger are, until we see the tape. But that means Eason Jordan should be out there demanding that its being released. the fact that he isn't is a pretty good indictment of his fear over what he actually said. We've caught him in at least one contradiction. He said he spoke in response to Barney Frank's charge that the casualties among journalists were all a part of collateral damage. In fact, most of the accounts say he spoke first, he went on a rambling monolog, he also attacked Rumsfeld, he attacked young soldiers getting excited and passionate. There's a lot on that tape we need to see, and CNN, and especially Time Warner, have got to protect their brand. They've got to worry about this, and they're not doing so yet.

LK: Well I'm not convicting him, I'm just saying if he said what he said, it would be grounds for immediate dismissal.

HH: Exactly.

LK: Last point, Hugh. The rise of the influence from the information in the blogosphere is nothing short of startling. Even I've been blogging the last five or six months, and enjoying the interaction. This is only going to accelerate, right? It's only going to take on even greater velocity and importance?

HH: Larry, in 1999, there were two dozen blogs. Today, there are seven million. David Sifry of Technorati says 40,000 new ones a day are being created. Some of them like mine and Powerline and Instapundit, and on the left there are a lot of good lefty bloggers like Pressthink.org and Jeff Jarvis over at Buzz Machine. All of these people are changing influence or opinion before the newspapers come out in the morning. They are setting the information curve that people have to absorb. I was stunned when Judy Woodruff at a panel I was on in Washington yesterday, she preceeded the panel, she was asked about the Eason Jordan story by a blogger friend of mine, and she didn't know about it. I mean don't they read the blogs at CNN? You cannot put your head in the sand and not see that the information processing in the United States, it's sensory system, has been completely revolutionized. That's what's happening.

LK: I'm with you. It's the first thing in the morning. I hit five or six, including yours, including Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit, including Hinderakers' Powerline. There's a couple of others, you've got to read it. You're absolutely right. Anyway, Hugh Hewitt, you are one of the very best, and I appreciate your taking the time and come on the show. More to be revealed on this story.

A very good segment with a serious journalist who gets the blogs, and sees the story for what it is. Another leak in the dam. Let's hope it spreads.

Posted at 4:57PM PST

Here's the deal on the Video (From the transcript above ):

************************************************

From EasonGate (Much more detail there ):

*******************************************

February 07, 2005

Update on video availability

Rebbeca MacKinnon over at Rconversations is a recovering journalist turned blogger who attended the WEF in Davos. She has a recent update regarding the video that doesn't bode well. Please read the whole thing. Aparently there is a loophole in the on/off the record policy desipte it's clarity.

Here are the rules:

‘On and Off the Record’ Policy for AM 2005
All plenary sessions are fully ‘on’ the record.
All sessions that are broadcast or webcast are ‘on the record’ (for 2005 that means all sessions in the Congress Hall or Sanada 1 and 2)
Every other session is only ‘on the record’ in terms of content. That is to say what was said can be reported – but it must not be attributed to any individual. However, should the journalist get the agreement of any participant to be quoted that is of course acceptable.
Naturally, all private meetings are off the record.
This policy is clear and simple and allows greater transparency. It can also be very simply and effectively enforced. Any transgression will lead to immediate withdrawal of badge and any future access to World Economic Forum events.

She did inquire about the video and rules and got a response back from WEF's Mark Adams who stated:

My understanding was that since this session was not webcast or broadcast it was 'off the record'
Certainly, no announcement was made at the begining of the session - as far as I remember - that it would be on the record.
In any case - a session summary is available on our website and we will not be trying to get a transcript of the session.

Another Easongate eyewitness

********************************************

I emailed Justin Vaisse last night and received the following reply, which I reproduce in full:

Rodger:
1/ Translation of the excerpt is OK, except for the last 2 paragraphs:
"Without going that far, Richard Sambrook, a BBC star raised the stakes" [in this acception, it is not "raised the stakes", it is simply "confirmed and gave additional information"] . Another journalist in the room, giving other examples including the Palestine hotel incident, said he was quite satisfied that here, in Davos, the magnitude of this phenomenon would be recognized [or "acknowledged"], since it is well-known within the journalistic community but not beyond.
David Gergen, the moderator, was taken aback [I generally took my notes in French but here I wrote the English expression "flabbergasted"], and could not manage to move beyond that subject."
2/ Eason Jordan made it clear that it was in no case the policy of the Army or the Pentagon or any institution to target journalists; he said that incidents were due to individuals. But he said that it happens in a certain environment, in a climate of tension vis-à-vis the journalists because of the war, where "Rumsfeld sets the tone" in his public comments. "That is unhelpful," he commented. He also said that some in the journalist community think that some in the armed forces deliberately target journalists. He didn't think that himself but did notice a very high level of animosity of some soldiers, esp. young one, towards the journalists, including American ones (not to speak of Al Jazeera reporters).
This view was widely shared by other journalists (who had been reporting from Iraq themselves) I've talked to in the room after the session.
Justin Vaisse

This adds considerably to our sense of events, and I greatly appreciate Justin's quick response.

I'll leave it for others to decide whether this follow-up supports Eason's Jordan's own various "clarifications." Certainly, it raises a new question regarding the supposed role of Don Rumsfeld in "setting the tone" for the actions of soldiers on the ground. Reading Vaisse's account, I can better understand why Americans in the room—even those opposed to the Admininstration's Iraq policies—were so outraged by Jordan's comments.

I'm sure mine is only the first of many inquiries Justin will be receiving in the days to come.

Posted by Rodger on February 8, 2005 at 07:13 AM | Permalink

From

Instapundit.com

******************************************************

February 08, 2005

THE LONG GAME VS. THE SHORT GAME: Gerard van der Leun thinks that CNN has, for the moment at least, successfully defused the Eason Jordan scandal: "The Eason Jordan vs The Bloggers match ended its first set today with a high lob set-up from Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post put away by an overhand smash by Mr. Adams of Davos who announced that the videotape of the Davos meeting, in which Jordan claimed the US Military was deliberately killing journalists in Iraq, would not be released to the public. . . . In this world, if it doesn't happen on television it doesn't happen, and without the videotape this will not happen on television."

I hate to accuse Gerard of old-media thinking, but I think that's what's going on here. It's true, of course, that without video the story won't get a lot of play on TV. But that's the short game, in which the goal is getting rid of Eason Jordan. Or hanging on to him.

The long game is different, and Jim Geraghty gets it:

What we need from the Davos conference organizers is simple - the tape of what Jordan said. It would be good to get the entire event, but really, what is at issue here is what Jordan said, and how much he backtracked.
If the Davos organizers refuse to release it, and CNN refuses to call for its release, and the BBC refuses to call for its release, and every other news agency refuses to call for its release...
...then remember this, the next time the media gets up on a high horse about the public's right to know. Remember this the next time Dick Cheney has a meeting with energy executives. Remember this the next time reporters complain about Bush not holding enough press conferences, and not doing enough interviews. Remember this the next time they talk about the importance of a free press, and an informed citizenry.
Because it's all conditional. None of this applies when the situation includes a media executive says something in a big forum that he later realizes he doesn't want the public to hear. Then all of a sudden, none of this matters, because it's bad form for other news agencies to look into the story if he wants it to go away. "Bad manners, old chap. We journalists have to stick together."

You don't need TV for those ideas to spread. And when they do -- and they are -- getting rid of Eason Jordan doesn't matter so much. Because neither does Eason Jordan. On the other hand, if the Eason Jordans of the world are all untrustworthy, self-interested boobs, and seen as such, it's going to be hard to sustain public support for press freedom. Unless, perhaps, enough people are blogging that the public sees its own face on "press freedom" and not the likes of Eason Jordan's.

And From :

Kerry Spot [ jim geraghty reporting ]

*****************************************************

WOULD JOURNALISTS ACCEPT THIS STONEWALLING FROM ANY OTHER INDUSTRY?

Rony Abovitz is steamed:

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.

What we need from the Davos conference organizers is simple - the tape of what Jordan said. It would be good to get the entire event, but really, what is at issue here is what Jordan said, and how much he backtracked.

If the Davos organizers refuse to release it, and CNN refuses to call for its release, and the BBC refuses to call for its release, and every other news agency refuses to call for its release...

...then remember this, the next time the media gets up on a high horse about the public's right to know. Remember this the next time Dick Cheney has a meeting with energy executives. Remember this the next time reporters complain about Bush not holding enough press conferences, and not doing enough interviews. Remember this the next time they talk about the importance of a free press, and an informed citizenry.

Because it's all conditional. None of this applies when the situation includes a media executive says something in a big forum that he later realizes he doesn't want the public to hear. Then all of a sudden, none of this matters, because it's bad form for other news agencies to look into the story if he wants it to go away. "Bad manners, old chap. We journalists have to stick together."

Also, remember the top excuse of Dan Rather and the CBS memos? Those infamous, all-powerful "competitive forces." Mary Mapes, Dan Rather and company just had to do the sloppy, unfair, and shoddy work that they did, because they were just so worried about being beaten by another news agency.

And yet in this case... it seems like no news agency is rushing to be first on this. Everybody's taking their time. Nobody wants to be the first to demand Davos release the tape. For days, it seemed like nobody wanted to be the first to write about this, or put it in their news section.

Just where the heck are these powerful, intense, unavoidable, healthy "competitive instincts" now?

I'm glad Chris Dodd offered a statement about how outraged he was... but it was an awfully quiet outrage for about nine days or so.

But hey... we have learned an awful lot about a lot of reporters since this news broke.

[Posted 02/08 01:24 PM]

And from :

EASONGATE: ANOTHER WITNESS ACCOUNT

*************************************

February 07, 2005

Witness #7

Justin Vaisse, a French-speaking blogger, was present during Eason Jordan's remarks at Davos. Rodger has the scoop:

Here's a translation by Mick Stockinger of UNCoRRELATED:
It must be said that Eason Jordan, one of the star journalists of CNN, didn't mince words in declaring that the intentions of journalists in Iraq were never perceived as neutral and that they were made deliberate targets by both sides.
Called on to clarify his statement, he said that outside of deaths attributed to rebels, 12 journalists, including Americans, were killed by the American army, not by deliberate attack, but in the context of a hostile climate towards the press, where the tone was set by Donald Rumsfeld himself. Many journalists feel that among young American soldiers, many would like to "do" a journalist in the course of combat.
Without going that far, Richard Sambrook, a BBC star raised the stakes. Another journalist in the room also recalled the Palestine hotel incident which supported the statements made in Davos, and recognizes the scale of the phenomenon, well-known within the journalistic community, but not beyond.
David Gergen, the moderator, was taken aback, but could not manage to change the subject.

Makes you wonder if Mick Stockinger or Rodger were spammed by CNN to let them know they have been "taken out of context". Eason Jordan's record against attendees of the conference in Davos is 0-6-1, with Richard Sambrook's attempted defense the only tie.

Posted by: rogg | Comments (6) | Permalink | TrackBack (4)

And from:

littlegreenfootballs.com

***********************************************

Eason Jordan Updates

According to Sisyphean Musings, the World Economic Forum will not release their recording of the discussion in which Eason Jordan accused the US military of deliberately targeting journalists.

Jim Geraghty has a lot of interesting stuff on the story today, including a well-done rebuttal of another muddle-headed piece by Jude Nagurney Camwell—who employs the shopworn disingenuous technique of cherry-picking an extreme-sounding comment from one reader (out of thousands of comments daily) in order to smear LGF.

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who has a professional association with CNN, weighs in with a noncommittal piece that comes off as a weak semi-defense of Eason Jordan: Eason Jordan, Quote, Unquote.

And with that, I suspect mainstream media is hoping this annoying controversy will now fade quietly away. But the issue of CNN’s appalling bias is going to keep coming up, because (as I’ve written several times before), the problem goes much deeper than Eason Jordan. At the same News Xchange conference in Portugal where Jordan told the audience that journalists had been “tortured” by the US military, another CNN executive, Chris Cramer, said that journalists were being “deliberately targeted for seeking out the truth.”

UPDATE at 2/8/05 3:27:52 pm:

By the way, I’d like to publicly offer to host the video or audio of the Eason Jordan discussion in Davos, if anyone reading this happens to have a copy.

by Charles at 02:22 PM PST |

And an item mentioned above:

littlegreenfootballs

*********************************************************************

11/26/2004: Journalists' Safety is Top Priority

Look out! They’re actually shooting at journalists! In war zones, of all places! And Chris Cramer of CNN says most of them were deliberately targeted—for “seeking out the truth:” Journalists’ safety is top priority. (Hat tip: Steven Den Beste.)

Chris Cramer of the US network CNN is honorary president of the International News Safety Institute (Insi).
He told hundreds of TV executives and journalists at News Xchange: “The death toll is three times higher than that of international humanitarian workers... This has been arguably the most terrible year for our profession - after I sat here and told you last year it had been the most terrible year.”
By some counts, more than 1,200 journalists and media workers have been killed in the past 10 years, more than two thirds dying in their own countries.
“Most were deliberately targeted for seeking out the truth. And in more than 94% of those cases, no one has been brought to trial,” Chris Cramer recalled.

(Anyone else think Cramer pulled that “94%” figure out of thin air?)

The problem is that damned military, always getting in the way and misunderstanding the journalists’ important work:

Insi, based in Brussels and founded just a year ago, is a non-governmental organisation that brings together news providers, journalist support groups and humanitarian bodies with the common goal of promoting the safety of media around the world.
It is involved in talks on journalists’ safety with the British Ministry of Defence, Nato and the Israeli army, as well as Reuters-sponsored talks with the Pentagon.
The media and the military “are separated by a large and at times fatal gulf of mutual misunderstanding”, said Insi Director Rodney Pinder.

And I know it’s hard to believe, but sometimes those terrorists and murderers on the other side are just as bad as the British or US military:

Other speakers at News Xchange noted that journalists and their assistants were equally under threat from armed groups and criminals.
In Iraq, one group had posted this threat on the internet against media they regarded as not being neutral enough:
“We swear to God that we will hunt all the workers in these news agencies and slaughter them like sheep if they stand beside the Americans and do not broadcast the truth about the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.”

posted by Charles at 2:08 PM PST

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.