Posted on 02/10/2005 3:42:54 AM PST by jocon307
Did Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN, actually say the American military has deliberately killed journalists covering the conflict in Iraq? It's a serious question, at least to judge by the heat it's generated....Sean Hannity and the usual Internet suspects have all weighed in. So has Michelle Malkin, who sits suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.
There's a reason the hounds are baying. Already they have feasted on the juicy entrails of Dan Rather. Mr. Jordan...was bound to be their next target. And if Mr. Jordan has now made a defamatory and unsubstantiated allegation against U.S. forces, well then . . . open the gates. [elipsis in original]
I was in the audience of the World Economic Forum's panel discussion where Mr. Jordan spoke.... Rep. Barney Frank, also a member of the panel, interjected: Had American troops actually targeted journalists? And had CNN done a story about it? Well no, Mr. Jordan replied, CNN hadn't done a story on this, specifically. And no, he didn't believe the Bush administration had a policy of targeting journalists....
[O]ne could almost see the wheels of Mr. Jordan's mind spinning, slowly: "How am I going to get out of this one?" But Mr. Frank and others kept demanding specifics....
And that was it--the discussion moved on. I'll leave it others to draw their own verdicts, but here's mine: Whether with malice aforethought or not, Mr. Jordan made a defamatory innuendo....Had Mr. Jordan's innuendo gone unchallenged, it would have served as further proof to the Davos elite of the depths of American perfidy. Mr. Jordan deserves some credit...and some forgiveness...Whether CNN wants its news division led by a man who can't be trusted to sit on a panel and field softball questions is another matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I highly recommend Captain Ed's take on Stephens motivations.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003793.php#comments
The analysis continues in the comments from Max:
"The WSJ first tried to bury this story, and now that it can't, to throw water on the flames.
It is clear that this is the case given that James Taranto of the WSJ's Best of the Web has yet to mention what is in fact the biggest story on the web. His failure to do so can imo only be attributed to a conscious decision by the WSJ to protect Eason Jordan and CNN. Both he and the WSJ have lost a lot of credibility with me, and I'm sure others, over their handling of this."
"I tried to post a reply to Stephens' article and got a message along the lines of 'this article is over a week old and replys will not be posted'."
Here's the most important thing he writes, immediately after stating he was in the audience and directly, personally heard Jordan say it:
"Mr. Jordan observed that of the 60-odd journalists killed in Iraq, 12 had been targeted and killed by coalition forces. He then offered a story of an unnamed Al-Jazeera journalist who had been "tortured for weeks" at Abu Ghraib, made to eat his shoes, and called "Al-Jazeera boy" by his American captors."
Then he goes on to write that this as mere inuendo and not a direct accusation--what?????
When Jordan said "target" he had to mean murder. Thre's not much left after one or two .50 caliber rounds his somebody or after a tank round explodes right next to her.
"...the reporterette who Ann Coulter describes as the 'war slut'."
and who also is married to former Clintonite Jamie Rubin.
"I tried to post a reply to Stephens' article and got a message along the lines of 'this article is over a week old and replys will not be posted'."
UNHEARD OF!
I responded to that article before I posted it here. And as I mentioned in my original post, it's the featured article of the day, something they don't do every day, I think it's sort of a usage audit. The response must have been crashing their servers!
LOL, first the Noonan aposty and now this. Even the Wall Street Journal does not know the true power of the internet.
It took them FOREVER to get the reponses up to the noonan article. It is 1:25 pm Eastern time, there's nothing up for any of today's pieces yet, and there's usual some repsonses up by now.
I'll have to go back to the site and try and respond again.
I just tried again, you DO have to be registered to read it now, since it is the featured article. I thought you had to just give an email addy, I was wrong about what I said before.
But I was still able to send in a response to it.
More interesting developments. Follow the earlier link to CQ blog. It seems Mr. Stephens failed to disclose his rather close relationship with the WEF. In fact, he just went through the nomination process (run by Queen Rania of Jordan) to become one of the WEF's 'young leaders of tomorrow' one of whose board members is none other than Eason Jordan.
Don't you mean Jamie Amanpour? Clearly, he's the one wearing the panties in that family. God, what a despicable little Clintonite pecksniff.
The real question the media should be addressing is "Why is it that Jordan's claims would have any credibility?"
In other words, Why would the military want to kill journalists?
Might take a little soul searching to come up with the answer there.
Wil, you make a good point.
Blank, that is indeed quite interesting. That would certianly be something to question the WSJ on, for sure.
The responses, though few in number, are finally up. I'll be boastful and note mine is included, second to last one. Which is nice, because usually if I respond to something that is controversial I usually 'send a copy to myself' but I wasn't awake enough to do that today.
Another funny note "defamatory (or slanderous, or libelous) innuendo" was actually tonight's Tournament of Champions Final Jeopardy. So I think that I, along with many, if not most, readers of Stephens' piece may have mis-interpretted him a wee bit on that.
But, as I say, it was very confusing, and I'm still not sure.
Featured articles can be accessed without registration starting the day after they appear. Read it tomorrow! I sure will!
"Featured articles can be accessed without registration starting the day after they appear."
Very cool tip!
Also if you get to them early (guessing before 9 am eastern time) you can read them.
I think that "featured article" is some kind of hit counter, or something.
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.