Posted on 02/13/2005 9:21:49 AM PST by Brian Mosely
Sad conclusion in the Eason Jordan affair (see below the New York Times article), sad day for the freedom of expression in America and sad day again for the future of blogging: the defense of the US army honor seemed more important to some bloggers than the defense of reporters' work (and sometimes life)! Nevertheless, there is one advantage in this story: masks are fallen! Within the honest community of bloggers, some of them claimed to be the "sons of the First Amendment", they just were the sons of Senator McCarthy. And this is very worrying to see this new wedding between self-proclaimed citizen's media and maintstream journalists scalps' hunters. Fifty years ago, it was enough to be communist to be fired, today, it is enough to raise questions about the Bush administration policy in Iraq to be denounced as "anti-American". Maybe the only difference is that you are not fired, but that you must dismiss! What's my conclusion? Real promoters of citizen media would have to take some distance with those who have fueled and organised the Eason Jordan hatred. If not, the "new era of journalism" opened by the blogosphere will appear as the old clothes of American populism.
According to the New York Times, "Eason Jordan, a senior executive at CNN who was responsible for coordinating the cable network's Iraq coverage, resigned abruptly Friday 11 February, citing a journalistic tempest he touched off during a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, late last month in which he appeared to suggest that United States troops had deliberately aimed at journalists, killing some.
Though no transcript of Mr. Jordan's remarks at Davos on Jan. 27 has been released, the panel's moderator, David Gergen, editor at large of U.S. News & World Report, said in an interview last night that Mr. Jordan had initially spoken of soldiers, "on both sides," who he believed had been "targeting" some of the more than four dozen journalists killed in Iraq. Almost immediately after making that assertion, Mr. Jordan, whose title at CNN had been executive vice president and chief news executive, "quickly walked that back to make it clear that there was no policy on the part of the U.S. government to target or injure journalists," Mr. Gergen said."
In a memorandum released to his colleagues last night, Mr. Jordan, 44, who had worked at the network for more than two decades, said he had "decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq."
Bret Stephens, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board who attended the session in Davos, wrote in Thursday's Journal that Mr. Jordan had "made a defamatory innuendo" but added: "Mr. Jordan deserves some credit for retracting the substance of his remark, and some forgiveness for trying to weasel his way out of a bad situation of his own making."
Source: New York Times. See also the first posting on 28 January 2005 about the Eason Jordan affair: it was posted by Rony Abrovitz on forumblog.org, the official weblog of the World Economic Forum.
I don't even know where to begin...
Of course Senator McCarthy was actually right.
Perhaps Eason should have immediately released a transcript.
Senator McCarthy was right.
In the case of that creep -- yes.
By the way, Bertrand Pecquerie is Director of the World Editors Forum, which is the editors’ organization within the World Association of Newspapers.
Just lovely.
Hey, all we ask for is proof of his claims.
Why would he say it if he didn't believe it was true?
If he believed it was true then what does he base that belief on?
Since he could not prove it he proves himself to be too reckless an idealogue to have anything to do with objective news reporting.
Hugh Hewitt played a huge role in making this story remain in the spotlight.
Yes..when the first words that come to mind are treasonous seditious scumbags, its hard to progress from that point.
Another variety of Pecquerie.
So where's the transcript? Who has it? Why are they refusing to release it?
The guy said something that made Barney Frank flinch and he doesn't want us to know what it was. Then he resigns. This seems a pretty good indication that the bloggers have it exactly right.
If it had actually been anything that wasn't traitorous, it would have been released before now.
Journalists are desperately afraid that they will now be held accountable for the things they write and say.
This isn't the way it was supposed to be. Journalists are supposed to hold others accountable, not be held accountable themselves.
You have a very good point. Don't debate, don't counter with facts, just call people names.
Bertrand Pecquerie's response is what I would expect from roaches (creeping in the dark) when uncovered in the spotlight of truth. Run for cover.
"quickly walked that back to make it clear that there was no policy on the part of the U.S. government to target or injure journalists,"
Notice how he didn't "walk it back" to say journalists were not targeted by the military - only that there was no government policy to target journalists.
No matter how much you polish it, a turd is still a turd.
And why is it the Jordan's Davos comments hasn't/won't be released? A man falsely accused would be the first to demand that the tape be released. The tape must be really bad, so bad that it can't be publicly released, and the MSM trying to circle their broken wagons is an interesting spectacle.
I take issue with this name.
He should be fired.
An earnest Bertrand Pecquerie [center], expounding on his views in a one-on-one setting.
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.