Posted on 02/13/2005 8:44:32 PM PST by Pikamax
"Bloggers as News Media Trophy Hunters"
Season opens at 12:00 AM Jan. 1.
Season closes at Midnight Dec 31.
Unlimited Trophy Tag.
Drudge was hated to a foaming lather pitch after the Lewinsky story. I don't know if you've ever seen this [ http://web.archive.org/web/20020124205644/www.frontpagemag.com/archives/drudge/drudge.htm ] but you should read it. Every FReeper should read it. This is a transcript of Drudge addressing the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Their arrogance and sneering is palpable in nearly every line as they try to slap him around. Drudge, however, hands them their flabby asses on a platter with trimmings. Read it - you'll howl. Shows what dolts and liars they all are too.
http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/02/13/the-ugly-truth-behind-the-old-medias-template-of-eason-jordan-as-victim/
snip
Here is the ugly problem at the center of some of the Old Media’s backlash at the fall of Eason Jordan: a lot of the Old Media agrees with what Jordan said. Many Old Media journalists believe it is an open question as to whether the American military is targeting journalists, or worse, they believe that the military is in fact targeting journalists – they just can’t prove it.
Jack Kelly again:
"If what Jordan said were true, it would be a bigger scandal than Abu Ghraib, about which we in the media have made sure you have heard. And if CNN’s top news executive slandered U.S. troops, that also is – or ought to be –news.
Eason Jordan knew for certain that journalists were targeted by Saddam Hussein; after all, Jordan covered up for Saddam. He knew, up close and personal, that journalist Daniel Pearl had been targeted by Islamist thugs. Did Eason Jordan’s statements reveal a judgment of moral equivalence between the US and our enemies, that the US military could behave just like Saddam or the Islamist head-choppers?
Lest you think such a question is too extreme, here is a lengthy quote on the topic from Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald, from a letter to Jim Romenesko:
"I am alarmed that Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily, is baffled by the uproar over Eason Jordan’s remarks. If this helps, it is because Jordan reportedly accused American soldiers of purposefully murdering journalists, without citing any evidence, and without his news organization having reported it. While he backtracked and claimed he was misunderstood, apparently CNN found his transgression serious enough to accept his resignation.
I am also alarmed that the editor of a major media watchdog publication’s web spinoff would cite a report titled “Two Murders and a Lie” [link added – ed.] (Reporters Without Borders, and apparently without standards) to support Jordan, as well as the similarly flawed “Permission to Fire,” [link added – ed.] (Committee to Protect Journalists) both of which offer selectively reported and distorted views of the Palestine incident that are peppered with inaccuracies and speculation. There is no evidence to support accusations of either murder or lying in the Palestine incident.
By way of disclosure, I was embedded with the tank company that fired on the Palestine, and was within 100 yards of the tank that fired on April 8, 2003. Sgt. Shawn Gibson saw what he thought was an Iraqi forward observer in a tall building. We had been alerted that an Iraqi FO had eyes on our position an hour earlier. The tankers had been in combat for up to 30 hours by the time Gibson fired, and after a particularly heavy pre-dawn counterattack was repelled, continued to be plagued with mortar fire and RPGs – including fire from the east bank of the Tigris and from tall buildings. In a month of combat operations with A Co. 4/64 Armor, I witnessed numerous examples of restraint when the tankers put themselves in danger in order to avoid killing civilians. Any suggestion that American soldiers have purposefully killed journalists in Iraq is repugnant, ignores the facts and reflects a disturbing bias. The failure of a major media watchdog publication’s editor to get this is also disturbing.
As the Crittenden letter illustrates, there are more than a few journalists who believe that the US military is in fact targeting them for death. If you believe that Jordan has been silenced and fired for telling the truth about the American military’s deliberate murder of journalists, you would of course see his firing as evidence of a “New McCarthyism” or a “lynch mob” mentality and be outraged. That this outrage may be evidence of a malignancy in the Old Media’s attitude towards America does not occur to them."
1 Comment »
yeap! Bless the vision of our Founding Fathers!
Unless the tape is released we can consider him "guilty as charged."
Why do I get the feeling they don't want that tape to see the light of day
Hey Media .. If Jordan is innocent .. PROVE IT
Stop blaming those on the internet and SHOW THE TAPE!!
That's a great link!
Question to Drudge: How many sources do you require before posting an item?
MR. DRUDGE: Well, a little more than Bob Woodward's "Deep Throat" from time to time. (Laughter, scattered applause.)
From that terrific Drudge link:
Well, Matt, for our first question, let me ask you, how does it advance the cause of democracy and of social good to report unfounded allegations about individuals and the Neilsen ratings?
MR. DRUDGE: Well, that's a good question. I mean, I don't know specifically what you're referring to. You know, I have some—there's different levels of journalism; I'll concede that. One of my competitors is Salon Magazine Online, who I understand is the president's favorite website. And there's a reporter there, Jonathan Broder. He was fired for plagiarism from the Chicago Tribune. And I read that in the Weekly Standard.
But do I believe it? Because as much as I love the Weekly Standard, they have had to settle a big one with Deepak Chopra, if I recall. I heard that from CNN. But hold on. Didn't CNN didn't have the little problem with Richard Jewell? I think Tom Brokaw told me that, and then I think Tom Brokaw also had to settle with Richard Jewell.
I read that in the Wall Street Journal. But didn't the Wall Street Journal just lose a huge libel case down in Texas, a record libel, $200-million worth of jury? I tell you, it's creative enough for an in-depth piece in The New Republic. But I fear people would think it was made up. (Applause.)
That he did not publically and immediately demand the release of the tape is damning...and there is no other way to look at it.
RELEASE THE TAPE!
Exactly. If I was accused of something I didn't do and knew that a tape would prove my innocence, I'd demand that it be released.
I certainly wouldn't just resign and say, "Oh, well."
Off topic: (From a thread under Bloggers posted on FR right now)-- The moonbats over at dailykos have been MELTING DOWN over recent allegations that the host of the site, Markos, anonymously posted a thread about Donna Brazzile that allegedly had racial overtones. One of their frontpage posters, Kid Oakland ("KO"), has already left the site in disgust.
That's the section I always think about in that transcript. Talk about the MSM pot calling the Drudge kettle black!
Ping!
the dead tree peddlers have declared war
Step right up, ladeeees and gentlefreeps! Get yer rampant, unedited dialogue right here! Yes, indeedy! More potent, more astounding, more sinister than mere garden variety free speech! Naked, raw, untrammelled opinion with nary a gatekeeper in sight! It cleanses, it enlightens! Distribute it freely and watch as your Old Media friends hiss and quail in alarm! Come and get it right here -- rampant, unedited dialogue! Accept no substitutes!
Don't forget to rub it in on affected parts of the body politic...
Oh great idea... give us images of the liberal nitwit 'journalists' stuffed and mounted like big game.
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.