Oh yeah, the culture wars continue apace, but the battle lines may be changing a bit.
I think i finally scooped you this time, sorry it had to be the last piece I'll read there.
I read that Eason Jordan was cheating on his wife with Marianne Pearl, widow of the Beheaded Daniel Pearl.
This is the Opinion Journal with this leftist stance?
And, if Jordan had kept his mouth shut and never authored that op-ed, he probably would have been cut some slack this time around.
One can argue about whether or not Jordan's remarks at the WEF constituted a "firing offense". In my view, they did. But I would respect the views of others.
But, after the confession of how Eason Jordan arranged to a.) suppress the news of Saddam's brutality and atrocities and, instead, b.) broadcast propaganda paeans and puff pieces exalting Saddam, the WEF offense became unforgivable.
The two cases also demonstrate that Jordan suffers from an advanced case of Trent Lott Disease -- another "firing offense".
And this editorial also serves to demonstrate just how very difficult it is to defend Eason Jordan, based solely on professional standards.
What we are hearing are the death cries of the old MSM regime. Which is cool with me.
... But it does not speak well of CNN that it apparently allowed itself to be stampeded by this Internet and talk-show crew. Of course the network must be responsive to its audience and ratings. But it has other obligations, too, chief among them to show the good judgment and sense of proportion that distinguishes professional journalism from the enthusiasms and vendettas of amateurs.
No doubt this point of view will get us described as part of the "mainstream media." But we'll take that as a compliment since we've long believed that these columns do in fact represent the American mainstream. We hope readers buy our newspaper because we make grown-up decisions about what is newsworthy, and what isn't.
I'm speechless.
I was surprised that Jordan "resigned" so easily. But this paragraph puts it in perspective for me. He'd really embarrassed CNN with his earlier indictment of them. If it was a lie, they would have fired him. This time they could do something about it.
If he did nothing wrong why did he not fight it out?
I'm somewhat surprised by this article and the condescension towards bloggers. You're right. I certainly anticipate future battle lines shifting because of the WJS position on immigration.
I really don't understand this. I'm a big fan of the WSJ, primarily because their paper is well written and has a conservative take. But this article overlooks the fact that this wasn't the first time Eason made slanderous remarks about the US military - about six months prior, he made the same comments alleging targeting and torture of journalists by US forces, but wasn't called to account for it. He didn't just "misspeak" at Davos; he was being true to his anti-American attitude. So what's the deal, WSJ?
This editorial is so unprofessional in its sloppy attempt to whitewash Jordan that it contradicts itself.
At the beginning it says, "CNN's Eason Jordan appeared to say--before he tried to unsay it--that U.S. troops had deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq." Then, a few paragraphs later, it lets the cat out of the bag: "As for Mr. Jordan, he initially claimed that U.S. forces in Iraq had targeted and killed 12 journalists."
Since Jordan actually accused U.S. troops of deliberately murdering 12 journalists, as shown by the last quote, rather than the first quote which said he only "implied" such an accusation, and he was unable to come up with any evidence to prove the accusation, he certainly did do something as bad as Rather did. That the WSJ, which I have previously respected and admired, would support this whitewash, and do it so unprofessionally that it even contradicts itself in the same paragraph, is totally disgusting.
I was once told by a former newspaper editor that, "news is what your editor says it is, unless the publisher says it isn't."
The problem the MSM now has to deal with is that they aren't the publishers and editors any more. We are...
Powerline (scroll down) works the WSJ editorial over pretty good. I'm sure Lashawn Barber, Michelle Malkin and EasonGate will weigh in on this also.
As a paying WSJ subscriber, the more I think about this, the madder I get.
Because the blogsphere now challenges every established media outlet, left or right. They now realize they can't get away with all the crap they have done over the years. And it strips them of the bulk of their power - the power to omit or mislead in order to make truth, or what they want to be the truth.
The Goths have entered the temple. And every editor now looks at Jordon going down and thinks to himself, "there but for the blogsphere goes I..."
Yeah, the internet crew that makes up 100% of your audience? Right, let's just disregard them.
Everyone's tearing these people apart, even though they are our friends on something like 98% of issues. Isn't it good to have a friend in the MSM?
I'm inclined to see the article as reasonable, because Jordan didn't publish his remarks. If he said what he did in a public forum, then the firing was fair enough. But Davos is meant to be a quasi-private sort of thing and remarks made there are not intended for mass consumption. If he wants to believe in private that journalists were targeted, that's surely his right, no?
A lot of people on this forum have similar "out there" beliefs, and they express them here. My point is that as long as they don't express them in their publications or when speaking to the press, it should be their private matters.
So why are people so vehement about this issue?
Thoughts?