WHY THE EASON JORDAN COMMENTS MATTER

Maybe news organizations haven't covered Eason Jordan's comments not because they are "biased", but because the public doesn't care about what some executive at a cable network said.

...Members of the press (which includes you and more odious transgressors such as Howard Kurtz, who seems to be wasting perfectly good reporting skills on this inside-baseball [stuff]) prattling about what each other said and what they're doing and (in this case) what they're bosses are doing and what should be done about Dan Rather and is Fox too "conservative" and CBS too "liberal", and blah, blah, blah.

I want to know stuff that matters. What is actually happening in Iraq and in the halls of power? What is happening in baseball? What is the weather going to be tomorrow? How's the economy? Is there a problem with the brakes on GM trucks? What is Bush proposing re Social Security and what does it mean?

Who gives a rat's [tush] about what a CNN, PBS, Fox News, ABC executive said about anything? I'm perfectly willing to assume that everyone who runs Fox and CNN and CBS is a blithering, traitorous, felonious idiot, or a righteous, saintly, objective, fair, patriotic genius - take your pick. And I can't fathom a single reason why I should possibly care in the least. I don't own stock in any of these companies and am not an employee. If I don't like what they say on television I have a perfectly good channel clicker, can go to the corner and buy a newspaper or magazine, can turn on my computer and click to any of a million websites or can go to a bar and listen to local news provided by gossips.

Sorry, B.J., but I have to disagree. First, let's note that Eason Jordan isn't just "some executive," he's chief news executive of CNN and chairs the CNN Editorial Board. In other words, he's one of the most powerful voices in deciding what goes into the making of the news at CNN.

Two, if U.S. soldiers were deliberately targeting and killing journalists in Iraq, it would be an unparalleled outrage. And a huge news story. As Rony said, it would make the Abu Ghraib scandal look like a tea party. And the U.S. military would deserve that outrage. Unless you've got solid evidence that a reporter is no longer a noncombatant and is engaging in helping the enemy (say, spotting targets for snipers or something), there is no justification for killing journalists.

If the initial accounts are correct, Jordan made a stunning accusation. He produced no evidence to support that accusation. If he doesn't have the evidence, he ought to retract the accusation and apologize.

What's sticking in my craw is... if he said what he is reported to have said, Jordan's statement is a fantastic propoganda and recruitment tool for al-Qaeda. Imagine what Zarqawi's recruiters can do with it. "Even the head of CNN says that American soldiers are murderers and thugs, targeting and killing reporters if they speak the truth of the American invasion!"

Many accounts, including Jay Nordlinger's, indicated that a lot of high-profile Americans were willing to criticize their country — not just the Bush administration, but the American people themselves — in order to get applause from the worldwide elites at Davos. That's irritating and sickening enough. But for some news guy to make false accusations about the U.S. military in order to get some rah-rahs from the America-haters... well, that's unconscionable.

And if it's true, CNN ought to replace him. Those kind of lies and rumormongering shouldn't come out of the mouth of a news executive before an important audience. There's just no excuse.

The amount of [tush] kissing we (the military) do to these reporters (all reporters) is amazing to me. Being nothing special myself (I'm but one of many) I have been interviewed literally more times than I can count. The access we give these scumbags is far for than they deserve — and this is the kind of treatment we get in return. All in the hopes that one story out of ten is favorable. But another, more important point- I wonder if Mr Eason has any idea the number of U.S. soldiers who were injured or killed over the years because some idiot journalist was somewhere they shouldn't have been. And the US "cavalry" came in to save his ass. Way too many, and these are never, ever, seen by the US public. How's that for an accusation? We could certainly prove ours.

Has this been mentioned in the Legacy media or press? I saw a one sentence blurb on FoxNews website about 'Ethan' (not Eason) Jordan...but that is it. Why hasn't it been covered yet? Even TKS was saying that it might not be media bias...yet. Give it a day or two to make the papers. That was several days ago.

Second, when it does break, (assuming it does), I think there will be a lot of talk about what the word 'targetting' means. That is probably the discussion happening in the Newsrooms now.

There are subtle differences in meaning and that is what Eason is going to try to backpedal on. Terrorists target civilians meaning that they deliberately try to kill them...they are 'aiming' at them. The US military kills civilians too...but they are collateral damage because we are aiming at legitimate targets, but sometimes civilians get killed too...especially when the legitimate targets are violating the laws of war and hiding behind them.

During his backpedaling, Eason Jordan brought up an incident during the invasion of Baghdad as the US 'targetting' journalists...except it wasn't targetting in the proper definition. The US military aimed at and hit journalists, but did NOT target journalists...they targetted enemy forward observers.

During the initial dash into Baghdad the Army recieved indirect artillery fire and our Signal Intelligence guys picked up enemy forward observers adjusting that fire (making it far more effective and deadly)(it is also worth noting that the enemy was firing artillery in a very built up area rather indescriminantly). The unit was informed and they looked for artillery spotters...who could see them to adjust the fire. They saw two men on a high story hotel balcony with electronic equipment taking a major interest in them, fired a tank round, and hit what they were aiming at. It turns out that the two men were journalists trying to get footage of the American military advance. The military did not say, "Hey, there's two journos over there, let's kill them!" The military knew there were people adjusting fire on their position and saw two likely candidates and killed them. But Eason Jordan tried to call that 'targetting journalists' That in itself is a slander against our brave troops.

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.