Asymmetrical Information

Or is this liberal horror at discovering that there's a conservative definition of political correctness?

Let's make no bones about it, he slandered the people who are serving this country. There is a reason that we constantly hear about the rest of the world having a bad impression of the US and our armed forces. It's because of people like Eason Jordan, who are more than happy to slander people who are not around to defend themselves.

"I haven't blogged about this story, because, to be frank, I just don't care that much."

For someone who doesn't care that much about the story, you wrote perhaps the best critique of the journalist establishment I have seen yet.

Bravo.

Pat Robertson of CBN and Jerry Falwell of whatever conglomerate he runs were not shown the door when they concluded that 9-11 was the not unexpected wrath of God.

I think he would have weathered this if not for his admission that he had sat on stories about Saddam's torture chambers because he wanted the CNN Bagdad bureau to stay open and safe.

Jordan's problem went beyond making accusations he could not back up; it called into question his news judgment. If he believed the US military was targeting journalists, he should have had CNN do an investigative report on the subject. Wouldn't that have been a HUGE story? On the other hand, if he did not believe the accusation had any basis in fact, he showed a willingness to pander to his audience. Neither behavior, ignoring legitimate news stories or trafficking in rumor, are acceptable in a journalist.

I'd wager that the same people defending Mr. Jordan wanted General Mattis drawn and quartered for expressing his opinions about shooting Taliban men who beat women for not wearing Muslim garb.

It is "Chatham House Rule", not "Rules". There is only one rule.

But it appears that Jordan had made similar comments at a different conference in Europe recently, so the off-the-cuff/innocently mispoke explanation seems more implausible. Furthermore, his underhanded accusations (sounds like he used innuendo, instead of direct claims) echo the work of others like the BBC's Nik Gowing and Jordan's colleague, Chris Cramer. Reporters Without Borders and other organizations are also batting about these accusations and making even bolder ones. It appears that Gowing was giving speaches and writing articles that imply without directly accusing the U.S. of targeting journalists. He was using the same fuzzy innuendo to drop hints while maintaining some deniability.

I hope some bloggers are following up on Gowing et al. I don't think this story is over. We should lobby harder for the videotape.

As Mr. Walser points out, Jordan was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. If the accusations had any merit, he was guilty of chickening out of his duty to follow up on them and report them - the ultimate sin for a professional journalist. If they were baseless, then he is guilty of the vilest slander. In retrospect, it's no wonder he was forced out.

I think Slate's Jack Shaefer got it right: this is "brain rot." Jordan walked himself right into this logical trap. But if you look at his public statements, like his first post-Davos (non)clarification, it's clear that they are devoid of any logic. He contradicts himself, simultaneously promoting and disavowing the assertion that US troops are murdering journalists. It was breathtakingly stupid, and not the first time that Jordan has made a fool of himself in public.

It is also a fair assumption to guess that there has been an ideological element that fostered this fuzzy thinking. What Liberal Media? Indeed. Actually, this is far beyond "Liberal." This is Faaaar Left Media - like having Counter Punch running the New York Times; like having Tokyo Rose as the President of Armed Forces Network; like having David Duke as the CEO of BET. I'm glad that there are some liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were on Jordan's case. There should be more because there is nothing "Liberal" about what Jordan was doing.

It may be true that AT&T executives can "spout silliness to each other" but they'd better be careful when around competitors. And when journalists are with other journalists who don't work for the same employers, they are, by definition, around competitors.

My hypothesis is that Jordan doesn't understand that "targeting" includes both identifying and aiming, and that we military types got all upset because of the "identifying" aspect inherent in the charge of targeting journalists. This hypothesis accounts for the timing of his remarks (countering the assertion that all journalist deaths were collateral damage) and for his seemingly clueless attitude and earlier remarks.

What I don't understand is why he didn't call for the release of the tape, explain what he meant, and weather the storm. Was he really that afraid of appearing that ignorant to the public?

exactly right. They have lost the protection of 'professional courtesy', which limited the publics knowledge of their activities. Honesty is being enforced were it never was before.

It's just as wrong when fellow doctors cover up for a mal-practioner, fellow cops for a brute, fellow teachers for a lazy chair-warmer or, worse, an abuser. Jordan purported to be a journalist and a big-time one, yet he apparently engaged in vicious and unsubstantiated gossip with influential people who might (or did) believe him *because* of who and what he was supposed to be. He abused a position of trust.

That said, if he'd thrown himself on the mercy of the court AND requested the release of the videotape immediately afterward, I would have been willing to give him a do-over, though I never would have believed him again without evidence. (Of course, that's how journalists ought to operate, isn't it? With evidence? Or not say it at all?)

And then there's the Gannon/Guckert thing. For heaven's sake. What a ridiculous non-event for the lefty bloggers to claim is equivalent to Jordan's statement. Is that the best they can do? (Or was Hume's "egregious" misquote?)

A lot of what I've read suggests that Jordan was already on thin ice with his management for revealing that CNN suppressed news of atrocities in Hussein's Iraq in order to maintain access. Note that it wasn't suppressing news that got him in trouble, it was admitting that he'd done so.

Some details of his personal life were also causing trouble -- so basically the network was looking for a reason to can him.

"On the other hand, it's not really a journalistic sin, but a personal one."

So how does one look at this:

" Nevertheless, as HonestReporting.com observes, Dr Bell and the BBC have not specifically apologised for the gravemen of the accusation, that the IDF orders its soldiers to shoot unarmed Palestinian children."
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001052.html

personal or journalistic?
Just think of the damage done and the suffering.
As Melanie writes: "It is hard to escape the conclusion that Dr Bell -- and the BBC -- saw nothing wrong in recycling such an unsubstantiated claim because they assumed it was true. For this is the poison that has infected British society, and now seems to circulate in the very air we breathe."

Jordan's sin is symptomatic of a bigger ailment and people are "bleeding" because of it.

You GO girl.
Don`t hold back, tell us what you REALLY think.

P.S. Good post

IF Jordan actually believed US troops were targeting his reporters, wouldn't he react the same as he did a few years ago in Iraq? That is, make sure CNN wasn't reporting anything the troops didn't want shown...

Comments are Closed.