Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The good news is that current newsmakers Eason Jordan, Howard Dean, and Condi Rice have virtually nothing in common. Jordan, the CNN news executive who slandered the U.S. military without a shred of evidence to back his claims, should be out of a job. Dean, the heir-apparent to chair the Democratic National Committee, shouldnt even be considered for that job. And Rice, out barnstorming with the presidents foreign-policy message, should already be lauded for the brilliant job shes doing as our new secretary of State.
Lets begin with worst of the lot and work our way to the best.
Jack Kelley, in his column in the Toledo Blade, outlines LAffaire Jordan very neatly: Mr. Jordan told a panel that the US military had killed a dozen journalists in Iraq, and that they had been deliberately targeted. When challenged, Mr. Jordan could provide no evidence to support the charge, and subsequently lied about having made it, though the record shows he had made a similar charge a few months before, and also earlier had falsely accused the Israeli military of targeting journalists.
If the story is correct, CNN should have already fired Jordan. If the story is not true, Jordan or CNN must provide the counter-evidence.
This episode is worse than Rathergate. Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and others at the CBS Evening News are biased liberal journalists. But I have no reason to believe that Rather is unpatriotic. And yet, Rather & Co. were dismissed. The fact that Jordan still has a job says very bad things about CNN.
Moving from worst to pretty bad, we have the probability that Howard Dean will chair the DNC. Liberal columnist Jonathan Chait calls this a suicidal selection, writing that Dean would be a disastrous manager. As the leading anti-war candidate in the Democratic presidential horserace, Dean initially raised an impressive $50 million. Then, after losing the Iowa caucuses to Sen. John Kerry, he went virtually broke as his campaign imploded.
But let me add a more simple reason why Dean should never chair the DNC: He is not from the South and has no pull in the South.
In their White House bids, Al Gore and John Kerry were destroyed in the pro-military, anti-tax, culturally conservative South. Not merely the Deep South, but the border states as well. Meanwhile, Democratic senators, House members, and governors have been crushed in a series of Republican landslides in the Southern states.
The Dems will not reclaim the White House until they start the process of electoral recovery in the South. This has long been former Sen. Zell Millers message to his party. At the very least the next DNC chair should be a moderate from the Rocky Mountain West, someone with good communication skills who can reach out to Southern voters. But if Dean, another Northeast liberal, rises to the top, the headline becomes clear: Dems to South: Drop Dead.
Thank goodness for Condi, who is brightening up the news these days. Reports of Rices recent trips to London, Europe, Turkey, and Israel show clearly that she is promoting President Bushs vision of freedom, democratization, and liberty. She has chided Russian backsliding; has cited Ukraine, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Iraq as places where we are building the institutions of democracy; and has said that America and Europe should work together in the great cause of the spread of freedom and liberty.
Colin Power wasnt much of a public diplomat. He didnt travel often and seldom spoke the language of freedom and democracy. But now the nations chief diplomat appears to be in full support of presidential policy. Bravo, Ms. Rice!
As we know, Bush singled out Syria as a world-class troublemaker and safe-harborer of terrorists in his inaugural speech. He said the situation is unacceptable, and if it doesnt change quickly, action will be taken to correct it. What kind of action? The mainstream media is focused on Iran, where military action is not in the short-run cards, according to Rice and others. But no one in officialdom has similarly ruled out retaliation for Syrias bad behavior.
Which brings us to our bonus newsmaker, General Wayne Downing, U.S. Army (retired) and former commander-in-chief of U.S. Special Ops. Downing asserted last week on CNBCs Kudlow & Cramer that Syria is clearly a base for insurgent operations. Consequently the U.S. must keep up political pressure. But he also expressed his view that before long we will see cross-border surgical air strikes against bases in the country. He also believes that U.S. troops will be part of the operations.
As far as I know, no other retired four-star has made this forecast. But Gen. Downing is a straight shooter. His views should be taken quite seriously. After all, isnt this an idea whose time has come?
UPDATE:
-- The folks who have the tape now say they will NOT release it to blogger Sisphus as promised but WOULD reconsider if the "participants" call for it to be released. Some now talk about a campaign demanding its release. So now the question will be: Why not? And CNN..and Jordan...will twist slowly, slowly in the wind...while Kurtz will undoubtedly be under pressure to do follow ups on this story.
--Jay Rosen, a blogger and journalism prof, again offers a treasure chest of ideas and links on his site. His post is MUST READING on this issue. Rosen says he's reserving judgement until he sees the tape:
The original account was too ambiguous for me. It had him saying United States soldiers targeted journalists, and then claiming that's not what he meant. He later explained it as: the soldiers were trying to kill these people, but did not know they were shooting at journalists. Not much of a scandal in that.
These reservations are reflected in a summary by the National Review's Jay Nordlinger, who was in Davos but not at the Jordan event...When I say: I want to know what happened, this is what I mean. Only the tape can tell us. Until then I don't have too much to say in the category of "how outrageous was this?"
Rosen also wonders why the mainstream media hasn't done more investigation on this:"Possibly the reason we haven't seen the coverage is that they're waiting for the tape, as bloggers are. But it is also possible that Eason Jordan's comments tipped the press off to a bigger story involving the deaths of journalists, and the protests from news organizations."
--Jeff Jarvis has a lot of links and thoughtful things to say. A small part of it:
This is also about the speed of news. Back in the day of the news gatekeepers now long gone, whether they know it or not journalists could take their time reporting a story, for news wasn't news until they said it was. And that wasn't all bad: It allowed journalists to check facts, call sources, get it right. But news got faster. All in all, that's good; we're informed faster....
And this is about the death of off-the-record at any event citizens attend....The citizens in the room haven't agreed to play by your rules the way journalists have. If they hear something, they'll repeat it. If Jordan had, in fact, said that journalists were targeted as journalists by soldiers which he didn't; just speaking in the hypothetical here then how can anyone expect the citizens, the citizen journalists, the bloggers in the room to remain silent? They shouldn't. The off-the-record gate has also fallen.
--Michelle Malkin has many info-packed posts on this controversey including her own exclusive interview with witness David Gergen which you can read here. Also read this, this, this, this, this and this.
--Doug Fridley contrasts the unsolicited email CNN sent out to many bloggers saying Jordan's comments were taken "out of context" with what is coming out now, concluding:
Think about this for a moment. CNN is seemingly guilty here of something far more serious than stonewalling to protect one of their executives. By my reading, they deliberately and (knowingly?) sent out false information about this story. They lied. Has there been a correction? Nothing of the kind in my inbox so far, which is CNN's curiously preferred method of reporting this particular story.
CNN is the self-proclaimed "most trusted name in news." Isn't e-mailing out misinformation about a story (apparently hoping those receiving it would believe and/or publish it) itself a rather significant ethics violation for a news organization?
--Earlier, it seemed as if copy of the tape was going to be mailed to Sisphean Musings, which had been told it would get it by Wednesday. Something obviously happened to change their minds. (Link provided by Jay Rosen)
--Jordan insists he never said the military was targeting journalists, in an email to blogger Rebecca MacKinnon. Read his whole statement. Of course the BIG QUESTION then now becomes: if there is a tape, why not release it and verify what he said and his tone of voice? But here is the key part of what he wrote (link thanks to Jay Rosen):
First, I stressed insurgents are to blame for the vast majority of the 63 journalist deaths in Iraq. Second, when Congressman Franks said the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the unfortunate victims of "collateral damage," I felt compelled to dispute that by pointing out journalists in Iraq are being targeted I did not say all journalists killed were targeted, but that some were shot at on purpose and were not collateral damage victims. In response to a question about whether I believed the U.S. military meant to kill journalists in Iraq, I said, no, I did not believe the U.S. military was trying to kill journalists in Iraq. Yet, unfortunately, U.S. forces have killed several people who turned out to be journalists. In several cases, the U.S. troops who killed those people aimed and fired at them, not knowing they were shooting at journalists. However tragic and, in hindsight, by Pentagon admission, a mistake, such a killing does not fall into the "collateral damage" category.
And, in a follow up email to her he flatly wrote:" Most importantly, I do not believe the U.S. is trying to kill journalists in Iraq."
--Daimnation:" Jordan is backing away from his remarks as fast as possible."
--Kevin Aylward makes a good point:"Howard Kurtz covers the Eason Jordan controversy with sloppy wet kisses, but fails to disclose that he's also on the CNN payroll. This from the person who "outed" Maggie Gallagher."
--Jude Camwell says Jordan is getting a bum rap. Read the entire post. But here's a tidbit:
Those who are hot on Eason's trail are only those who wish to inflict some political damage on the few in the mainstream media who still possess extreme courage of conviction. This is not a case of Dan Rather using fake documents. This seems to be more of a case where a professional journalist has called, in his own fumbling way, for better judgement and a higher degree of care and liability on on the part of U.S. military in choosing their targets. (For every target is, indeed, a choice and requires responsibility and accountability).
After what we saw happen at the Palestine Hotel, I don't think that's an unreasonable plea. I clearly see that there are right-wing bloggers who wish to frame Eason's comments as "anti-American".
--Ed Driscoll:"Hey, at least the story is starting to escape the Blogosphere; that's something at least. But it wouldn't be the first time where the members of the Blogosphere know more collectively than a single superstar columnist."
--A story in the New York Sun is absolutely catastrophic to Jordan's clarifications and more than ever suggests that what is going on now is quintessential CYA. Note this section:
Within minutes of making the comments, Mr. Frank said, CNN's Mr. Jordan began to immediately "pull back" on the assertion that 12 journalists had been killed by American forces. He instead focused on the deaths of two reporters killed when a missile fired from an American jet struck the 15th floor of Baghdad's Palestine hotel, where many reporters and film crews stay when in Baghdad.
Mr. Frank said he tried to get information out of Mr. Jordan so that he could forward it to the appropriate congressional investigative authorities. " I think Congress has demonstrated with Abu Ghraib that we will aggressively pursue reasonable allegations," he said. Mr. Frank said he has tried repeatedly over the past few days to get Mr. Jordan to provide evidence of crimes against journalists. He said Mr. Jordan promised to get back to him, "but I haven't heard anything yet," Mr. Frank said.
This is not the first time that Mr. Jordan has spoken critically of the American military's conduct toward journalists. In November, he reportedly told a gathering of global news executives in Portugal called News Xchange that he believed journalists had been arrested and tortured by American forces.
And in October 2002, at a News Xchange conference, he accused the Israeli military of deliberately targeting CNN personnel "on numerous occasions."
Mr. Jordan's remarks might have shocked the American attendees, but they certainly played well among some in the audience. The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, who covered the panel for his paper, told the Sun that after the panel concluded, Mr. Jordan was surrounded by European and Middle Eastern attendees who warmly congratulated him for his alleged "bravery and candor" in discussing the matter.
--Betsy Newmark:"You can block the blogs, and conservative papers like the Sun, but it's not nice to block a congressman. And Frank is clearly not some partisan right-winger out to destroy CNN. I think the floodgates are beginning to open....If Jordan truly thinks that he cleared everything up with his follow up comments, he should call for the release of the video tape."
--Jean D'Arc presents a detailed chronology to show a military hard-line against journalists, then writes:
I try to avoid the right-wingers scandal mongering, but sometimes my jaw just hits the table....
This is just stunning. You don't have to buy any theories about the military deliberately targetting journalists to recognize that there's been a clear pattern throughout this war of indifference to the deaths of reporters, mixed in with a good deal of harrassment. In a truly democratic country, with any interest in freedom of the press, that would call for investigations and a serious look at what could be done to make sure reporters aren't killed by soldiers who are stressed or who haven't been given information they need. In the country we live in, it invites the vultures to circle around our moribund press.
--LaShawn Barber has extensive info and makes this point:"Notice something very important here. Journalists with access to sources we don't have are turning to bloggers for information."
--American Digest says it all boils down to the videotape so Jordan can watch this controversy fade out:
But just knowing there is a videotape is not enough. At a bare minimum, the videotape must be seen, and widely seen, for it to make a difference. The Jordan/Davos videotape is the McGuffin here in the same way that the Rathergate CBS PDF documents were in that case. If the Jordan videotape is not seen at all, not all the sworn affidavits and interviews with eye-witnesses nor all the "outrage" of career politicians will matter one whit. And we now know that there will be no videotape released. Videotape, as I have said before, is Mr. Jordan's game. You don't think he'd be stupid enough to let it see the light of day if there were any way in which it could be prevented, do you? As William Burroughs is fond of asking, "Wouldn't you?"
Mr. Jordan controls the tape in the best way one can possibly control such a potentially damaging item. He controls is without controlling it. 'It's not me,' he can justly claim. 'It is that damned Davos conference and their Chatham House Rules. Can't do a think about it, fellows.'..Calls for the release of the tape will go on as part of the standard after-game Stonewalling wrap-up, and the whole incident will be marked in Mr. Jordan's Permanent Online Conduct Record. And that, as they say, will be that...As to mainstream media coverage outside the blogosphere, well, you've had all you're likely to get.
musicman said:The blackout has been effective. Until I read one of your posts, Kathianne, I had no idea what "Easongate" was all about. That a videotape exists which would put all doubts to rest - yet remains a jealously guarded secret - says little for Jordan or CNN. John Kerry and his rabid counterparts in the LMM could have shut down the SBVT at any time; the magic words were "Form 180". When these folks find the light of day fearsome, the American people can only conclude that there is, indeed, something to hide.
Release the videotape!
Kathianne said:If Jordan was 'backtracking' quickly, just blowing wind, he would rush out with the video. Not happening. Guess what, he is lying as is Kurtz.
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
Crossing Jordan
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Media: The past year saw the toppling of several high priests of High Church Journalism. This week yet another wobbles: the top news executive at CNN.
Eason Jordan first inflicted himself with controversy two years ago, when President Bush finally launched the invasion of Iraq. Jordan took to the op-ed page of The New York Times to strangely admit covering up several instances known to him of Saddam Hussein's torturous and murderous ways.
Why the cover-up? Because, he acknowledged, he needed to maintain a bureau in Baghdad. If he'd reported on the dictator's cruelty, sometimes involving Iraqis working for CNN, why, CNN would have been expelled from the world's hottest news spot.
Jordan treated the op-ed piece as a spiritual cathartic, his secrets finally released because the war was on and he could write freely about Saddam. His revelations were met with both criticism and praise. Did he not bear a special responsibility, critics demanded, to tell what he knew about Saddam's regime before the war?
The cable guy skated in part because media friends defended him for protecting Iraqis in his employ. And, well, because editors do sometimes render morally ambiguous decisions in pursuit of higher truths.
Now Jordan's in the stew again. Speaking last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Jordan made an arresting charge. He claimed the U.S. military, while pacifying Iraq, had targeted both American and foreign journalists.
Panel chairman David Gergen, according to insider accounts, gasped. The man who'd worked in administrations from Nixon's to Clinton's demanded evidence. Liberal Congressman Barney Frank, who was there, also demanded proof.
Jordan backed off slightly. But afterward he accepted congratulations from Arab reporters who called him heroic.
That's when the bloggers stepped in, including some who were actually there. Then master blogger Hugh Hewitt took up the case. Soon the blogosphere was electric with outrage over Jordan's irresponsible charge. Now there's an easongate.com, tracking the scandal's every fact, every claim, every angle, and demanding CNN come clean.
Why "scandal"? Jordan was spouting outrageous charges with no basis in fact. In journalism, even in High Church Journalism, that is a cardinal sin. Rising to the topmost reaches of media power does not exempt one from the first rules learned in journalism class.
The bloggers, who've done so much recently to correct the elite media's misbehavior including sending CBS's Dan Rather to newsman's purgatory now have Eason Jordan as quarry.
Deservedly so. It's time for him to go.
Note To Jordan And Cramer: This Is What Targeting Journalists Looks Like
CNN executives Eason Jordan and Chris Cramer have repeatedly stated in overseas venues that the US and Israeli military have a policy of targeting journalists for death or torture. Today's news provides the two with a real example of assassination:
Gunmen killed an Iraqi journalist working for a U.S.-funded television station and his son as they left their home Wednesday in the southern city of Basra, an Iraqi official said.
Abdul Hussein al-Basri, correspondent of Al-Hurra, and his son were both killed in the Maqal area of Basra, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, said Nazim al Moussawi, a spokesman for the local government administration.
Launched in February 2004 Al-Hurra, or The Free, was tailored for Arab audiences to compete with other regional stations like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. Some Muslim clerics have denounced the TV station as propaganda.
You might expect Jordan and Cramer to jump all over this story, especially given both executives' connections to reporter-safety forums. However, even after three hours, the best that CNN can do is to take the AP's report and republish it on their site -- and they don't even give it unique coverage. They stack the report onto a much longer and almost completely unrelated article on the debate over "insurgency" strength levels in Iraq.
So much for Jordan's emotional concern over the well-being of reporters in Iraq. The only lesson that can be drawn from this coverage is that only reporters who work for organizations (or executives) that express hostility towards the West get any concern from Jordan, Cramer, and Co.
Posted by Captain Ed at 05:15 AM
I do wish more people would get ticked off at what is going on with the MSM. It certainly isn't what Europe thinks, quite the contrary!
