Are Bloggers Targeting CNN News Chief Eason Jordan?

Posted from the U.S.

Swarms of bloggers, in a furious feeding frenzy that I have only seen before in sharks, are tasting blood and moving in for the kill. What has now been dubbed "Easongate" by Rebecca MacKinnon has begun to leak into comics, hundreds of blogs, as well as the Washington Times (Friday 2/5/05 Op/Ed, "CNN's Line of Fire". I just saw on NBC's Chris Matthews show fellow blogger and political pundit Hugh Hewitt break the story on American television, promising that next week Easongate would blow open as big news. A lynch mob of bloggers is asking for Eason's head, and it seems that all of the excitement is moving towards a seemingly inevitable conclusion: the deposing of a news media chief disliked by the right, but apparently loved by an Aljazeera audience to whom he is supposedly pandering.

What Eason said will likely become available on mainstream media and the web in the coming week, so none of Eason's CNN canned responses are really going to help him. It seems that no one ever learns that just admitting that you screwed up is a best practice (see Clinton, Monica Lewinsky). The "persistence of memory" capability provided by technology, omnipresent video, and the web will no longer allow major leaders, as well as the rest of us, to ever escape what we say or do. Like the Biblical concept of the eye that sees all, and the scroll that records all, we are entering an era of informational accountability.

What can Eason do at this point? And what should we, the angry, pitchfork carrying mob of bloggers, do, at a crossroads where the challenge is not only to Eason Jordan, but to mainstream media itself. Let me break from the pack of wolves for a moment and propose a few things.

(1) For the mob of bloggers, please review the proposed Blogger Code of Ethics, whose highlights include: Be Honest & Fair, Minimize Harm, and Be Accountable. Are we all meeting this standard? Before Eason is stoned, are we sure that we are all without sin? Right wing bloggers: are you holding our leaders to the same standard of accountability that we are now holding Eason Jordan (see George W. Bush, reasons for invading Iraq)?

(2) For Eason: Admit your mistake, and use your power and capacity as one of the most powerful media figures in the world to turn CNN into a model of ethical, fair, and fact based journalism. Create new models of accountability where your own journalists will no longer report inflammatory or highly slanted stories just to feed into the appetities of regional audiences. Tell your bosses that the world is changing, the bloggers are watching, and it is high time for a new way to report the news and do business. Stop the ridiculous attempts at spinning bloggers, which only incites them (it's like chumming the water), and get real.

(3) Getting to the truth of this issue. The philosopher Karl Popper spoke of our inability to ever prove that something was true. We are only capable of constantly testing a theory, and so long as a theory can be tested and it is not proven false, it remains the closest approximation to the truth that we, as humans, will ever get. This is a basis for how modern science works. Modern journalism, on the other hand, occasionally resembles the Salem witch trials or the Spanish Inquisition.

The statement in question:

(a) Do U.S. Troops specifically target American and foreign journalists in Iraq?

The lack of a solid response by Eason Jordan, and the general silence by the left, seems to indicate that this is a false statement. However, is a random flurry of e-mails and blogs sufficient to throw this quesion away and send Eason packing? There have been a few e-mails, bloggers, and groups that are to a degree supporting this statement. Their voice is clearly not as strong as the blog swarm working to prove this statement false, but they are there. What will happen if a soldier steps forward and speaks his heart, or a journalist on the ground risks his or her life and admits that there is fire to the smoke. We all know that terrible things happened in Vietnam, and why should we believe that in Iraq all is well, or has gone well? In the real war that begun after the war was won, U.S. troops face an unseen enemy who lurks in the shadows, who can be anyone, and who fights with absolutely no rules, no ethics, and no morality. When the Soviet Union fought against Afghan rebels there were many accounts that the Soviet troops had to resort to unusual, terrible tactics to put fear into the hearts of the rebels. They could not fight that war by conventional means. Would the Pentagon want American citizens, let alone the world, to understand in detail what tactics are required to fight an enemy who belongs to no state, who utilizes any means, and who has no boundary of morality or human decency? Can one fight this enemy without becoming like that which we hate?

Maybe Eason Jordan does deserve whatever is coming to him, maybe not. He still has options at hand to come clean and become a new leader of what the media can be, as opposed to what it is. He, CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media can come to grips with the reality of a new order, of an uncontrollable blog swarm that will always demand the truth, and demand accountability for everything you do and say. The blog huns are at the gates of old media and you can not hide behind your walls anymore.

The swarm of bloggers have an unusual power and reach, and should they just brush off completely what Eason said? He is not the only one saying it, although no clear spokesperson for the other side of this debate has emerged. Someone must know soldiers on the ground, or journalists on the ground, and there must be members of that group who have a conscience. If anything Eason or a minority of others has said resembles the truth, this truly is the time to come forward. The silence of the other side to this debate only fuels the feeding frenzy, and it will soon be a feeding frenzy of the big media sharks, ready to tear apart one of their own. If another truth is out there, speak now, because your silence is deafening.

-R

Comments

[dmaynard]

listening to cnn this am on the death of zarquai did not care for their tone. Who cares how he died he is dead. I am sick of the innuendos regarding Bush. He at least does what he says he will do, no pandering to t he press or perhaps that is sthe problem.

[megapotamus]

In your expiations on double standards, you seem to imply that if the truth of this matter were to come out and that if there WERE actual incidents of the US military intentionally targeting identified journalists that the "right", so called would engage in a conspiracy of silence similar to that enjoyed to date by Jordan. I speak only for myself although, since many, many apparent experts on the political spectrum have cast me irrevocably as a "right-wing nut", I may be taken as exemplary; let us have courts martial, if there is evidence of intentional targeting of journalists or ANY non-combatants, then let us have hangings of those PROVEN guilty. You characterize the Jordan inquiries as a call for "his head." An unfortunate bloviation since whatever happens, Jordan's head will remain well afixed whereas many other players in this drama, including Americans in and out of the military (Remember Danny?) have and will suffer more literal decapitations. You denounce this "witch hunt" but I see none such. Jordan is the one hurling calumnies, or so it seems. We might better call it, a counter-witch hunt. Let us see the tape, let us read the transcript. If there is greater, expiative context... hey, 'fess it up but we all know that if there WERE such ammo in CNN's magazine they would have fired it by now. Let us see for ourselves. Let us hear the words in all their complexity and let Mr. Jordan enjoy the opportunities for self-defense that, as you mention, George Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and a score of others have been obliged to employ. And not tomorrow, but today.

[Julie]

Sharon states: "Yet, the bloggers who are "right" still wants his head on a platter, even though very few in this feeding frenzy could have indentified him or his specific sins last week."

Your ignorance is telling, Sharon.

I'm no blogger, but even I remember Jordan's tell-all in the NYT about CNN's complicity in the cover-up of Saddam's crimes.

It's one of those things that's kind of hard to forget.

[Sisyphus]

Rony: "There have been a few e-mails, bloggers, and groups that are to a degree supporting [Eason's] statement."

You've alluded to this before, but have never provided any links to these bloggers/groups or posted any of the emails.

Would you please do so, or retract this statement?

[bea elysium]

Wasn't it Eason Jordan who admitted after we took Baghdad that CNN had been withholding the truth about the Iraqi regime for years? In the New York Times, he confessed that his network didn't report all the "awful things" it learned about life under Saddam Hussein. His reason: that CNN was afraid that Iraq's information ministry would shut down that bureau and cut off CNN's access to Iraqi "newsmakers."

[clevernamehere]

As to your other points, I can't think of a single rightblogger whose response to Eason Jordan DIDN'T call for him to present evidence to substantiate his claims. It is simply the case that Jordan's backpeddling, his inability to provide any specifics supporting his charges, and his general history combine to make bloggers (rightly) suspicous of his story.

I'd love for him to use this controversy as a learning experience, and to begin anew as a media reformer, but I fear the more natural lesson learned by people in power who get away with stuff is that they are able to get away with stuff. Instead of hoping he learns his lesson, better to MAKE him the lesson for others.

[Stu707]

"Right wing bloggers: are you holding our leaders to the same standard of accountability that we are now holding Eason Jordan (see George W. Bush, reasons for invading Iraq)?"

As posted above, every one of GWB's statements on Iraq has been widely reported and criticized or defended per the point of view of the reporter. Can you tell me what left wing blogger and leftwing media outlet analyzed John Kerry's conflicting statements about what was seared, seared into him in Cambodia.

GWB's statements about Iraq have nothing to do with Jordan's slanderous charges aginst our military and the MSM's almost total ingnoring of Jordan's remarks.

[clevernamehere]

George W. Bush has been given speeches, interviews, participated in debates and answered questions on every aspect of his Iraq war policy. Millions have marched against him, burned him in effigy, equated him with Hitler, Satan and worse. And finally, he stood before the US electorate on Nov. 2, giving the voters the opportunity to pass judgment on his presidency.

He. Has. Been. Held. Accountable.

Eason Jordan, by comparison, has gotten off virtually scot-free from resposibility for not only his wild accusations, but also his actions w/r/t the culture of cover-up that existed at the Baghdad office of CNN during Saddam's rule.

If right-leaning bloggers weren't talking about this latest episode, no one would be. If right-leaning bloggers weren't SCREAMING about Jordan's comments, the discussion might never make it outside the conservative blogosphere.

As an aside, the ABSOLUTE LAST TYPE OF PERSON to cry about being the target of a feeding frenzy is a member of the mainstream media.

[DWilkers]

I don't see it.

What does any of this have to do with bloggers on the left or right?

"(a) Do U.S. Troops specifically target American and foreign journalists in Iraq?"

The implication of your post is that now we need to find out if the US Military is targeting journalists for assasination. Wasn't the time to find that out BEFORE Jordan made that charge?

Using that logic I can make any ridiculous charge against anyone and it then becomes incumbent upon them to prove it false.

[Gerry]

"Before Eason is stoned, are we sure that we are all without sin? Right wing bloggers: are you holding our leaders to the same standard of accountability that we are now holding Eason Jordan (see George W. Bush, reasons for invading Iraq)?"

Actually, Jordan has not been held to anywhere near the same standard of accountability that we as a nation held George W. Bush.

Everything that Bush ever said on the topic was reported. Criticisms of what he said were aired, repeatedly. The case against Bush was made often, and it was made with wide audiences.

Bush defended himself, by countering when his words were distorted or taken out of context. He also defended himself by showing that what he said, Democrats had been saying even before Bush took office. Democrats like John Kerry and Bill Clinton.

The American public heard the charges, heard the defenses, and went to the polls to render a verdict. Since he got more votes and a higher percentage of the votes in 2004 than in 2000, the verdict can be interpreted. Not guilty, or perhaps more accurately we can go to Scottish Law and say "Not proven."

As for Jordan, so far we have the blogosphere wanting the facts to come out. We have you wanting his assertions to be treated seriously, which is in its own way wanting the facts to come out. We have had some relatively weak statements from CNN that do not seem to match up with the facts as you have presented them. Most people have not even heard of the story. Therefore, most people have not been able to make up their minds.

[Ray]

The continued expansion of this topic with blogger ethics and blogger accountability can drown out the original topic. Please refrain from sounding like you are deflecting and running interference and trying to mediate.

Mr. Eason's comments on a world stage in front of world leaders, Fortune 500 CEO's peers etc requires this to outrageous statement to run it's course first before any discussion about bloggers continue.

I am not a journalist, lawyer, or partisan hack. I am however a strong supporter of our US Military and Mr Eason's statement require full disclosure in the form of the transcript and/or video of this session from beginning to end. This will be the only way for all to see how this started and what "context" this was put in.

There is documented and a pattern of Mr. Eason's outright dislike of the US Military which is all over the blogsphere.

That said, it is this the remark at this session that the three strike rule comes into play and Mr. Eason has struck out. End of story. Ready to blog.

[Sharon]

Rony,

I couldn't have said it better...although I've been trying for the last few days.

The "blog swarm" is nothing more than a show of power. Eason Jordan has clarified his remarks and said that he does not think the military deliberately kills journalists. Yet, the bloggers who are "right" still wants his head on a platter, even though very few in this feeding frenzy could have indentified him or his specific sins last week.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

Additionally, I agree with your comments about the value of Eason Jordan as a new leader. As any AA meeting will show you, the positive effect of a reformed "sinner" is much higher than an unrepentent, bitter and marginalized soul.

[name]

You are implying that Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq. This is not correct. See http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/limmud%20media.pdf.
Despite msm distortions, Saddam Hussein had active wmd programs and was supporting terrorists. Weapons inspectors also supported both these facts and the danger of their coincidence although the msm did not report this. This is why the US went to war.

[name]

Why don't you ask the msm to treat Bush with the same kid gloves that they treat their liberal leaders?

[Dan Kauffman]

Right wing bloggers: are you holding our leaders to the same standard of accountability that we are now holding Eason Jordan
*******************************************
I'll bite how about giving Jordan the same exposure that was given by the MSM to General Mattis?

It really seems to me that the Media heads do NOT Like the same light shined upon them as they have been accustomed to shine on others.

I think its great ;-)

There is a Universal Law of Perfect Justice without Judgement, whatever you sow you shall reap.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Ok. I'll bite.

1. "we are entering an era of informational accountability."

Sixty plus years of network news. A century or more of modern journalism. Several decades of ethical thought and education in journalism school.

And only NOW are we entering into an "era of informational accountability"? I'd suggest that this makes a much more powerful statment than is probably otherwise intended.

2. "Right wing bloggers: are you holding our leaders to the same standard of accountability that we are now holding Eason Jordan"

Are you holding left-wing bloggers to the same level of accountability that you're holding right-wing bloggers to? I can't say that I've noticed Atrios or Kos following that particular "Blogger Code of Ethics". Please explain how you can be attempting to use that standard to judge right-wing bloggers when the left-wing bloggers don't even ackknowledge it. I must point out that this is a common tactic of the left. Create an artificial standard and then apply it solely to the right-wing all the while ignoring any and all infractions of this, artificial, standard by anyone on the left. We can see it every single day with an example of Howard Kurtz of CNN. Kurtz spent a great deal of time and effort to show conservative pundits in a bad light, yet nothing even comparable is done to anyone on the left.

Such is the partisan hackery in the MSM today.

3. As for the "Blogger Code of Ethics". When the foaming-at-the-mouth brigade of left-wing bloggers adopt it, and really adopt it and not just a symbolic gesture that is immediately ignored, let me know. Then I'll consider it.

4. As for President Bush and WMDs. Let me also point out the huge number of Democratic Senators who are ON RECORD that Iraq had WMDs, that Iraq was dangerous and that Saddam had to be dealt with. This includes Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid and Kerry. Oh and while we're at it why don't we also apply this interesting standard to Clinton, who ostensibly bombed Iraq for the same WMD reason on the day of Lewinsky deliberations in the Senate.

Goose, meet Gander. Gander, Goose.

5. "Admit your mistake, and use your power and capacity as one of the most powerful media figures in the world to turn CNN into a model of ethical, fair, and fact based journalism."

Any idea that Eason as a continuing role at CNN is laughable. As it is now the American MSM has mortally wounded itself in Iraq with it's blatantly false reporting. And CNN, with Amanpour in the lead, heads the pack.

And I'll also point out, again, that this is also indicative of the rampant corruption in the MSM. Unable, or unwilling, to police itself. It puts paid to the lie that the MSM is unbiased.

6. "The philosopher Karl Popper spoke of our inability to ever prove that something was true."

Oh give me a break. When I read philosophical claptrap such as this all I can think is that there is/was someone out there that really needed a good swift kick in the arse. This is right up there with that incredible question: "How can you prove you're hungry".

7. "(a) Do U.S. Troops specifically target American and foreign journalists in Iraq?"

My guess is that the answer is a big fat NO. One of the more important, and signal, directives in Afghanistan was the statement by the American military that they would NOT intervene nor intercede on the behalf of any journalist that got into trouble in Afghanistan. At the time it caused something of a ruckus but the reasoning is quite clear from the history of the Gulf War I.

Journalist do really stupid things in order sex up stories and when they get into deadly trouble, they always call on the military to get them out of the situation they've dug for themselves. And if a helicopter full of soldiers crashes while rescuing their raggedy arse, well then that's just a tidy little bonus for the j-crew isn't it.

I don't think the question is whether or not American soldier target journalists. It's more of whether or not journalists target American soldiers.

And there is a lot more evidence for this.

Summary:

Eason Jordan is a pimple on the Great Ass of Journalism. Irrelevant and worthless. He'll be pilloried, racked, burned at the stake and forgotten in a couple weeks. But what won't be forgotten is that the current MSM is already dead, but unaware of it. Amazingly enough it's not bloggers that killed the beast. In fact bloggers are almost completely irrelevant too in this circumstance. No what really killed the current MSM Journalosaur is the American military. Quite ironic isn't it.

No soldier will shoot it dead, but then again they don't have to. Ever since the start of Afghanistan the MSM has played up the negatives and hidden the positives. Even now the successful democracy in Afghanistan has been flushed down the "memory hole". But what cannot be flushed is the combined and cumulative experience of every soldier, marine, sailor and airman who knows the truth, and see the lies spread by the MSM.

As it is now many, if not most, active duty members of the military despise and distrust the MSM. They know the truth, and the truth is not being told. They can see with their own eyes the spin, and the lies. Having lost any trust garnered over the years of childhood, this trust is gone forever and can never be regained. With 100,000+ new members each and every year, the pool of distrustful grows constantly. Then you must add in members of their families, who being apprised of the truth, also distrust the MSM. There are 2.5 million active duty military today. Multiply that by the number of family members potentially influenced by first-hand knowledge.

Then there's the other aspect of military life. That the raw recruit today could spend the next thirty years in uniform. The distrust learned today from a revered NCO, could last his entire career and passed on to each successive generation. And each and every year another 100,000+ are primed for indoctrination.

hehe. Do you think this is new? What do you think has been going on since Reagan took office? Ever wonder why the Democratic Party's problems have become so great in almost exactly twenty years after Reagan's election?

It's a funny world.