Easongate: The End of MSM As We Know It?

Posted from the U.S

Richard Sambrook of the BBC, David Gergen of Harvard, and Senator Christopher Dodd have all weighed in their initial measures on Easongate. Much of this can be followed at Michelle Malkin's site, Hugh Hewitt, and Rebecca MacKinnon. We now understand that the WEF is mulling over the release of the videotape of the session with Jordan, and that there is a small debate brewing regarding the "on" or "off" the record nature of the session. I have also heard from the WEF's Head of Media, Mark Adams, just a few hours ago. Mark was kind enough to reply to an e-mail I sent him recently. Mark explained to me that the session was held under 'Chatham House Rules', which means that the general tenor of the debate can be reported but specific quotes are not attributable, which was done to encourage a full and frank exchange of views. Others have received a similar communication from Mark. I suppose this means that the public will not get to view a copy of the videotape, unless something changes. Unfortunately, this will likely only fuel speculation, feed rumors, and spawn numerous theories. The video would eliminate one part of this debate, and now what we will have is a pitched battle of memory, recollection, and context.

Senator Dodd's statement, "Senator Dodd was not on the panel but was in the audience when Mr. Jordan spoke. He – like panelists Mr. Gergen and Mr. Frank – was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel." is perhaps the clearest statement from a major figure present at the meeting. Thank you, Senator Dodd for at least expressing what I felt as well, and for adding some real weight to this issue. If the WEF suppresses the video, the chaff thrown out by CNN and Eason supporters may obscure and cloud all of this to a lack of contextual understanding by audience members. Let's be clear: that is a load of bull. What was said was clearly understood, and no amount of reverse engineering can undo that. If you shout fire in a crowded theatre and then try to say that what you really meant was for someone to just turn down the air conditioning, it just does not fly. There are a multitude of related issues that stem from what happened, but as I watch Easongate unfold, a line in the sand issue has emerged for me. Over dinner with a friend tonight a thought crystallized: the media is either for the right or for the left, and the lying, the twisting, and the skewing of the truth - these aberrations are just ok with us. We the public, the audience, have been accustomed to this way of living, and we are supposedly fine with it. Reporters can throw out half-baked ideas, partial truths, anything they want, as long as this plays into the political mindset of their core audience. We want to hear what they say, true or not, so long as it fits our particular system of thought. The American right is up in arms about Eason Jordan, but will a single Arabic, or European, or even Asian voice sing anything but his praise, or nod in quiet approval?

In Gergen's statement he says "Jordan realized as soon as the words had left his mouth that he had gone too far and walked himself back." I have the greatest respect for David Gergen, but he is being too kind. Jordan walked himself back because he was pushed back, and pushed back hard. It was an outrage to watch in the flesh the process of big media at work, this massaging of facts and distortion of reality to meet the needs of a specific group of news consumers. It was an outrage because these distortions fuel the minds of entire regions of the world, which propagates hatred, bias, and war. The unrestricted influence the media has on world and regional opinions and views is without parallel. I am a very strong proponent of free speech, but when will we achieve speech that is not only free, but factual and trustworthy? The concept of trust is a big one on the web in terms of data communication, password authentications, and machine to machine communication. Can this concept, or standard of trust be applied to the MSM (mainstream media)? What if MSM had to live up to standards of verification, authenticity, and the production of assertions supported by facts? What if viewers could know and understand that a member of the MSM was part of a chain of trusted information, or that he or she was outside the fold? The scientific community works in this very way: there are respected, peer reviewed journals, and there are rags of speculative nonsense. The consumer of the news, vital information that shapes all of our lives, has no such obvious choice.

Rebecca MacKinnon in a previous article writes: "Before we leap to moral judgments or condemnations, we must be realistic. In truth, it is unrealistic to expect commercially-driven TV news companies to do anything other than to seek profit maximization -- while at the same time selling a product that can still be defined as "news" in some way. The search for profit maximization means that these companies will shape their news to fit the tastes and values of the majority of their most lucrative potential audience. Citizens of democracies who want to be well informed must understand this. They cannot expect to be passive consumers of whatever news comes their way from a name-brand news source. They must question, contrast, and compare. They must demand better quality information".

Her observations define an entrenched reality, but Easongate is a challenge to that reality. It is a challenge which says "Enough!". Many people recently said "Enough!" to the tobacco companies, another amoral corporate institution driven by "profit maximization" and "lucrative potential audiences". The product of tobacco companies poisons the body and brings forth cancers and a host of disease and ailments. What of the product of commercially-driven TV news companies, where only profits matter? What does this "product" do to the minds of viewers? "The search for profit maximization means that these companies will shape their news to fit the tastes and values of the majority of their most lucrative potential audience". This is exactly what Eason was doing. Eason gave me his CNN business card after the talk. The back of his card is in Arabic, even though he is based in Atlanta. There is nothing wrong with Arabic - it is a beautiful, expressive language with a rich, wonderful, deep culture. But it is not hard to understand, or guess at, Eason's most lucrative potential audience. The news is being shaped, and it is time to say, "Enough!". Here is a crazy idea: The U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Asia - why can't we all see the same news, the same data, the same reality, and the same truth? Is the truth regional, or is a fact a fact, anywhere in the world? Science is universal - why is the news, merely a reporting of physical events, a distorted, biased mess? Is that too boring? Must we keep stirring the pot of regional conflicts? What Rebecca describes as the cold facts of commercial media, having worked for them, makes me sick. Yes, I am an outsider to this industry, but so are billions of us on this earth. We need a change. Start with Eason, but don't stop. Much of the house is rotten.

A lone blogger named Zed has posted his collected findings on the journalists killed in Iraq. The quality of Zed's work, in its very limited scope (put together with what looks like a hacker's ethic of just finding things out), overshadows the quality of anything that CNN, or most anyone for that matter, has done to defend CNN's chief, in over a week. This is not a comment on the accuracy of what Zed has found, but at least he has tried to pull together some semblance of data, given the lack of verified facts. A random, stray blogger seems to care more about the truth than the MSM. It does not matter if he is coming at this issue from the right or the left - at least he is trying. Zed and I are specks in the scheme of things compared to MSM - where are they on any of this? Easongate is not a good topic for MSM's audience, because it is pointing out the darker underbelly inside of MSM - not a great move for building profits. What we are seeing here is the blogging world practically dragging and forcing MSM to deal with this issue, perhaps even against their will.

The outrage of Senator Dodd is well taken, but will Easongate end here, or will it ultimately target the source? Will anyone join me in saying "Enough!"?

Comments

[matthias]

Tom writes:
"To oversimplify, the difference between the Left and Right is that the Left wants to define, filter, and distort the truth and control it, while the Right wants to report the truth and change it."

Anybody who followed the US elections knows the truth: Both sides tried to manipulate, control, and distort. They still do. It's common knowledge.

Attributing one side with all the good, and the other side with all the bad is bullshit. The world is not black/white, good/bad, us/them.

[Maria]

Congratulations, Mr. Abovitz, seems you got one of the "good guys." For your first-time effort you certainly made a splash. I'm sure you will become one of the circuit "infotainment" talk show pundits soon. What a way to go after the MSM...take off the record statements and publicize them. That's not the way to do it. Where is the accountability among you people? Would you ever believe that Mr. Jordan's statement was not an attack on our military, but was a voice of concern for his reporters?

[Blank]

Rony,
The spin Mr. Adams gave Sisyphus was that it was an off the record event. It was in a room that was supposed to be on the record, with a videocamera rolling. But their defense threatens you. If indeed it was off the record, you personally violated the rules, the penalty for which is being forbidden from future World Economic Forums. Any reaction?

Second, do you read the comments in your own blog?

[Duane]

The WEF website on the Democracy/Media forum lists Fareed Zakaria as a "contributor" to the forum. Was Zakaria in fact there either as a panelist or in the audience?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Blank]

Rony,
I am disappointed that you cited Zed's effort on another blog, but ignore my prior effort in the comments of your very own blog. I detailed the 12, and I think did a much better job of it too. If you go to Zed's blog pay particular attention to the now-closed comments which highlight some of the distortions and fact-avoidance.

[Neil]

If the comments are all off of the record with no videos for release, why did the evening news broadcast keep showing us clips of Bill Clinton telling the crowd at Davos that Pres. Bush was not like him, and the subsequent crowd (obviously anti-American) reaction?

[Scott Lawton]

Rony: thanks much for speaking out, and staying with the story.

Please note that it is NOT just "right wing" bloggers who are upset. Just because the MSM or a left/liberal blogger calls another blogger "conservative" doesn't make it so! Mickey Kaus voted for Kerry, Roger L Simon is a liberal from way back, Instapundit is for gay marriage and drug legalization, etc. There are bloggers across the political spectrum who are devoted to the truth, independent of the tired old left/right categories or of party affiliation.

[Edward Sisson]

Correction of typo in prior post: Mr. Jordan, not Mr. Eason.

[Edward Sisson]

Could the Davos folks please explain why a supposedly off-the-record session was videotaped? Usually people pay to video something only if they expect to have a use for the video. What did Davos intend to use this panel video for? Has Davos in prior years released videos of other similarly-structured panels in earlier years -- panels that one would think were also off-the-record? Has Davos already released videos of other panel sessions for this year's event? In other words, has Davos already established a precedent, in its release of other videos from other sessions, that impeaches the current claim that its policies do not allow the release of the Eason video?

And does Davos -- or more specifically, the individuals within the Davos organization who control release of the video -- now have special leverage over CNN and Mr. Eason by having this tape in its possession, but refusing to release it? Since the public knows Davos has a tape that might embarrass CNN, Davos would be wise to release the tape in order to dispel any appearance that it possesses undue influence over CNN's reporting. This applies not merely to CNN's reporting on Davos itself, but to CNN's reporting on any matter that may be of interest to the individuals who control the release of the video.

[jt]

Senator Dodd was "outraged". Why? It usually takes quite a lot to outrage a Senator about something that is reported by their side(CNN). The answer is in the "we support the troops".

Somebody trashed the American troops in front of Congressmen for foreign pleasure. I am betting Rep Frank was "hot".

Thanks for a great job and try to get the tape.

[Vanderleun]

"Unfortunately, this will likely only fuel speculation, feed rumors, and spawn numerous theories. The video would eliminate one part of this debate, and now what we will have is a pitched battle of memory, recollection, and context."

Which is precisely why you will never have the tape. You didn't ever for a minute suppose that it would be handed over, did you?

You did note that the Chatham House Rules only entered the discussion with Mr. Adams after a day or two had passed. They weren't up there right at the top, were they?

Adams: Oh, I forgot... it just slipped my mind.... that we had Chatham House Rules going, lads. Those videotapes, they're only for internal use so we can improve how we give a panel. We need to always be improving the panels you know.

[Tom]

While you make some excellent points (the truth SHOULD be the truth no matter where you are on the planet), I think it's silly to ascribe Jordan's statements and subsequent actions to profit maximization.

Eason Jordan doesn't care about profits, he cares about "changing the world for the better" (as he defines it). He knows that many, if not most, people, don't agree with how he wants to change the world, and that he must be guarded and careful in how he advances his agenda. He let down his guard at Davos, and he got caught. Period.

To oversimplify, the difference between the Left and Right is that the Left wants to define, filter, and distort the truth and control it, while the Right wants to report the truth and change it. Jordan and CNN are in the former camp. Pubs like the Weekly Standard and the WSJ Editorials are in the latter camp. Fox is in neither camp (which is where all journalists acting as reporters should be). This ALONE explains why Fox has achieved its dominant position, and why the Left is so angry about its success. Fox cares about profits too, but is smart enough to realize that if they present the news fairly and allow both (or all) sides of an issue to be heard, the profits will naturally follow, because fairness and balance is what viewers want.

The Jordan case microcosmically makes my point. We shouldn't have to work so hard to get at the truth. Look at how difficult CNN and Jordan and the WEF are making it to get to the simple truth about Jordan's session. Fox makes it relatively easy every day. Jordan and CNN could do the same by demanding that the WEF release the tape.

[megapotamus]

Your outrage is well conceived and well expressed. Welcome to the Party that has been raging since, oh, as the above fellow says, around Viet Nam. The Party swells and is reaching a fevered pitch... even the grannies are out on the floor. In moments we will see Eason Jordan attempting a stage-dive. The seas will part. Splat. Heh.

[dwilkers]

So the tape will be witheld and Jordan will get a pass. Can't say I am surprised.

Frankly I don't think its about the market he is playing to as much as it is he really believes what he said. That's just a theory I a have been developing about folks on the left (as distinct from normal liberals) though.

Beyond the tempest in a teapot nature of this current controversy what I think is happening in the US is that we are developing an advocacy press and have been for about 10 years or so...or even arguably since Vietnam. Much like in England where you have media of the left and media of the right. I think that's a bad thing.

I don't doubt that the MSM believe they are reporting straight news. You can see it in their corrections, in their surprised looks. So you see people like Moyers asserting that Christians think its a great idea to destroy the environment because that will bring about the "end of days" and inventing a James Watt quote out of thin air to support it. A reporter at the Washington Post thinks that sounds right to him so he repeats it. Today they are forced to correct. Not a surprising mistake really, after all everyone hates Christians and knows they are lunatics right? That's a perfectly normal, middle of the road position. No reason to even bother looking the quote up, just pass it on.

That's the very nature of bias; it is unconcious.