Forumblog.org - The World Economic Forum Weblog

Davos Wrap

This year's World Economic Forum was dominated by the internet. Global traders discussed it, sessions were blogged on it, newspaper executives talked endlessly both about their own sites and the extraordinary aquisitions and mergers turning internet geniuses into billionaires.

Rupert Murdock, top dog of the media moguls, spoke about NewsCorp buying MySpace and how his move had first been laughed at (for the price he paid) then hailed as a great deal.

Google's billion-dollar purchase of YouTube was viewed as both brilliant and stupid, depending to whom you chose to listen.

And the children (really, they are) who started these silly sites like Flickr (on which you place your holiday pictures for only $250 a year) and FaceBook (where you connect with friends) spoke to seasoned journalists like myswelf as if we were idiots.

And believe me, we are. They are worth billions of dollars, individually. We are not.

The founder/owner of FaceBook told me he, like, wanted to, like, connect people. Nah, he wasn't really interested in the money. But he did use the capital he generated from received revenues for advertising to, like, buy more servers.

"Yeah,"he said laconically, "we doubled capacity in the past six months and will probably do so again."

And what does the site do? "It, like, connects people. College students mainly. Who share the same interests. We have about 16 million of them."
If you are a baby boomer, this was a Davos to make you feel old. Generation X is on the move, and the move is powered by Web 2.0 -- not that I understand what that means.

More conventionally, the expert economists who gathered in this Swiss mountain village all agreed that the world's economic outlook for 2007 was similar to 2006: another "goldilocks" year in which the three bears would stay away and the bulls would run again, perhaps just a little bit slower.

China, India, the US and Japan were all looking good as engines for the world economy.

One bear who might be lurking behind the trees in the woods was the housing market in the US, and a session entitled "What's that hissing sound?" was devoted to the US housing bubble, now beginning to leak.

Global warming was a big issue again with German Chancellor Angela Merkel saying it deserved to top the global agenda, and because of it Al Gore is again seen as a possible contender for the US Democratic nomination because of his "Än Inconvenient Truth" movie success about the planet's heating.
But even on the US election, everyone came back to saying the internet and blogging and new people-friendly websites are likely to be enormously influential, for the first time.

MoneyWeb's Alec Hogg and I had an argument about newspapers, he suggesting they are dying. In fact newspaper circulations grew five percent globally last year, but then again I have been dealing with this opinion on our impending death since 1973 when I first started in the industry.

Delightfully, Rupert Murdoch agreed with me that newspepers will still be around for a long time.

"Existing brands remain very very strong, and will still be around for a long long time. It is up to them to make their mark on the web and to do even better there than they do now," he said.

There were great discussions about blogs and bloggers, about a site called "dig" where stories are voted on, and if they get bad votes they drop down into a hole as they are "dug" by voters.

Davos also had the interesting session about the latest space missions, what depression was costing countries, how singles are running countries now and the womanisation of the workforce, sessions on colour and scent and technology.

There was geopolitics, examining who will succeed the US as a hyperpower, and influential politicians like Tony Blair and Merkel and President Mbeki made thoughtful inputs.

Each year at Davos, one country or continent has been the focus. Last year it was India. Before that China. Even Africa had its year.
But this year, it was the year of the internet. It overshadowed mere countries as its influence continues to grow globally, to grow and grow in multiples of digital doubling.

One day I am determined to understand it all.

Peter Sullivan - Group Editor-in-Chief, Independent Newspapers

What kind of initiatives should the Forum be aiming to implement?

FT.com asks this question in an online poll.

Some of our existing initiatives have been quite active in the last year or so. The Disaster Resource Network used our business expertise to lend a hand in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the Asian tsunami. The education initiative has now become the Global Education Initiative - the Jordan Education Initiative helped 10,000 students in 300 schools and has been replicated in the Palestinian Territories and Rajasthan. After working with our business partners to establish AIDS programmes in the workplace, the Global Health Initiative now wants these companies' suppliers and distributers to do the same. They have 2 catchy announcements coming up in the next few days...

But back to the original question - what kind of initiatives should the Forum implement?

Davos 2006

Welcome to the Annual Meeting 2006! It starts in a few weeks on 25 January and like last year we are encouraging the participants to blog and would welcome your comments.

Below are the guidelines, including the on/off the record policy. Any questions or comments? Feel free to post them here. Otherwise write to weblog@weforum.org

Guidelines for Blogging on Forumblog.org

These guidelines apply to all authors of the World Economic Forum weblog. We want a weblog that adds value and transparency to the discussions on global issues that affect us all. This policy attempts to simplify the rules for bloggers while allowing those not attending the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos to read about the ongoing debates.

Publishing posts

Bloggers’ posts need to be manually published by one of our editors. Opinions will not be censored, however posts that do not abide by these guidelines will not be published, particularly those that do not conform to the on/off the record policy.

Protect yourself

While the weblog medium allows authors to be uninhibited, your name will appear under everything you write and you will be responsible for your own words. What you write becomes part of a public, permanent record. It might well be there for eternity. Vulgarity, profanity and discriminatory remarks are not allowed and we will delete offending posts. Self-promotion is discouraged.

Protect others

Please be mindful that you may be privilege to private information and opinions at the Annual Meeting in Davos. If a session is off the record, please respect that. And please do not quote people without their permission – particularly if they are under the impression that their remarks are private or off the record.

Rules of the road and general etiquette

Write under your own name. Be honest. Be fair. Minimize potential harm done to others in your remarks. Be accountable for what you write. There are legal and reputational implications for disinformation, rumour mongering and defamation. Do not delete posts. Someone else can easily republish them on his/her own weblog. You may amend or remove a post after it has been published, but do indicate what you have done. Example: many authors begin a new paragraph under a post with the header “Update”.

On- and off-the-record policy for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2006

All sessions in the Congress Hall, and in addition Sanada 1 & 2 of the Congress Centre, are on the record and you may attribute panellists’ remarks to their owners. All other sessions in the Congress Centre are off the record. You can report on the tenor of the debate, but you must not quote participants directly. If, however, you receive their subsequent permission you may quote them. All of the private sessions are “off-the-record meetings” and are not to be blogged.

Release The Tape! (Please): Will Eason Jordan & CNN Lobby For Transparency?

Posted from the U.S

The World Economic Forum has been a model of free speech in terms of its weblog since the Easongate controversy began. However, not releasing the videotape has become a story and a twisted problem all of its own. Citing a combination of off-the record policies and Chatham House Rules, it looks like Easongate is entering an Orwellian world of doublespeak.

Here is what I found regarding the origins and meanings of the Chatham House Rules (from riia.org, The Royal Institute of International Affairs).

BACKGROUND
Founded in 1920, Chatham House, formerly known as The Royal Institute of International Affairs, is based in the heart of London. As a measure of its importance in the world of international relations, the name 'Chatham House' - the building - is now commonly used to refer to the organization.

The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:

"WHEN A MEETING, OR PART THEREOF, IS HELD UNDER THE CHATHAM HOUSE RULE, PARTICIPANTS ARE FREE TO USE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, BUT NEITHER THE IDENTITY NOR THE AFFILIATION OF THE SPEAKER(S), NOR THAT OF ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT, MAY BE REVEALED".

Members should note that general meetings are almost invariably held ‘on the record’ rather than under the Rule and this is unlikely to change with the new amendment. In those cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, meetings can be held ‘off the record’ and participants are not free to make public use of the information received.

EXPLANATION of the Rule

The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of guaranteeing anonymity to those speaking within its walls in order that better international relations could be achieved. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion.

Meetings of Chatham House may be held 'on the record' or under the Chatham House Rule. In the latter case, it may be agreed with the speaker(s) that it would be conductive to free discussion that a given meeting, or part thereof, should be strictly private and thus held under the Chatham House Rule.


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

Q. When was the Rule devised?
A. In 1927, then refined in 1992.

Q. Should one refer to the Chatham House Rule or the Chatham House Rules?
A. There is only one Rule.

Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.

Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House can take disciplinary action against one of its members who breaks the Rule. Not all organisations that use the Rule have sanctions. The Rule then depends for its success on being seen as morally binding.

Q. Is the Rule used for all meetings at Chatham House?
A. Not often for the larger meetings (so called General Meetings); more frequently for smaller ones, for example where work in progress is discussed or when subject matter is politically sensitive.

Q. Who uses the Rule these days?
A. It is widely used in the English-speaking world - by local government and commercial organisations as well as research organisations.

The concept of the rule is easy to understand, but does it apply here? The World Economic Forum says it does, and to a degree one has to respect the World Economic Forum's sticking to its rules (although there are some critics already challenging when and how this rule is being invoked in this case, and if it even applied to the room where the discussion was had, and why was it all videotaped).

But there is a person and an organization who can make an ethical stand here: Eason Jordan and CNN. Let me describe what they could say, if the noble concepts of transparency and accountability mattered to them (because the rest of the world reads this invocation of the Chatham House Rules as the "old boy" network protecting its own):

(Note: The following is a satirical letter which I do hope that Eason & CNN would send to the WEF):

Dear Powers That Be At The World Economic Forum:

Thank you so very much for trying to save my hide with the most valuable Chatham House Rules policy. I really, truly appreciate it. However, last night the ghost of George Orwell visited me, and after a long and frightening discussion about Big Brother, media manipulation, and other things I can not even dare mention, I have decided to change my mind. I have nothing to hide. I fully believe in, and accept the concept of transparency at face value. More importantly, I would like to show Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, the foreign minister of Afghanistan, an important and fragile new democracy in the Middle East, how we do it in the democractic and free Western World. I would like for him to understand that in the United States we do things differently, and that invoking obscure policies to protect oneself from accountability from what one said is not anything that I, or my network, stand for or believe in. In fact, I would agree to play the videotape, in its entirety, on CNN for all the world to see. It is time for me to standup and be a real leader, and to show the rest of my news friends how a media figure should act. If, when the tape comes out, it does not look so good for me, I will be accountable for what I said, perhaps instituting widespread reform across CNN to become a model of what mainstream media should be. Perhaps I will lose my job - but I do not care. I want to address this issue head-on, with courage and a stout heart, and not hide from it. I appreciate that you stand by your rules, but I believe that in this case, if none of the other panel members object: please, for the good of democracy and transparency, release the tape!

Is that really ever going to happen? In my view, Eason Jordan and CNN have a major opportunity here to redeem themselves and lead a true reform in the quality and verifiability of the news. We all know that they have the power to obtain the release of the complete, unedited videotape, if they wanted to. You can stop the Kabuki dance. Please do so. It would be a real start in a needed change across the board for mainstream media. It would be good for your soul. The truth here would set you free. It would be unexpected, wonderful, even transcendant. It would be a unique show of leadership if Eason himself led the charge for the tape's release. Would it be the business thing to do? Maybe not. But it would be the correct human thing to do, and even your enemies, naysayers, and detractors would have to have some respect for that level of courage to face your own words. Why are you afraid to face the reality of your own words, you who shoot words at others for so long?

-R

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!"?

Responding to Hugh and Others

Posted from the U.S.

In the plainest language possible:

* "Don't try and raise the issue to one of "blogosphere ethics" ? Hmmm. Ethics regarding responsible speech is why we are discussing Eason at all. Eason made some serious accusations, backpedaled quickly, and is in some very hot water. Ethics and a responsibility to the verifiable truth is why the water is boiling. I agree with Hugh Hewitt that MSM (mainstream media) ethics are being put to a real test here, but I also firmly believe that blogger ethics matter equally, if not more. We should not simply oust the old king and put in a new one just as corrupt. The bloggers should be a model of journalistic ethics and shame the MSM into a new model of behavior and standards.

* Of course both sides (left and right) should be held to the same standards. Ignoring Eason and attacking General Mattis alone is unfair and biased.

* The comparison to Bush or other leaders is about influencing or swaying a mass audience to achieve a goal that you or your interests desire. However, the Bush analogy will go nowhere here. Fine. How about a softball: Michael Moore's Farenheit 911. Freedom of speech? Journalism? Art? Satire? He sure makes a whole bunch of damning remarks and insinuations about many people, clearly feeding his audience. Eason is on track to losing his job, while Moore wins awards at Cannes. Eason is heading to the stake because he is perceived as having a cloak of objectivity, while Moore is already seen as being "out there". Both however, influence the thoughts and behaviors of a mass audience, as do their analogues on the right and in the center. What if Eason claimed that CNN is audience driven "infotainment", and not objective news? My point: if Eason becomes an example, will the same standards be applied by those asking for Eason's head now, regardless if the person is from the left, center, or right? Why does this matter? Because the blog swarm that rips into Eason's hide now will remember these changing times and rip into any side, regardless of left, center, or right persuasion. Be prepared to hand over the heads of beloved partisan leaders in the future. This relatively new blog driven process of accountability, personified here as Easongate, merits some introspection, lest it only be the 21st century equivalent of a hangin' party.

* "It is about whether a senior American news executive can slander the people who are fighting --and dying or being wounded-- and do so without consequence". This is a big component (I agree with Hugh here), but not the only.

It was a sad day when an unknown outsider (myself) had to first intervene and challenge Eason to defend America from such a slander, when plenty of big media and major American political leaders were in the room. I can easily imagine Eason getting away with all of it. But there are some voices in the blogosphere, independant of Eason, who are saying that something has happened to journalists on both sides in Iraq and the issue is not so clean. Amy Goodman interviews media critic and filmaker Danny Schechter about "fishy deaths of unembedded reporters", and a movie about this topic is coming out now. Schechter says: "What's also outrageous is that the American media companies did not demand an investigation of this, did not join Reuters in demanding an investigation. So it just wasn't just complicity and collusion in the coverage of the war but a refusal to get involved in an effort to try to find out what really happened, what the facts were. To try to get at the truth of what happened to their own people. That to me compounds the shock of the way in which the media played the role it did."

There are more datapoints than Eason. While he has lost credibility in his role (where's the objective data?), are these people also liars? Is Schechter fabricating everything? The question goes beyond Eason and his own blunders.

I'll give credit to Hugh Hewitt and others for staying focused on the near term story (Eason Jordan) that will likely soon have a satisfying outcome for some. Hugh is leading a credible, direct charge and is rallying the right and center and will soon become a media folk hero (he may be to some already). As for me, I'm fishing in deeper waters, taking a longer term view. This is a difficult position to understand: Eason has not been able to (to date) verify with objective data what he said, and that does not bode well for him, in his role. But the ghost of what he said lingers out there, and others are asking some hard questions. In the way that the right is damning MSM for not following up on Eason, Schechter damns them as well, for not having the courage to investigate the facts about what has happened to "their own people".

-R

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

Journalists Killed in Iraq - The Core Issues

Posted from the U.S.

Since I first posted the story, "Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?" last week from the WEF 2005 in Davos, there has been a fast growing interest in what really is a bundle of interconnected, complex issues.

I was very glad to see the post "Eason Jordan clarifies comments" by Rebecca MacKinnon. Eason's voice in this discussion is a very important one, and it should be heard. But I would like to point out that the substance of the issues raised here, as well as the posts by readers in response to the original article, go well beyond Eason. I am still disturbed. I understand the tough position Eason is in. He is the head of a major news organization and he has corporate and managerial responsibilities. But I felt that he was pushing at broader ethical and moral issues that perhaps go well beyond the scope of his current job. One reader, Ken Hechtman, posted a response with some data from the Reporters Without Borders website (http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3). Other readers, including some soldiers, provide a voice from the field which is chilling. I am finding it harder and harder to understand the truth on this subject. I have, and likely only can, scratch at the surface here, but there appears to be some depth and complexity to what really is a tangled web of issues that may be even more frightening when the light of day shines upon it.

I would like to point out Rebecca's courage on this issue. My views and posts are unexpected by the mainstream media, and I have been unknown in that world. The free voices coming from the blog world are a new, uncontrolled force of change in the news world. I am already getting a flood of e-mails, requests to be on various media outlets, and pressure from certain powers that be. Clearly a nerve has been hit. However, Rebecca comes from this world. Eason was a former colleague and superior. But she heard what I heard - all of us in the room did. But few have had the courage to stand up and say something. It would be nice to hear from some of the major world leaders who were in the room with us.

This topic is of significant U.S. and global importance. It digs into the heart of the freedom of the press, corporate influence, and the fabric of democracy. There is not a real solid middle ground here. Do our media and political leaders really want the us to see the truth on a subject like this? Has a veil of influence been pierced?

Here are the issues as I see them:

(1) What really did happen in Iraq to both the U.S. and foreign journalists killed while trying to cover the war? The posts by the readers, in particular a few from soldiers themselves, make this question even more compelling. And what is going to happen to journalists covering Iraq going forward? How does the truth ever become fully revealed and made public? Does the U.N. need to investigate what happened? Is there a major media organization reputable enough to present accurate information on a question which by definition here involves the major media?

(2) What is the responsibility of the media, and of media chiefs in particular (such as Eason) when it comes to how the news is shaped (or not shaped) to meet the needs of their audience?  Is the news a business that needs to market to their customers what they want to hear and see, or is there a higher set of ethical and moral responsibilities that come along with the business of news? What is interesting in this case is that I do believe that the exact, objective facts are available with respect to what was said. This particular discussion at the WEF 2005 was videotaped (hopefully it is in a complete and unedited form). The debate about exactly what was said is easily resolved if an accurate transcript of the tape, or the tape itself, can be produced and made public. This kind of transparency lends itself well to global issues where subjectivity can taint any side of a topic like this. It is possible in this case that the subjectivity on one part of this issue can be removed entirely (with the complete videotape and transcript of the discussion).

(3) What is the responsibility of those in major leadership positions when confronted with such issues? In the room with us were powerful men and women, including high ranking politicians, who could follow up in a serious and meaningful way. Where are those voices and where is the followup? This topic should not be buried away in the closet. Is what Eason said the problem, or should we be more frightened at the prospect of journalists being targeted and killed by U.S. soldiers. "I see no problem if the US snipers take them out" was a comment from one reader, as well as "If they chose to take the part of the Baathists and Al kayda (sic), and say, 'embed' themselves among them, they will be killed." At a minimum the data and confusion calls for at least someone of the stature of a U.S. Senator or Congressman to step in now and lead a robust investigation.

(4) The role of the individual in society. In this debate and discussion I made the decision to say something - to speak out. That decision has sparked a lot of things, including some intense pressures coming from a lot of sides. But I now feel an obligation myself to not give in to any side, but to ask for, in fact to demand, an accounting of the truth.

The ability of blogs such as this one to influence and reach the mainstream media is a relatively new mode of the expression of free speech - truly free speech. The balance of power is being disrupted because the corporate media can no longer strongly control what a wide audience sees or hears. We need to continue this reclaiming of the freedom of speech away from corporate media, where revenues and market share will always balance with objectivity - a business is a business and has its own internal logic of building shareholder value. Voices who care primarily about the ethical and moral considerations of an issue are needed if the world is to become transparent and accountable.

Is this the Boston Tea Party of major media? Maybe in a small way. Yes, I am asking some seriously difficult questions, but they do need answers. Is it wrong to ask for the accountability of major news media and their leadership? Aren't we also all disturbed at the prospect of Eason being correct about the targeting of journalists, including those journalists now in Iraq, or on their way there? If I were going to cover the news in Iraq, I would have no idea what to think or expect at this point.

As a techie, I like to see problems solved. Here are some specific actions that should happen:

* Independant, objective, and respected investigation into this topic in a timely way (now, not years from now).

* Disclosure of what is found to the global public.

* Better protections and neutrality status for journalists, subject to harsh, Geneva style accountability if violated.

* More voices should come forward now. The voices of the soldiers in Iraq, as well as of journalists on the ground, need to come out. Let us know in your own words, unfiltered, what has happened, and what is happening. Have courage.

Note: All of the views that I have, and will be expressing in these blogs are my own personal views, and not those of any organizations that I am affiliated with.

-R

Eason Jordan clarifies comments

A number of blogs have been discussing Rony Abovitz's account of remarks made by CNN's Eason Jordan about journalists being killed by U.S. troops in Iraq.  Since no transcript or recording has been available so far, I have emailed Mr. Jordan for clarification. Here is his response:

Rebecca:

Here's what's important.  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.  In Iraq and Washington, I have worked closely and constructively with U.S. military and civilian leaders in an effort to heighten the odds of survival for the courageous journalists in Iraq.

Eason

In a follow-up email he added:

Most importantly, I do not believe the U.S. is trying to kill journalists in Iraq.  To the contrary, the U.S. military has worked hard to protect journalists in Iraq.  Nevertheless, there have been several tragic episodes in which U.S. forces killed journalists in what turned out to be cases not of collateral damage but of mistaken identity.  Feel free to paste that, too.

UPDATE: After I had already posted the above, I received the following:

To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists in Iraq.  But the U.S. military has killed several journalists in Iraq in cases of mistaken identity.  The reason the word "targeted" came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of "collateral damage."  Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the "collateral damage" statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists -- not all -- killed in Iraq were indeed targeted.  When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is appropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine.  But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of "collateral damage."  That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time.  Further, I have worked closely with the U.S. military for months in an effort to achieve a mutual goal: keeping journalists in Iraq safe and alive.

Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?

Davos, Switzerland from the WEF 2005

This fiery topic became a real nightmare today for the Chief News Executive of CNN at what was an initially very mild discussion at the World Economic Forum titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?".

At a discussion moderated by David R. Gergen, the Director for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, the concept of truth, fairness, and balance in the news was weighed against corporate profit interest, the need for ratings, and how the media can affect democracy. The panel included Richard Sambrook, the worldwide director of BBC radio, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Abdullah Abdullah, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan, and Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN. The audience was a mix of journalists, WEF attendees (many from Arab countries), and a US Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd.

During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.

Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters.

Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real "sh--storm". What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military.

To be fair (and balanced), Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it. But when pressed by others, he seemed to waver back and forth between what might have been his beliefs and the realization that he had created a kind of public mess. His statements, his reaction, and the reaction of all in attendance left me perplexed and confused. Many in the crowd, especially those from Arab nations, applauded what he said and called him a "very brave man" for speaking up against the U.S. in a public way amongst a crowd ready to hear anti-US sentiments. I am quite sure that somewhere in the Middle East, right now, his remarks are being printed up in Arab language newspapers as proof that the U.S. is an evil and corrupt nation. That is a real nightmare, because the Arab world is taking something said by a credible leader of the media (CNN!) as the gospel, or koranic truth. What is worse is that I am not really sure what Eason really meant to communicate to us, but I do know that he was quite passionate about it. Members of the audience took away what they wanted to hear, and now they will use it in every vile and twisted way imaginable.

To me, what was said can not be put back into the genie's bottle. So here is my request as a U.S. citizen, and really only a minor, minor player in the whole WEF scheme of things: Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd, you both seem like good and honest men, and Congressman Frank especially seems like someone with a bit of courage (I'm sure Senator Dodd is brave as well). Clear up this mess, use your power and authority as elected leaders, and make transparent what really happened. You must do this to respect the 12 journalists killed and let the world know how and why. Here is another challenge, and this one is for the CNN and the BBC: What the hell happened? Is Eason right or is he wrong?  Good journalism calls for digging into and revealing all of the facts (or was everything that was said in the mild part of the discussion about fair coverage and seeking the truth just verbage?).

If what Eason originally said was true, exactly what happened and why needs to become known to the American public and world at large. If it is not, it is an example of how "news" is created by the heat of the moment, without any bearing to reality. If it is true, we need to know if it was official or if it was just some random disgruntled soldiers. The dark scenario, what the rest of the world would love to believe, is that the U.S. is sinister and evil and this is just another example of Darth Bush. Is this the same U.S. that I know and love, or was this just someone accidentally becoming swept up in the anti-U.S. feeling that is all pervasive in Davos (but they love us too, especially Clinton).

The cherry on the whipped cream of this cowpie sundae was poor Abdullah Abdullah, a shining new, fresh scrubbed member of America's grand experiment to export democracy to the Middle East. Here is someone who seemed to be idealistic, full of hope and vigor. What is he thinking about all of this? What kind of role model are we presenting to the fragile new democracies of Afghanistan and Iraq? What we can do, what we must do, is show them how democracy works, and how in an open and free country the truth will get out, and those responsible will be held accountable. The U.S. makes no claims about being perfect - we only make claims that we are open enough to correct our problems, and to admit freely to ourselves and the world if we are wrong.

As a last note, I think that this article is a good pointer to the future of the news: average people, freely saying what they want, as they saw it, for anyone to see. To me, that is freedom of the press.

-R