Blog-Trial: Unfairly tarnished, Eason Quits
“I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq. I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside.”
– Eason Jordan LINK-ABC News
I realize this topic has been covered (very well, by talking dog today at American Street), but I have some additional comments I wish to relay.
While not particularly emotional one way or the other about Jordan’s actual decision, I will say that this clearly was a case of blog-thuggery and unfair tarnishing, the kind of which I had spoken earlier in the week, and for which I was soundly whipped by Jim Geraghty of the National Review.
The ‘Right-wing mouth machine’ would like us all to think that Eason Jordan was “bad” and “unAmerican” for saying what he said. CNN has been complicit by their reticence to talk about tough issues. They wound up to be the biggest loser. They lost Eason Jordan. Eason was guilty before being proven innocent by no other process except one: the blog-trial.
The right-wing blogs seem to be the Supreme Court of the blogging community at large.
Why should this be so?
Why are no other rational voices important?
There was never a fair hearing anywhere in the blogworld or in the mainstream media over this case. There was only conjecture and a big agenda, which was to round up enough right-wing activists in the monkey-machine to petition CNN in the hopes they’d fire a man who was branded as a devil for daring to speak out for journalists’ protection in a conference most believed was, for the most part, a private panel discussion.
These were “Easongate’s” aims:
The purpose of this blog from the very beginning was as follows:
· Act as a clearinghouse for information related to Mr. Jordan’s recent and past statement concerning the United States military.
· Provide analysis and commentary on the developing situation.
· Advocate CNN to take real and meaningful disciplinary action against Mr. Jordan.
· Create a petition expressing the public’s displeasure with Mr. Jordan’s statements.
· Gather information on CNN’s advertisers and make this information available to the public.
The activists at Easongate still want the tape. (So Rush Limbaugh can play it 100 times a day *sarcasm*).
Jordan’s decision to resign is neither here nor there to me, personally.
I will, however, explain to you where my passion comes in.
I am proud and happy to be a political blogger.
I am free to speak about issues which I believe are crucial to the health of our democracy and no one can fire me .
They can only target me for critcism, as National Review did. I believe that’s a good thing. As President Bush would say, “Bring ‘em on.”
Larry Kudlow claims that CNN has been trying desperately to make the story go away. He says that “bloggers are doing their duty” by calling upon CNN to talk about the issue. To an extent, I agree with him there. CNN should have aired the issue out in public and began to talk about it realistically, from ‘Day One’.
However, I have been ‘trying desperately’ to keep this story alive, from my own point of view. The National Review wishes to delegitimize anyone in the mainstream media who will not toe the White House line like good soldiers. As defenders of freedom and truth, journalists are charged with the duty of getting to the heart and core of matters, even when it means having to have a painful national conversation about those matters. Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth. So why are we so afraid?
In this case, CNN didn’t want to have that conversation, the right-wing insisted upon it, and we all have lost something precious in the process. Until mainstream media admits they are the lap dogs of the White House and right-wing, they will always lose.
The people who are calling themselves “new media” are already giving themselves “credit” for Eason Jordan’s resignation. I wonder if they realize (or care) that the “credit” signifies a degradation of fairness and freedom of speech in America?
CNN failed to realize, recognize, and appreciate the power of blogs who are in lock-step league with those in the “new media” who are trying to destroy the long-accepted scope and meaning of a journalist’s freedom of speech. If that’s “new media”, count me out.
When I see blogs being used in a way in which I believe American journalism will approach another step closer to being pure propaganda, I will say so.
I’m saying so.
February 12th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Part Quaker, I don’t usually go in for “fighting fire with fire.” But I wonder whether in this case…
Years ago Bill Buckley started a review which, though it was always pretty smug and politically revolting, at least deserved its reputation for occasional hard thinking and depth of concern. The problem is that the National Review is increasingly revolting besides sinking to well below mediocre intellectually. Integrity in question. But the NR is somehow managing to cling to its earlier reputation.
Maybe we should be the spanners in the works of that right wing machine. Perhaps it’s time to go after that naked emperor.
February 12th, 2005 at 9:24 am
In this case, CNN didn€™t want to have that conversation, the right-wing insisted upon it, and we all have lost something precious in the process.
Really, was the right wing ever going to participate in anything remotely resembling a conversation? Conversations involve listening with an intent to understand. Lynch mobs are light on conversation. CNN probably suspected that was the case.
February 12th, 2005 at 9:32 am
I too say so, but can’t at pressthink since I’m the only one to be banned, and a newly minted journalist too. How ironic.
This mob mentality is ruining free speech and political expression. It’s mob on mob but there can be no understanding of the facts and the statements themselves with such horde bias. I believe Jordon recanted part of the statement misunderstood. Tossed by the bloggers: invalid, the perceived crime had been committed. No going back. He offered instances of an Al Jezeera journalist that was targeted. No fair. The right-wingers are akin to mercenaries with little regard for others. They are storm-troopers; jack-booted thugs peddling a policy of pillage and burn. Only report happy tales of school painting; no lights but that’s another matter. No fair. I have an idea of where that model came from. Sounds just like Stalin to me; Hussein’s model too.
February 12th, 2005 at 9:38 am
With reason and strength of conviction, we need to drown this right-wing machine they’re calling “new media” in the bathtub.
OK, we have reason and strength of conviction. Now what?
February 12th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Good question, Tex.
Any ideas?
Quoting Gandhi, each of us has to BE the change we want to see.
I posted this at my Daily Kos diary today and no one seems to really care about what has happened.
It’s no wonder the right gets away with things so easily.
February 12th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Any ideas?
In thinking about this subject, the one serious danger I see is that in opposing them, we become like them. We have to oppose them ethically and we must retain and follow our principles.
The right has won every battle so far in large part because they’ve abandoned principle and honesty in favor of winning at any cost.
I don’t know how to fight that. I really don’t. I’ve opposed them unsuccessfully for years.
February 12th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Sure, actually. I’ll tell you what we can do.
CNN is part of Time Warner, a most public company. Do I even suggest that people of good will can accumulate enough shares in such a media behemoth to make a damned bit of difference in actual management decisions?
No. But more than a few of us can get our hands and shares, and make a point of speaking out at public shareholders’ meetings. Or we can start writing to CNN, demanding that it be held accountable for a culture of paranoia in which damned good journalists are sacrificed to appease right wing mobs.
Or most effectively of all, we can threaten, or actually start, boycotts of CNN’s sponsors.
The problem so far, of course, is that only one side is willing to play raw power. We outnumber the bastards, to be blunt about it. We’re just a little too free spirited to go along with any kind of lockstep machine… they have the discipline not to think like that. There are consequences to pissing them off. There seem to be none for pissing us off; indeed, our own presidential candidate could more or less swallow their war policy lock, stock and barrel, with no adverse consequences to him.
Well, here we go. I was in midtown Manhattan exactly two years ago, on one of the coldest days of my life, with 400,000 other human beings (the New York Times, as part of the culture of appeasement, played along with neo-Republican Mike Bloomberg’s police department and claimed less than 100,000) to protest the damned war.
Unfortunately, that was the end of it. The war took place, the triumphalism began, and then we were too chicken-shit-hearted to nominate a candidate who stood with us on the war.
And here we are. If it’s going to be it’s up to me… or us, anyway… We’re only as powerless as we think we are…
February 12th, 2005 at 10:52 am
They do it by promoting only the jingoism they want. For the mostpart that’s what the public wants to. Tough to fight that. Any criticism becomes cavorting with the enemy by proxy. Keep pushing the truth. I had an interview with a reservist and his wife, good friends of the family, that were quick to criticise the Fallujah tape of Kevin Sites. The assertin was that you couldn’t see one side of him and he could have been loaded. Believers head for any opening they have and placeall of their eggs there. Expect it. To them the history and the tape with testimony meant nothing. Only the room for doubt counted. Soldiers had been killed by doubt and fear placed on them by embedded journalists. In short they can’t do their jobs becaise of journalists. That’s a tough row to hoe for truth-finders.
February 12th, 2005 at 10:59 am
Until we stand up and be counted with boycotts and protests and other indicia that the cost of ignoring our side is not zero, then we will be ignored, and only the side willing to employ thuggery (which might I add, is the side for whom truth is the enemy) will be taken seriously.
A Gandhi or a Dr. King or a Mandela right now would be nice… but it may just come down to some lesser schmo who has just had it, and starts organizing the only attention that our major media will pay attention to (besides its perceived obligation to fellate the White House): its bottom line.
Our media (and its advertisers) respect only power and money. We have both, if we’re willing to do something about it…
February 12th, 2005 at 11:20 am
In this case, CNN didn€™t want to have that conversation, the right-wing insisted upon it, and we all have lost something precious in the process.
But why didn’t CNN want to have this conversation? It would have been painful, sure. And controversial, which the money guys wouldn’t like.
But the problem is not that the right-wing blogs insisted on having this conversation- it’s that CNN didn’t want to have it. The MSM has long insisted on having conversations about others- politicians and corporations and the famous, etc.- and quite often against the subject’s will. With the advent of the new media, the old media suddenly finds itself in this position, and doesn’t know how to handle it.
We haven’t lost anything because the old media has never, or at best rarely, included itself as a subject worthy of having a conversation about. They think that they’re like a movie camera which sees all but doesn’t influence events. This was never true. But it’s only now that others are beginning to focus on them as participants in events.
CNN’s bizarre nothing-then-everything response and CBS’s recent bad showing are the responses of institutions who have yet to learn how to deal with being the focus of attention in the way that they have focused attention in the past.
February 12th, 2005 at 11:23 am
“we need to drown the right-wing machine they’re calling ‘new media’ in the bathtub”. Were you advocating the suppression of free speech when Josh Marshall and his ilk were blogswarming Trent Lott? Just asking.
February 12th, 2005 at 11:35 am
“CNN failed to realize, recognize, and appreciate the power of blogs who are in lock-step league with those in the €œnew media€ who are trying to destroy the long-accepted scope and meaning of a journalist€™s freedom of speech.
Ah, no. Instead, the blogs are bringing new found accountability to the mainstream media. For those who traffic in truth, the blogs aren’t a threat at all. On the other hand, for those who traffic in rumor and innuendo (Rather, Jordon, C-BS, CNN), there will be a price to pay. And those who *truly* support ethics in journalism would upon reflection have it no other way.
February 12th, 2005 at 11:38 am
“Maybe we should be the spanners in the works of that right wing machine. Perhaps it€™s time to go after that naked emperor.”
That’s the spirit! Now, all you have to do is find instances of them using fraudulent works to support a story, or identify one or more of their regulars making wild-eyed and unsubstantiated claims and you’ll be in business.
(No, that wasn’t sarcasm–not fully, anyway. The left needs to appreciate that not every media outlet that panders to their side of the isle is worthy of being defended–there are and should be journalistic standards of integrity–for all.)
February 12th, 2005 at 11:41 am
Were you advocating the suppression of free speech when Josh Marshall and his ilk were blogswarming Trent Lott? Just asking.
Kilgore Trout,
I was blogging.
And I see this as a rather lukewarm comeback.
As I pointed out in early 2004, it was conservative blogpower that took Lott down.
In 2003, many political analysts credited conservative blogs for playing a role in the resignation of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott when the mainstream press did not do much with the story of his comments in favor of past segregation. LINK
February 12th, 2005 at 11:42 am
“I have an idea of where that model came from. Sounds just like Stalin to me; Hussein€™s model too.”
As you admitted to being a “newly minted journalist”, I’ll cut you some slack. But reflect upon your words here–you compared the state of journalism in the US in the year 2005 with that of living under despotic rule where any publication of dissent lead to *death*. Meanwhile, you’ll sleep well in a comfortable home tonight, knowing full and well that *nobody* is giving you a second thought–that you can return here tommorrow and write something equally foolish without penalty, much less a death sentence. There’s a marked difference, and I suspect deep down that you’re capable of acknowledging it.
February 12th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Brian,
I don’t see that you’re saying anything I’m not already saying here.
You asked
But why didn€™t CNN want to have this conversation? It would have been painful, sure. And controversial, which the money guys wouldn€™t like.
CNN wasn’t ready for the reasons you have stated right there in your own statement. They are afraid to have the conversation because of their advertisers.
And the right wing takes advantage of that knowlege and stuffs every challenging or clumsy word that escapes a journalist’s mouth down the cable network’s throat.
And we lose conscientious, truth-seeking, and passionate journalists from the mainstream by the tarnishing of their reputation by an extremely successful right-wing witch-hunt machine.
What will we be left with?
Less freedom of the press.
Less public access to truth.
All because of the fear of losing ADVERTISERS.
Tell me what Thomas Jefferson would have thought of that tripe!
February 12th, 2005 at 11:57 am
With the advent of the new media, the old media suddenly finds itself in this position, and doesn€™t know how to handle it.
We haven€™t lost anything because the old media has never, or at best rarely, included itself as a subject worthy of having a conversation about.
Do you guys all email each other with vocabulary lists everyday, or what? Old media, “new media?”
Jude’s right. Whatever this creature is that’s being called “new media” needs to be dragged out behind the barn and killed with an axe.
February 12th, 2005 at 11:59 am
“Ah, no. Instead, the blogs are bringing new found accountability to the mainstream media. For those who traffic in truth, the blogs aren€™t a threat at all. On the other hand, for those who traffic in rumor and innuendo (Rather, Jordon, C-BS, CNN), there will be a price to pay. And those who *truly* support ethics in journalism would upon reflection have it no other way.”
You are playing “Mr Ethics” when ethics have been trampled upon.
A political win is not a win for freedom, truth, or justice, Crusader.
You are all too willing to allow freedom of the press to suffer and die under the advertisers’ threat.
You have learned how to play the system.
Freedom of the press, in the end, goes only as far, in its limits, as the dollar will take you.
For those who want the truth, they can kiss it goodbye when people who share your view began to believe you are on freedom’s side here.
Freedom’s holy light is dimmed by your method of working the system, then you dare to call it ethical.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
“All because of the fear of losing ADVERTISERS.”
Those advertisers pay the bills. “Freedom of the press” isn’t a guarantee that folks will continue to pay enormous salaries regardless of what is spoken or written. Eason Jordan’s freedom to publish is no different this morning than it was a week or a month or a decade ago–the only difference is that he will be drawing a paycheck from somebody other than CNN in the future. He remains free to pursue whatever agenda he wishes–as do we all.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
“Whatever this creature is that€™s being called €œnew media€ needs to be dragged out behind the barn and killed with an axe.”
Free speech for you, Tex, but not for the right–that’s what you really mean. Why not simply state it that way?
February 12th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
“Free speech for you, Tex, but not for the right€“that€™s what you really mean. Why not simply state it that way?:
Crusader-
I beg, let’s not sink to that depth here.
And to this we could turn around and say:
Free speech for you–but not for Tex?
Why not simply state it that way?
Do you see how fruitless that line of conversation turns out to be?
We’re on to you.
You don’t like it very much do you?
Regards,
Jude
February 12th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
My comment has nothing to do with free speech, which I am all in favor of for everyone. My comment is meant to express revulsion at the methods of the right which uses organized mob tactics to deny the right to speak to those who say anything they don’t like. Not only does this mob(which enforces strict message disipline within its cadres) hound, shout down and smear, but it also seeks to punish.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
“You are playing €œMr Ethics€ when ethics have been trampled upon.”
How so? Because a journalist was asked to defend his words, and was either unwilling or unable to do so?
“You are all too willing to allow freedom of the press to suffer and die under the advertisers€™ threat.”
Eason Jordan’s “freedom of the press” has *NOT* been infringed upon. Instead, he will simply move his agenda to a different employer. I’m sure he would be welcomed to “The American Street” in a heartbeat. In the interim, he will sleep in a comfortable home secure in the knowledge that he faces no penalty nor prosecution for what he did. In short, his freedom to publish continues on.
“You have learned how to play the system.”
That’s generally a good way of approaching whatever system one comes in contact with.
“Freedom of the press, in the end, goes only as far, in its limits, as the dollar will take you.”
Those that are good at what they do generally find that the dollars will appear once talent is recognized. In the interim, one does what one must.
“For those who want the truth, they can kiss it goodbye when people who share your view began to believe you are on freedom€™s side here.”
My “side here” is that freedom of speech is not identical to freedom from consequence. One must be willing to support one’s words.
“Freedom€™s holy light is dimmed by your method of working the system, then you dare to call it ethical.”
Again, nice hyperbole. Meanwhile back in reality, we’re all able to sit here and criticize (or support) the powers that be with impunity–nobody’s “freedom” has been lost here. Lighten up folks–this is no social crisis, this is just the free market at work.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
As an American, I ask no one to pay my ideological bills.
That would make only me a whore for something that looks like freedom, Crusader, but is only a cheap disguise.
Who’s your Daddy?
Mine is hope for truth and freedom to express it when I think I see it.
CNN’s Daddy is whoever has the deep pockets.
FOX News is IN the pockets.
It’s why your acivism succeeded so very quickly.
When it all falls out, I’d like to see a reformed media which would be less resistant to your right-wing lynching.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Jude- “Freedom€™s holy light is dimmed by your method of working the system, then you dare to call it ethical.€
Crusader- Again, nice hyperbole
Thanks, I think it’s a realistic and required framing of the issue.
You will come to fear it as it catches on.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Eason Jordan€™s €œfreedom of the press€ has *NOT* been infringed upon
AS I stated at the beginning of my essay, Eason Jordan’s resignation is not the issue.
By the outcome of this latest lynching, the totality of 1st amendement freedom, along with American trust in openness, frankness, and truth from members of the press, has been damaged. Americans can clearly see the press being cowed, intimidated, and made to fear financial recrimination and reputation-smearing.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Two Crusader statements:
So, which is it, Crusader? Can we write something foolish without penalty or will there be “a price to pay?” Or does it depend on the mood of the blogstorm troopers that day?
February 12th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
“As an American, I ask no one to pay my ideological bills. That would make only me a whore for something that looks like freedom, Crusader, but is only a cheap disguise.”
Jude, you’re smarter than that. You strike me as the type who’s contemplated their future–surely you are aware that when a “big media” outlet of one kind or another comes calling for you one day (and it will–you have talent, though your appetite for hyperbole is more voracious than it need be), that you will *NOT* be given free reign to just rattle off anything you wish to. Instead, you will be measured for your “fit” into whatever media org that considers hiring you, and should you begin to deviate wildly from what they first liked about you, you will find your role with that outfit to shrink. That’s life–there’s nothing “unfair” about an employer realizing that one is no longer providing the *role* that they were hired to fill.
“Who€™s your Daddy?”
He’s a wonderful man who worked almost 35 years for the same company, who never splurged on himself so that his kids could have a decent homelife with a stay-at-home mom, and who has a good sense of humor. You’d like him I’m sure.
“Mine is hope for truth and freedom to express it when I think I see it.”
That’s wonderful–thank God you’re an American, where you will always have the right to express yourself. However, nobody will ever be obligated to *pay you* for what you express–instead, you will have to negotiate the terms of that on a case by case basis.
“CNN€™s Daddy is whoever has the deep pockets.
FOX News is IN the pockets.”
There’s no such thing as a not-for-profit billion-dollar news conglomerate. Anything that reaches that level of *scale* must necessarily keep an eye on the purse.
“When it all falls out, I€™d like to see a reformed media which would be less resistant to your right-wing lynching.”
I believe in the free market.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
“Meanwhile, you€™ll sleep well in a comfortable home tonight, knowing full and well that *nobody* is giving you a second thought€“that you can return here tommorrow and write something equally foolish without penalty, much less a death sentence.”
You’d best HOPE no one gives me a second thought, Crusader.
*wink*
Because I’m talking a world of common sense and you’re summoning the fear that surrounds the very mention of death penalties for speaking your mind in America.
Let’s keep it real.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
“So, which is it, Crusader? Can we write something foolish without penalty or will there be €œa price to pay?€ Or does it depend on the mood of the blogstorm troopers that day?”
You may write anything foolish you wish, and rest comfortably knowing that neither you nor your family will be dragged off to a gulag for doing so. However, if those that write your paycheck feel that what you’ve written doesn’t align with either their standards or their agenda, you may well be asked to express your freedom of the press for a different employer. That’s America, and its worked pretty well for over 200 years.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
When you think the free market is perfect, Crusader, then it becomes your religion and not your reality.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
“Good question, Tex.
Any ideas?
Quoting Gandhi, each of us has to BE the change we want to see.”
First thing we have to do is care, I suppose. I went back and read your kos diary, after you pointed it out, and the reactions of some there… and I think what some fail to understand is the “ask not for whom the bell tolls” part of the equation. Jordan and Churchill are only the latest targets, but they won’t be the last.
The point is not defending what they said, but defending their right to say it, although CNN did make even that difficult by basically not weighing in on the issue, due to whatever reason.. hubris, being cowardly or whatever.
We have the blog voices; we also have the writing letters to the editor and op/eds tools, pointing out what is really at issue… not that some obscure professor said some silly thing, but the self righteous hordes out to punish him for saying it. Same with the Jordan thing, and whatever the next thing to come up is… we have to be vocal, proactive, willing to stand up each other and for basic principles, even if we don’t especially like the people/organizations themselves.
One way to counter the right wing noise machine is to make an even bigger noise, and challenge people of all political stripes to consider that bell that is loudly tolling away, on this and other issues.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
You get an A for effort, Crusader, but that isn’t what you said here:On the other hand, for those who traffic in rumor and innuendo (Rather, Jordon, C-BS, CNN), there will be a price to pay.
And you know it. You’re threatening us with the “new media” right-wing mob. That’s who will exact the price. That’s who will stomp, pound, and smear whoever employs the target until they fire them to get you off their back. That isn’t the “free market.” That’s using threatening mob tactics.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
No Tex. “Freedom of the press” was never meant to imply that one had guaranteed employment for life. And the only “mob” that had anything to do with Eason Jordan was a “mob” of people who wrote letters and emails–those folks have “freedom of speech”, and I’m sure you would never advocate limiting it.
February 12th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
….. a €œmob€ of people who wrote letters and emails…
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. How did those people get the idea to write those letters and emails? They did it because they’re part of your machine. It’s very well coordinated.
Spot a target and sic the mob on them. I’ve seen the websites with little form letters in them and everything. We know how it happens.
It’s very sly of you to imply that I’m advocating limiting free speech when I point out your punishing mob tactics. You whip the mob up into a feeding frenzy and then call it “free speech” when the obedient, message-disciplined cadres swarm the victim as if you had nothing to do with it.
February 12th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Tex, you’re imagining a far larger level of conspiracy than what I’ve encountered. Out of respect for “The American Street”, I won’t name the dozen or so blogs I visit on a regular basis, but I can tell you that ZERO of them contained “little form letters” that I noticed. (Disclaimer: Some of those sites have discussions that get upward of 700 replies–I can’t tell you with a straight face that I read each and every single reply.)
The point is that the left doesn’t hold a monopoly on “outrage”–we on the right are perfectly capable of sending emails and letters without somebody or something “coordinating it” for us.
February 12th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
I love it. The old “conspiracy” card. Is there no depth to which you won’t sink? Are you going to diagnose me as mentally ill next?
You’re clearly going to continue denying the right-wing “new media” mob we all saw so spectacularly in action lynching Jordan, so I see no point in discussing it with you any further.
February 12th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Jude, my point is that the old media are now subject to the same critical attention as every other player, which they used to be exempt from. The only reason that they were exempt is because they controlled where that critical attention was focused.
Now that new media are looking in their direction, they’re freaking out, but mostly because this never happened before and they’re not used to it. But they will get used to it eventually.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can say whatever you want without consequences. It never did. You’re mourning a fiction.
I agree that the press now has less freedom than it did before. This is because they are now accountable as never before. New voices are are speaking and they don’t grant the old media any benefit of the doubt (as old media have long granted each other). They question everything about the old media. This is the conversation that CNN doesn’t want to have.
February 12th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Steve Lovelady, Columbia Journalism Review’s CJR Daily, has written to Jay Rosen:
Steve Lovelady emails:
“The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail. (Where is Jimmy Stewart when we need him ?) This convinces me more than ever that Eason Jordan is guilty of one thing, and one thing only — caring for the reporters he sent into battle, and haunted by the fact that not all of them came back. Like Gulliver, he was consumed by Lilliputians.”
Ummm..Steve…here’s your Jimmy Stewart. BUT- Is anyone listening? *waving*
– Jude
February 12th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
” I agree that the press now has less freedom than it did before.”
Brian, you could have left off the trimmings. This is really all you need to say to cause us to see that the weight which our Founding Fathers placed on the value of freedom takes a shot straight to the gut with the downing of Eason via right blog-trial.
February 12th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
“Brian, you could have left off the trimmings. This is really all you need to say to cause us to see that the weight which our Founding Fathers placed on the value of freedom takes a shot straight to the gut with the downing of Eason via right blog-trial.”
I’m sorry, but there is no other valid response to such an assertion other than RUBBISH. Please cite chapter and verse where our founding fathers intended “freedom of the press” to mean “guaranteed lifetime employment”?
February 12th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Eason Jordan affair: when bloggers appear as the sons of Senator McCarthy
Sad conclusion in the Eason Jordan affair, sad day for the freedom of expression in America and sad day again for the future of blogging: the defense of the US army honor seemed more important to some bloggers that the defense of reporters’ work! Nevertheless, there is one advantage in this story: masks are fallen! Within the honest community of bloggers, some of them claimed to be the sons of the First Amendment, they just were the sons of Senator McCarthy.
February 12th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
I think the answers are simple to fight repressionists. We simply resist, refuse to back down, and persist. It is inevitable that the repressionists will lose again, just as they did when McCarthy held the stage.
Fear not what they can do to you. Never fail to see the power that is liberty has no choice but to prevail. And then fight like hell.
We must overcome, and we will.
February 12th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Crusader,
I’ll leave you to study the subtle nuances of the freedom of speech and expression.
I know one thing.
The guy with the bigger megaphone always wins.
Jordan lost his because a bunch of Senator McCarthy Jrs set off on a witch hunt.
You are one of those little McCarthys and I’ll be dim-jiggered if I’m going to waste my breath debating the US Constitution with you here on this discussion.
February 12th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
“I know one thing.
The guy with the bigger megaphone always wins.”
Evidencing that you still haven’t figured out what this is *really* all about–nobody had a bigger “megaphone” than CBS/Rather. They lost because they were wrong–period.
“You are one of those little McCarthys and I€™ll be dim-jiggered if I€™m going to waste my breath debating the US Constitution with you here on this discussion.”
That was beneath you, but apparently *making up* intent of the founders with regard to the US Constitution isn’t. Whether you wish to admit it or not, Eason Jordan will resurface, and freedom of the press will continue as it has for more than 200 years.
February 12th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Crusader,
I do not find that my statement of intent not to allow this conversation with you to run astray to have been “underhanded” in any way. You’re far too sensitive.
The only relation between the CBS case and Eason Jordan is that the McCarthy Jrs were at play in both instances.
That is the reason I’ve brought up the issue from the start.
February 12th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
“The only relation between the CBS case and Eason Jordan is that the McCarthy Jrs were at play in both instances.”
Wait a second, are you seriously alleging that there is ANY doubt with regard to whether the Rather memos were fake? If you concede that they are fake, then how does McCarthy even enter the discussion of that instance?
February 12th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
A rehashing of the Rather incident is not up for my discussion with you here, other than to the extent that I referred to the lynching-mentality that pervades the right blogs. Rather’s head was warm on your stake, and you thought you’d take it a step further.
You are the only one who has raised Rather, by the way. Twice now.
Let’s not go too far off-topic.
February 12th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
This is really all you need to say to cause us to see that the weight which our Founding Fathers placed on the value of freedom takes a shot straight to the gut with the downing of Eason via right blog-trial.
The Founding Fathers never envisioned a freedom for anyone to say anything they wanted without consequences, without being challenged, without being questioned about their facts or motives. Absolute monarchs have this freedom- not people in an open society. The old media are now on the same level as the rest of us. They’re not above anybody else.
February 12th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
talking dog said:
Until we stand up and be counted with boycotts and protests and other indicia that the cost of ignoring our side is not zero, then we will be ignored, and only the side willing to employ thuggery (which might I add, is the side for whom truth is the enemy) will be taken seriously.
A Gandhi or a Dr. King or a Mandela right now would be nice€ but it may just come down to some lesser schmo who has just had it, and starts organizing the only attention that our major media will pay attention to (besides its perceived obligation to fellate the White House): its bottom line.
Our media (and its advertisers) respect only power and money. We have both, if we€™re willing to do something about it€
Ideas well worth repeating.
And remember– MLK Jr., Mandela, and Gandhi were each born a regular schmo.
;)
February 12th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
“then how does McCarthy even enter the discussion of that instance? ”
By ignoring the evidence of the content of the memos. Ignoring facts to support a bias is classic McCarthy.
February 13th, 2005 at 1:10 am
Oh, gee, our conspiracy has been exposed! You know that we all take orders from the Hidden Master of News Manipulation, whipping up on-line lynch mobs to go after media figures. And you’ve even figured out our sinister, unscrupulous method of attack: asking for an examination of the evidence.
As a result, “By the outcome of this latest lynching, the totality of 1st amendement freedom, along with American trust in openness, frankness, and truth from members of the press, has been damaged.”
You got it in one! We ask for frank discussion and a view of a videotape, so that the issue can be settled, and it doesn’t happen. That does indeed damage the “trust in openness, frankness, and truth from members of the press.” Even more unfairly, the only way the press could have been avoided our tarnish would have been to demonstrate “openness, frankness, and truth.” Whether they cover up or come clean, they damn themselves.
So tell me, lefties, watcha gonna do? Next time, jump right in at the beginning, and demand that no one ask to see the tape, get statements from witnesses, or doubt the word of the accused? That’ll be fun for us to watch.
To quote our patron saint, Margaret Hamilton:
“HAH, HAH HAH HEH HAH HAH HAH!”
Choke on it, lefty swine. We get Lott, Rather and Jordan, you get Jeff Gannon. *snicker*
“HAH, HAH HAH HEH HAH HAH HAH!”
THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED — AND WILL BE!
February 13th, 2005 at 8:16 am
Is the rise of crusading bloggers a healthy development, as many media analysts maintain, or the creation of a new Wild West with no rules or responsibilities? Hours after Jordan stepped down, Steve Lovelady of Columbia Journalism Review e-mailed his verdict to New York University professor and blogger Jay Rosen: “The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail.”
- Howard Kurtz
February 13th, 2005 at 8:58 am
Dear Heavens, Mr St Onge. You presented such an immature rant. It reeked of mockery. This only serves to make the reasons for your activism look pointed and obvious.
I haven’t used “sinister” or “unscrupulous” in discussing the issue. That’s nothing more than melodrama on speed.
I certainly haven’t framed the issue around any form of concealment. Why would I have to? Everything’s been done by right-wing activists in the open. That’s my very point. It’s obvious the bloggers wanted to damage the reputation of the “old media” with this most recent lynching.
What type of “frank” discussion would have come from a videotape? You know it will only serve the Right Wing to find a success for which they are STILL salivating. Jordan is not enough. His early resignation did not do the damage to CNN they’d hoped for.
This Eason Jordan story is, and always will be, with or without the tape, a he-said/she-said story based upon the opinions of the players in the room (in this case, the heaviest “players” being Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, whose comments helped to destroy a good man’s career with CNN–they ought to sit back and think about how they were “played” by the Right, in this instance).
Frankly and openly, I reiterate that RIGHT WING BLOGGERS WANTED EASON’S HEAD.
Eason Jordan relinquished his position at CNN to keep the network from scandal over PURE CONJECTURE.
In America, we should be ashamed this has happened.
That’s not “journalism”. It’s mob thuggery.
There is no justice over what happened to this 23-year news veteran. This was clearly not a “firing offense”.
In the case of Gannon, liberal bloggers did the job that good journalists SHOULD do…real investigation. They dug up enough dirt on the operative-poser to bring him to the light of day.
Using a fellow blogger’s words here,
[Liberal bloggers found] the link to a Republican organization, to using his email address to uncover his real name, to finding his AOL page, to discovering the gay “escort” pages. The bloggers have acted as real journalists, just as Woodstein did back in the day. What have most — not all, the Boston Globe being a particular exception — of the mainstream press done? Ignore it or, when it became too big to ignore, criticize [liberal] bloggers!
THERE ARE DOUBLE STANDARDS AT WORK HERE. WE MUST ASK OURSELVES WHY.
February 13th, 2005 at 11:07 am
Jude,
This Eason Jordan story is, and always will be, with or without the tape, a he-said/she-said story based upon the opinions of the players in the room…
How can it be “a he-said/she-said story” if the tape is released? If you and I and everyone else could view the tape, hear Jordan’s remarks in context, that certainly takes it out of the realm of “a he-said/she-said story”.
I followed this story closely and that’s what the bulk of the bloggers wanted the tape. Any calls for Jordan’s resignation/firing I saw were always qualified by “IF the tape proves he said what he is accused of saying and IF he can not back it up”.
Your mourning over the death of freedom of expression are a bit premature. This is about accountablility - pure and simple.
This one’s over the top though:
Until mainstream media admits they are the lap dogs of the White House and right-wing, they will always lose.
Surely you don’t want to defend that statement. The liberal bias of the MSM was never more on display than in this past election. Hell even key MSM players admited it! I’d be very curious to hear some examples you believe demonstrate a right wing bias in the MSM.
February 13th, 2005 at 11:17 am
“By ignoring the evidence of the content of the memos.”
Wrong answer. One can’t even ENTER a memo into a proceding to discuss its “content” without *FIRST* establishing its authenticity. “Content” is not something that can even be considered if its *source* is found to be fraudulent. I’m certain you were taught that in Journalism 101.
February 13th, 2005 at 11:20 am
“There is no justice over what happened to this 23-year news veteran. This was clearly not a €œfiring offense€.”
Says you.
Further, if that is your position, then your outrage should be directed at CNN, or at Eason Jordan for taking the easy way out rather than defending his actions.
February 13th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Steve,
My warning (not “mourning”) over the loss of freedom is proactive, not “premature”. There’s a world of difference.
Mourning prematurely shows weakness. I am coming from a standpoint of knowlege and strength.
Eason has gone and quit on you people. What purpose will the tape serve at this time? I think he pre-empted your cause as you thought you were closing in on CNN. Poor babes.
So- let’s say the tape is released now and we all give a listen - or look at a transcript.
Then what?
With Eason Jordan already gone, there’s really not much of a story anymore.
And since you asked, I will repeat what I’ve already said. Tape or no tape..transcript or no transcript, this will never have proven to be a “GOTCHA” story. It will have been a case for public opinion on what should become of Eason Jordan and CNN (for keeping him on the payroll).
The Gannon story was a bona fide “GOTCHA”, and it took investigation to out the White House press corps ‘plant’.
If Eason Jordan had denied something that was said in that panel discussion, I could understand your point, but that isn’t the case and you know it. (I assume you know it). A tape may be released, but it won’t have the same impact with Eason Jordan already gone.
By the way, I have never been a proponent of the tape being kept secret. Let’s make that fact loud and clear.
Surely you don€™t want to defend that statement.
Why would I be afraid to defend it? I’m not afraid at all. You can find over two years worth of exposing right wing media lies at my personal blog.
Accountability is what Eason Jordan showed you by quitting, even though this was not a “firing offense”. It was a right wing lynch mob. And you’re still jibber jabbering about accountability? How about being accountable for what you folks have done to Eason Jordan’s career? He didn’t do it on his own, other than utter clumsy words. He was squeezed out by a venemous mob. If you’re going to play at a game where you destroy men’s careers with something that looks just like McCarthyism, be accountable, Steve. Be accountable yourself.
February 13th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
“if that is your position, then your outrage should be directed at CNN, or at Eason Jordan for taking the easy way out rather than defending his actions.”
Eason Jordan was not asking CNN to defend his actions. Why on earth should I?
If you look at one of the first sentences of my essay that began this discussion, you’ll see Eason’s quitting was never the point.
“While not particularly emotional one way or the other about Jordan€™s actual decision, I will say that this clearly was a case of blog-thuggery and unfair tarnishing”
You folks don’t seem to be very happy about Eason leaving so soon.
What do you want–blood?
February 13th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
“How about being accountable for what you folks have done to Eason Jordan€™s career?”
*laughs* Nice try, but we didn’t force Eason Jordan to attend that conference, nor did we tell him what to say. When he chose to make a scandalous charge in the presence of US congressmen, that was Eason’s doing–not ours. Further, this story continues to be spun as a “resignation”, and I’m quite certain nobody on the right forced him to do that–he could have stood upon principle and fought the good fight. He didn’t, and so be it. Eason Jordan will resurface and the world moves on.
February 13th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Eason has gone and quit on you people. What purpose will the tape serve at this time? I think he pre-empted your cause as you thought you were closing in on CNN.
But why Jude? Why resign? If the tape did not show him making the remarks, why did he not call for its release? Why resign? We are left to speculate. Here is mine:
-His remarks are even worse than reported.
-Others in the audience who agreed with him and encouraged him come off looking really bad. Who are these people and what influence might they have?
-CNN wanted to ease him out the door anyway and used this as a convenient excuse.
So- let€™s say the tape is released now and we all give a listen - or look at a transcript.
Then what?
Same as in the beginning. Either he backs up his accusations with facts, or he retracts the statements and makes a meaningful apology to our troops.
The Gannon story was a bona fide €œGOTCHA€, and it took investigation to out the White House press corps €˜plant€™.
First of all, not even close. Now that may qualify as a lynch mob. Kos/atrios and company going after a man and smearing him both professionally and personally because he asks the prez a softball question€. Really no comparison. Every administration tries to €˜stack the deck€™ with the press corps. Much todo about nothing.
Secondly, you seem to be applauding/encouraging exactly the mob mentality you have spent so many words decrying.
Why would I be afraid to defend it? I€™m not afraid at all. You can find over two years worth of exposing right wing media lies at my personal blog.
I€™m not going to read through your entire blog archives at this point. Suffice it to say that any 1 example you have of RW MSM bias, I could find 20 of LW bias. As I said, even MSM bigs have admitted it (MSM good for 15 points for Kerry, NYT ombudsman admitting NYT has liberal bias, etc.) I€™m not talking FOX or talk radio here, those are alternates to MSM. I€™m talking the alphabet networks, NYT, LAT, etc. Please point out to me an example or two of RW bias.
He didn€™t do it on his own, other than utter clumsy words.
As I pointed you to you last week €“ this was not a simple case of misspeaking. The man has a history of making these unsubstantiated remarks to foreign (and generally anti-American) audiences.
Finally, let me reiterate again. It was D, big D legislatures that pushed this issue and refused to let it die. Good for them. Sorry, but the VRWC only had an assist on this one.
February 13th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
“The National Review wishes to delegitimize anyone in the mainstream media who will not toe the White House line like good soldiers.”
No, they simply pointed out that YOU were engaged in depicting anyone who wanted the tape released as a right wing zealot and setting up lovley little strawmen that we wanted him silenced or worse.
“Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth. So why are we so afraid?”
I absolutley agree. And if Jordan was TELLING THE TRUTH and had proof, he should have and WOULD HAVE aired it. HE is the one who was afraid of the Davos tape coming out. HE was the one who was afraid of being held accountable for his statements. HE was the one afraid of the consequences if the tape got out one way or the other. Thus HE resigned.
If he HAD the truth, he should NOT have feared and instead should have aired it 24/7 on CNN if he wanted.
“in lock-step league with those in the €œnew media€ who are trying to destroy the long-accepted scope and meaning of a journalist€™s freedom of speech.”
Uh, freedom of speech has CONSEQUENCES. If Jordan wants to without a shred of proof accuse US forces of murder & torture on at least TWO occasions (Davos & Portugal), that he has the right to do. And OUR freedom of speech means we have the right to demand he be held accountable for his words.
Or do you only believe journalists have the right to free speech?
February 13th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
I didn’t see anyone else mention this…. but why is this guy saying these things (obviously they are true and equally obvioulsy they can never be said by a journalist who likes to keep getting paid). It seems that this guy thought that his comments were being made outside of the scope of the public’s eye. He got caught telling the truth and therefore he resigned. He figured that among the elite leaders at Davos he could speak the truth - because they don’t believe their own bullshit propaganda - that’s just for us plebs. Unfortunately these days its getting easier for these behind the curtains remarks to get out.
Another thing I want to reply to is a statement asking something like “Do we cheat too?”
If you are playing chess or some other game with rules, and the opponent starts to cheat, your choices are not,”keep playing by the rules or cheat” and you’d be foolish to do either one. Your most obvious course of action is to denounce your opponent as a cheater and claim you won because he was disqualified from competition. When Bush lies, we don’t have to either pretend it’s the truth or lie ourselves. We say a president who lies to the public and congress is a traitor to America and should be impeached and then arrested. In the case of media bias the left shouldn’t carry on as if there was a level playing ground, or try to mimic the right. They should simply refuse to play to the biased rules. If a Democrat gets invited to a TV program they should demand that in the calculation of ‘balance’ the interviewer counts as a Republican voice.
February 13th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
PREMEDITATED PROFESIONAL MURDER
ONE TARGET AT A TIME
*some comments from Scrappleface, which specializes in satire. I figured it would be the best place to catch right wingnuts off their guard.
Man, I surely was right.
Posted by: bothenook at February 13, 2005 12:09 AM *Smile for the camera, bothenook!
Posted by: Miss Virginia at February 12, 2005 12:09 PM
Posted by: Angus the Scot at February 11, 2005 08:30 PM
Posted by: Maggie at February 11, 2005 08:38 PM
Posted by: kajun at February 11, 2005 08:44 PM
Posted by: Doc at February 11, 2005 11:19 PM
at February 12, 2005 12:02 AM
Posted by: Hot’lanta Jerry at February 12, 2005 12:20 AM
Posted by: kajun at February 12, 2005 12:44 AM
February 13th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
There was never a fair hearing anywhere in the blogworld or in the mainstream media over this case. There was only conjecture and a big agenda, which was to round up enough right-wing activists in the monkey-machine to petition CNN in the hopes they€™d fire a man who was branded as a devil for daring to speak out for journalists€™ protection in a conference most believed was, for the most part, a private panel discussion.
Well, that and Barney Frank, who was on the panel. Barney was the first to start Jordan backpeddling. Chris Dodd piled on too, but Barney did more than anyone else in calling him on the carpet.
Is anyone even going to consider why that is, or is it just easier to say “Right wing fascists!” and leave it at that?
Because that makes Barney Frank a tool for the right wing noise machine. He’s probably not going to like that.
February 14th, 2005 at 9:18 am
backpedaling: Code word designed to negate clarification.
In other words: “Jordan Eason is liar and we will not believe him - no matter what. Ignore all his follow-up clarifications.”
As much as you’d like to forget it, Jordan’s own words are out there. I can’t help that you choose to put ideological blinders on and refuse to consider them.
Here is Eason Jordan:
“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.”
Barney Frank: I will not fault Frank for giving our troops every benefit of doubt. It’s his duty to do so. He gave his assessment of Jordan’s statement and Frank’s words played directly into the mob’s storyline. I hope Frank will realize the part he played in this, whether witting or not.
February 14th, 2005 at 10:52 am
I’m sorry, maybe I missed th McCarthy’ism, or the evil of the Right-wing blogs.
Eason Jordan was (to some extent) accused of Slander of our Armed Forces. True?
These accusations came from multiple sources, on both sides of the political spectrum. True?
He failed to provide (or even ask to be provided) the Transscript or Video of the event. True?
He “resigned” rather than do the previous (which he was repeatedly asked to do by these right-wing blogs). True?
So, if you were accused of slander, believed yourself to be innocent, and there were a video of the event, you would also keep quiet and never ask it to be shown, or a transcript given?
Most of the RW blogosphere expected one of two things…
1) That a transcript or video would be presented, and this would allow for a continuation of what he did/didn’t say and what he did/didn’t mean. Without this evidence, we can’t really be sure what exactly was stated.
2) They’d (CNN and Jordan would) try to hide it until it went away.
Since #1 seemed the only way to get at the truth, it seems #1 would have been preferrable. Since the matter was a matter of slandering US Troops, the Right wing Blogs take that as a matter of some importance.
Apparantly trying to apply pressure to get this (Video/Transcript) caused a side effect (Jordan’s resignation).
This makes us suspicious that the release of the Video/Transscript would have been more damaging (either for CNN or for Eason Jordan) than his resignation. Otherwise, why would he resign (or be pressured into resigning)?
Of course at this point we still have no proof, and the accused have still refused to ask for proof to be released. If the defendant in a case provides no evidence, and no defense, how are we supposed to assume them to still be innocent?
February 14th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
Robert, that’s all well and good. But the important thing is that Jeff Gannon may or may not be involved in male prostitution.
Priorities, my good man.
February 15th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
Now Pablo, be fair.
Gannon was a hack, for (at best) a pseudo-news organization owned & paid for by conservatives. An organization that couldn’t get their reporters real White House passes because their “news credentials” frankly weren’t up to snuff.
There is no way he should have gotten loophole “day passes” for two years.
Now does a nobody reporter from a pissant nothing news station asking softball questions of the president make a huge difference? Not really. I haven’t seen anything that has been shown that makes this a really big new item, but maybe something will surface.
It certainly was of some significance (showing that the WH doesn’t exactly do the credential checking most would expect, and that their “miss” was on their side of the political fence as it were). Not huge to me, but I can see where others would differ.
However it seems obvious that Gannon was:
A) A fraud.
B) On the take (from some conservative organization, and hence whatthehellever News).
C) Not useful to have “reporting” at the White House.
Of course I can’t see how his sex life could affect any of the above. I guess I don’t get that part of it.
Finally, a blog has every right to spend their time, money and effort covering (or not covering) whatever he/she/they choose to. Its their time money and effort. If I’m bored I can certainly go elsewhere.