My response to some Easongate questions

Hugh Hewit emailed me some questions on Easongate. My answers:

Q:First, was Rony's account "accurate" in the sense that it would have been a responsible filing from any journalist working for, say, a big paper?

A: A news report by a newspaper or news agency would have included verbatim quotes, ideally double-checked from a digital or tape recording made by the journalist.  A TV or radio report would have included the actual "soundbite." Rony's account is detailed, and was clearly written soon after the panel discussion ended. As I've said before, his account of what transpired  is consistent with my recollection of the event. However, since nobody has verbatim quotes, all we have are Jordan's clarifications after-the-fact, in which he admits to have mis-spoken. But we're all relying on memory for what he originally said, and journalists learn the hard way very early in their careers not to rely on memory alone when reporting anything controversial. You get yourself in trouble very fast if you do that.

There were journalists in the room, but it appears that nobody had been planning to do a story on this panel (titled "Can Democracy survive the Media?") and thus nobody recorded it independently. This is pretty normal at Davos. Many but not all panels are off-the-record for quotes (without participant permission) but can be summarized on record. It's not always obvious to everybody what the rules are for which panel. Most of the panel discussions are pretty vague and philosophical anyway, and do not produce hard "news." Journalists get more of their news from press conferences and interviews given on the sidelines of the meeting by many of the corporate and government participants. So reporters with full access to the panels (and only a few are even granted panel audience access) mainly just listen in on the panels and then follow up with the speakers for interviews and quotes afterwards if anything interesting gets said. I'm sure people followed up with Eason afterwards, but since he was already backtracking and nobody had the original quotes, no news editor would have agreed to run a story based on what people recalled him saying but couldn't prove.

So to answer your question: yes, Rony's initial blog post was "accurate" in the sense that several of us in the room have corroborated his account. He has a great memory for detail. But would any news editor have relied on his or anybody else's memory for a news story? No.

Q: Did Mr. Jordan offer the idea that American military forces had "targeted" journalists before Representative Frank entered the conversation?

A: My recollection is that he did. However I have been trained not to trust my memory unless I have really detailed notes. And I do not have detailed notes. Why was I not taking detailed notes? Several reasons - mainly, while I expected this panel to be interesting and thought-provoking, by no means did I expect anything controversial or newsworthy to come out of it.  Jordan was on a panel about media last year in which he had a very entertaining argument with the head of Al Jazeera, got chewed out by a blogger and told off by the publisher of a homeless newspaper. It was great fun but certainly not newsworthy. So I came expecting to be entertained, mainly.

Q: Rony believes that David Gergen was distressed by Mr. Jordan's remarks.  Do you agree with that characterization?

A: Yes I agree with that characterization.

Q: Do you recall Mr. Jordan receiving praise from members of the audience for his candor, and if so, were those audience members American?  European? Arab?

A: There were definitely some people in the audience who liked what he said, and others who didn't. I don't remember specifically. I left the room immediately as soon as the panel was over because I had to prepare for a panel I was going to be on. So I didn't see who approached him afterwards.

Q: Was Mr. Jordan carried away by his passion for protecting journalists in the field?

A: I've known Eason Jordan since I joined CNN in China in the early 90's. Like all human beings he has strengths and weaknesses. But one thing has always been clear: he cares passionately about the well-being of his people in the field. Whenever something happens to a CNN employee - staff or freelance - it clearly weighs very heavily upon him. And yes, I think he gets emotional about it.  The best Eason story I ever heard was from camerawoman Margaret Moth who had the bottom half of her face blown off in Sarajevo. She almost died. Eason dropped everything, sat with her in the hospital, holding her hand, helping drain the blood and mucous, doing everything he could to encourage her to live. I think his concern for his people transcends politics. Clearly this gets him into trouble.

Q: Is the blogopshere being "fair" to Mr. Jordan?  Ought he to give an interview to one or more bloggers who are pursuing this story?

A: We can't deny that there is a lot of herd and mob behavior in the blogosphere. Having been attacked in the past by real-life mobs as well as by blog-mobs, I feel pretty confident in saying this (and I say this as someone who is proud to be a blogger).  I think there are definitely some mob dynamics going on with this story. That said, there are also many bloggers who are trying to get to the bottom of this in a fair and rational manner. It would make sense for Jordan to speak to those bloggers.

Jordan said something in a public on-the-record forum that he clearly regretted saying.  There are really two questions here: First, what did he really say?  That's going to get cleared up soon enough. The second more interesting question is: what does he really believe? Clearly he is frustrated and angry at the way in which the U.S. military deals with (or fails to protect) non-embedded journalists in Iraq. Why?  Does his anger and frustration have any justification?  Is the source of his problem the behavior of individual soldiers on the ground who happen to hate MSM because they think it's anti-military? Or is the source of his problem more systemic and part of a policy - spoken or unspoken - coming from the top?

At the Davos panel Jordan talked about one U.S. soldier manning a checkpoint to get into the "green zone" in Baghdad. The line was about an hour long, and is, apparently, a favorite target of suicide bombers and other attacks. A journalist comes to the front of the line whose reports the soldier doesn't like. The soldier sends the journalist back to the end of the line. This is not exactly "deliberately targeting" journalists, but it does show the extent of ill-will and hostility that exists between some soldiers and some journalists - an ill-will which can sometimes have lethal results, in some people's opinion.  I can see why this situation might keep news execs up at night worrying about their people, and why it might also lead to a feeling amongst non-embedded journalists in Iraq that some servicepeople dislike them and are "out to get them," whether or not that's really the case. I can also see how that feeling might color journalists' reporting about the U.S. military in Iraq. The journalists are only human and they're working in a dangerous environment. It's not a great situation, and I think it warrants a lot of further investigation and discussion - on all sides of the political spectrum. I've never set foot in Iraq and have no authority to describe the situation on the ground there. I'd like to hear from a lot more people who have spent time in Iraq as un-embedded journalists and as soldiers.

Comments

[Chris Josephson]

Thanks for taking the time to help educate the non-journalists about why (or not) a story may be reported.

[Brian]

I find it interesting that Jordan appears to be concerned about his journalists (see his behavior covering for Saddam in the 1990s), and that this transcends his dedication to having a credible news organization. I'm assuming that Jordan did not ask the soldier in Baghdad his reasoning for sending the journalist to the back of the line...could it be that the journo did not have the appropriate documentation? I don't know, but I don't know of too many soldiers on guard duty that are that picky. You either have the creds or you don't.

I got an interesting insight into journalists when a reporter from a major wire service recently back form Iraq stated quite clearly to a military audience that she was "not on our side" - she emphasized that multiple times. So who's side are they on? The truth? The news? Their own? If the journos are aiding and abetting murder (see AP in Mosul), then does that make them enemy combatants? Remember, the United States is at war - this is not ambulance chasing local news. Journalists are getting bounced out of Iraq fairly often for not abiding by the agreements they signed to gain entry. Is there a mechanism (other than expulsion) to bring greater rigor to the quality of journalists work? There is also growing anti-journalist sentiment downrange for the failure of journalists to report on the good work that is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this is percieved as supporting the insurgents, or at least providing them free press while providing biased coverage to the audience. I can easily find this work being addressed in press briefings and public affairs announcements, but they rarely seem to make it into copy. Did Jordan address this issue?

[k]

Your responses read reasonable -- but the way they are placed in Mr. Hewitt's blog are not

[Oscar]

"the extent of ill-will and hostility that exists between some soldiers and some journalists"

This certainly seems to exist, and from what I have seen is mostly the fault of the journalists. That would not excuse the behaviour of the soldier if it was as reported, which I would doubt without hard evidence.

[Mike H.]

A man who would let his court martial accompany him to the field is an idiot.