Final thoughts on this mess

I have been avoiding comment these last couple of days. I felt I had nothing further of substance to add since Wednesday morning.  The resignation requires one final comment.

I think Eason Jordan resigned because he knew that if the Davos tape came out it would make the situation worse, not better.

I know there are a number of people involved with the World Economic Forum who think the WEF needs to completely re-think its media/blogging and on/off record policies.  It was a great thing that the WEF started a blog this year, inviting conference participants to post their impressions and thoughts. I encouraged them to do this. Unfortunately, the WEF's operating norms are not compatible with the age of the blog. Jordan's demise is the frightening result.

I am amazed that anybody in this day and age still expects a gathering of more than 10 people to remain off the record.

I've been watching the dissussion developing under Jay Rosen's latest post on this. One commentor, who called herself "veteran journo" had some good points:

If he were a "civilian" I could understand the "tempest in a teapot" view but this guy is a journalist who quotes people everyday.

Ditto, for telling stories that CNN hadn't aired. If they hadn't broadcast the story about the Al Jazeera journo forced to eat his shoes, it's because they couldn't get people to talk about it on the record. A news executive can't go passing on those rumours in a semi-public forum. If the standard of proof wasn't good enough to get it on CNN, it 's not good wnough to discuss at a forum in Davos. Maybe at JOrdan's dinner table but not Davos.

Sisyphus asks some good questions on his blog.  At Pressthink he goes further:

Does his resignation improve the relationship between the media and the military? Does it make Jordan a martyr? Does it make those journalists that feel the military is "out to get them" less secure, more estranged, and perhaps more hostile?

The tape, and Eason Jordan, would have allowed a full airing of this issue. Pull the skeleton out, shake out the paranoia, shake hands and go back to work.

Jordan's gone. The idea remains.

Good point. Of course the U.S. military is NOT out to get journalists. Nor is "the media" out to get the military. But have individual soldiers at times exercised bad judgment that's worth looking into? Perhaps so, though we don't know for sure due to lack of information. All we have is some claims by some people. Have some journalists gotten carried away by anti-military biases and agendas? Absolutely. The point is, there are clearly some real tensions and disagreements about what's been taking place on the ground in Iraq - and why. As a member of the audience during the now-infamous panel, one thing was very clear to me: bad feeling between U.S. servicepeople and journalists in Iraq is coloring news coverage.  No matter where you stand on the war or anything else, you have to recognize that nobody is served by letting this bad feeling fester, supported by much rumor and few facts.

I hope that moving forward, people will have the courage to bring discussions about military-press tensions to the fore, not sweep them under the rug.  From here on out, facts about what happens on the ground in Iraq should be the focus.  We need to hear the candid, first-hand accounts of journalists who've been doing the day-to-day work in Iraq.  I've heard enough from their bosses.

Comments

[Larry in Michigan]

We'll never know how many other invideous lies Jordan may have planted planted on CNN. It's good riddance.

[Captain Ed]

Excellent post, Rebecca, and I wholeheartedly agree. I think embedding helped resolve some of these tensions, but at some price to independence. Doing both might be the best way to balance the coverage, and large organizations like CNN and other networks can afford it. They need to start by hiring executives that don't bring pre-existing antagonism to the military like with Eason Jordan and Chris Cramer.

[BLOG of ALLEGIANCE]

You have worked on the INSIDE.To say that the MAINSTREAM media doesn't have it in for the military is absurd.You know better.WE know better! The public has eyes and ears, and they are attached to our brains.The crime is not in the cover-up.The CRIMINALITY is in SLANDERING the virtuous being that is the American fighting man.So when "Mr. jordan" slithers off into the slimeset without so much as a slap on the wrist for his treason speak,know that millions will be outraged at his NOT getting his comeuppance.That is if they ever get all of the facts.Israel knows and thanks to Michelle Malkin,Hugh Hewitt and so many others,hopefully everyone will.The fact that the MSM refuses to report this straight(damn you howie)is clear proof of their colusion against our brave servicemen & women who deserve better,considering we'd ALL be speaking German or wearing a burkha without their,not known by any of us civilians,COURAGEOUS BLOODSHED.
THEY DESERVE BETTER !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nathaniel]

It is funny how the wind blows. A lot of righteous indignation against ONE Eason Jordan but none for a lot of dead journalists (collateral, targeted or otherwise). They shouldn't be D-E-A-D. Are we missing something here?

[p.lukasiak]

I'm curious, Rebecca, whether you will be so sanguine and detached when the right-wing decides to target you.

When us lefties accused you of being a "kitten eating cyborg" we all knew it was a joke. But when they come after you with some ridiculous allegation equivalent to "Eason Jordan hates the US military" the right-wing won't be playing games, and everything that you have ever said or written will be torn apart for evidence of apostasy.

And while those of us on the left decry the witch hunt to which you are being subjected, there will doubtless be "detached" academics like yourself and Jay Rosen willing to play the same role that you played in this tragedy. And when you try to provide a nuanced explanation of your actual position, no one will hear you about the cacophany of the right-wing lynch mob calling for your hide.

You are kidding yourself if you think that there would have been any "full airing of the issues." Absent absolute proof that every word uttered by Eason Jordan was accurate, the witch hunt would have continued, and the substance behind the allegations would be ignored. (Case in point, the "Killian memos" controversy.)

Subsequent stories that confirm the substance of Jordan's words would be ignored by the media attack dogs (one of the primary "problems" with the Killian memos was proportionate spacing, which it was consistently alleged would not have been available to the Texas Air National Guard. Four days after CBS was forced to withdraw its story, the White House finally released 10 pages of additional Bush documents, including one dated February 1971 that was proportionately spaced. This news got so little attention that Thornburgh/Boccardi actually claimed in their report that there was no evidence that TXANG could produce proportionately spaced documents).

And if other reporters later concluded that Jordan was correct in the overall substance of his allegations, those stories would be ignored as well. (see what happened to the various accounts of Bush's National Guard service that appeared in publications like the LA Times and US News and World Reports after the "Killian memos" fiasco.)

This was a witch hunt, and you played a very significant role in it. Don't pretend to yourself that any good might have come out of your participation "if only" the tape had been released.

And when the right-wing attack machine comes after you, I will be there to defend you....but will your "friends" like Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis? If I were you, I wouldn't count on it.

[Mrs. Davis]

You point out that the release of the tape would have probably made things worse. I agree; that's why he's gone and p.lukasiak's wrong. Unfortunately, things have to get worse before they get better. This conflict is just a microcosm of the conflict that is being played out all over society and in our last election. Shifts of power such as this are seldom comfortable for all, especially the losers.

CNN will probably replace Jordan with Jordan Lite, Cramer. When this happens, we will go through the same thing down the road. If CNN really believes the rumor, innuendo and lies it tells, it should prove them. Let the chips fall where they may. But if CNN wants to continue to supply news with an agenda, it should expect to be treated like a soccer ball by those it wantonly attacks.

And Jordan was not fired for Davos alone. There was his acting like a shill for Saddam. And if this is what he said in Davos, what did he say in the comfort and security of his corporate offices? I suspect TimeWarner personnel had seen worse from Jordan, got the Davos tape and concluded they could not afford to have his rants blemish their reputation.

[p.lukasiak]

You point out that the release of the tape would have probably made things worse. I agree; that's why he's gone and p.lukasiak's wrong.

if you read all of the accounts of what Jordan said at Davros, it is abundantly clear that he retracted a statement that was either inaccurate, or ambiguous enough to give people the wrong impression about what he meant.

And that should have been sufficient, because people misspeak all the time, and as long as they retract what they said/implied when challenged, all is forgiven.

The fact that wingnuts like yourself continued to make an issue of whatever Jordan said, rather than accept the fact that he did not intend to say that it was US policy to target journalists, shows that regardless of what was on the tape, it would be used as part of your witch hunt.

Pondscum like yourself are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in pursuing a far-right wing agenda.

(PS Rebecca: if Jarvis can use "Pondscum" to describe Juan Cole without your making an issue of it, I'm sure you'd agree that its acceptable to describe this particular miscreant with that word.)

[Brian O'Connell]

Absent absolute proof that every word uttered by Eason Jordan was accurate, the witch hunt would have continued, and the substance behind the allegations would be ignored.

Absent absolute proof that every word he uttered was accurate, Eason Jodan shouldn't be saying them in an international forum. As with the Killian memos, it's not up to anybody else to prove beyond doubt that they're false (though with the memos that did happen).

Fake but accurate isn't a standard we can accept, despite Dan Rather's go at it. This seems to be the standard some are accepting here. Jordan can't prove the allegations, and he immediately backed off of them. Yet some are sure that they're accurate, so what's the big deal?

This is why Rather, and now Eason, are seen by some as victims of the right-wing attack machine or blog swarms, rather than as fools who got caught making bold statements that they couldn't back up. When speaking "truth to power", fake but accurate will get you burned.

[Tom]

Thanks Rebecca for a wonderful post.

If you look historically, the Press's biggest victory was causing the withdrawal in Viet Nam. J school lectures from professors of that era hold the Viet Nam era up as an example of the strength and power of an active press.

For the military, Viet Nam has been the lode stone around their necks. Perpetually reminded of the failure, every training manual was designed or modified with avoiding a reoccurance of the errors of the period, along with the senior most officers recounting the horror stories of how they were portrayed.

So we have 2 forces, the press and the military, who have split since 1973 on how to cover and manage wartime. The reporters are trained to look for the worst occurances in the field and report them, because they will gain high recognition by their peer group for ferreting out any inconsistancies by the military.

The Military, conversely, are trying to wage a war (which are always messy) in the cleanest way possible, but always looking over their shoulder in case a reporter may see anything done that is either wrong or can be perceived as wrong.

This is a very awkward situation and you are correct, needs to be clarified. And I have no idea how to do it.

Tom

[timmah]

"bad feeling between U.S. servicepeople and journalists in Iraq is coloring news coverage."

Er,could the persistent coloring of the news coverage in Iraq be causing some of the bad feeling? CNN shows a sliver of what happens in Iraq, usually the worst news. Offers no perspective on life pre-Saddam and post. Never mentions the good things the military does, certainly no word about their sacrifices or burdens to keep organized crime from regaining control of a country. Just more dead Americans (there's _always_ a total) and more "insurgents".

Any chance American soldiers might have some bad feelings when they see this?

[Robin Burk]

Dead on, Rebecca. The rise of digital media and near-ubiquitous broadband (at least here in the US) means things have changed in fundamental ways for the news media. I for one am trying to help move the conversation away from the sort of partisan attacks which are well illustrated here and elsewhere. I think we are in great need of a serious dialogue about the roles and responsibility of both the professional journalists and also blogs. Cf. over at PoynterOnline and on Winds of Change.

[LT]

I like my politicians and my MSM to like America. I prefer my media to give me all the world news and then give me some that at least gives the American a fair shot. That includes the soldier.

Tom's post above reflects what most of us see and it's not a pretty picture. The media is riding that soldier's back, looking for something HE did wrong, when that poor man is just trying to fight a war without getting killed.

Unless you are the one riding that soldier's back or consider your political views more important than that soldier, there is something wrong with a lot of MSM. That is the problem really being addressed with Jordon.

[Tom Grey]

The death squad insurgents DO target journalists, like this one who was killed, along with his 3 year old son.
soxblog

CNN, and the Left, is having a big moral problem. How to fight evil. "morally."

Most US soldiers understand, kill the enemy when they're a threat, not when they give up. This is VAST moral superiority over the anti-US forces.

But soldiers are imperfect humans. And make mistakes, and abuse and kill, wrongly. Sometimes punished, often not. Justice is also highly imperfect.

The Left has wanted the US to lose in Iraq, has essentially been rooting for death squads to kill more, so as to "prove" that their own immoral opposition to booting Saddam was "correct". This Left includes Jordan.

He should have been fired in April 2003.

I'm glad he was good to you, and that you remain gracious to him. How bad would CNN have had to be, before April 2003 in Baghdad, for you to think it was so bad that Jordan should be fired?
(NOT criminally prosecuted or sued...)

[Scott Lawton]

p.lukasiak typed: "I'm curious, Rebecca, whether you will be so sanguine and detached when the right-wing decides to target you."

This issue is NOT right vs. left, not is it a "witch hunt" or a "lynch mob". First, many of the critics ARE on the left, e.g. Jeff Jarvis and Roger L. Simon. And, Instapundit and several other prominent bloggers are pro-choice, for gay marriage, and even for legalizing drugs. Is that your definition of "Conservative" or "far-right wing agenda"? It's worth pondering that many bloggers who are strictly conservative engage in constructive dialog with principled bloggers in the center and center/left. This country would be much better off if the mainstream left were nearly as open-minded.

In fact, if Rebecca ever did become the subject of controversy, her role in this affair would be weighed as a significant factor in her favor. She could have kept quiet, but had the courage to come forward. That matters, and people will remember it.

As Instapundit notes, Barney Frank also earned himself some credibility here. I guarantee that many of those on the center/right who would have dismissed him in the past are now more likely to listen to him in the future.

It's also important to realize that Eason Jordan came into this affair with a huge black mark on his ethical record: covering up for Saddam in exchange for access. And, he's made outrageous comments prior to Davos.

Absent absolute proof that every word he uttered was accurate, Eason Jodan shouldn't be saying them in an international forum.

It was known for quite some time that the US was abusing, torturing, and even killing Iraqi prisoners. And this torture and murder continued until the absolute proof that it was taking place was proferred.

And it appears that is the way you like it. Absolutely no criticism of the US military is to be made unless one has photographic or documentary proof that the offense occurred.

However, the same standard does not apply to Eason Jordan --- anecdotal evidence is all that is required for a full bore wingnut witch hunt to be initiated.

I personally consider journalists who are covering what the US is doing to Iraq far more corageous than US soldiers---and what those journalists are doing is far more valuable.

This issue is NOT right vs. left, not is it a "witch hunt" or a "lynch mob". First, many of the critics ARE on the left, e.g. Jeff Jarvis and Roger L. Simon.

anyone who thinks that Jarvis and Simon are "on the left" when it comes to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has been drinking far too much of the Kool Aid....

Only a completely moronic wingnut would ever make such a statement.

[NTodd]

The Left has wanted the US to lose in Iraq, has essentially been rooting for death squads to kill more, so as to "prove" that their own immoral opposition to booting Saddam was "correct".

Bzzz! Thank you for playing. Your parting gift: my everlasting scorn and derision.

The Left has wanted the US to do what is correct, moral and legal. You can quibble with us on the details and what "winning" means, but fie on your baseless accusations that we want to lose. Unlike the President, who smirks as he claims to mourn the dead, we truly do lament the death and destruction. And not just at the loss of Americans, but the British, Iraqi, and each of the tens of thousands of lives that have been extinguished in a war based on trumped up "evidence".

It's just incredible that you folks aren't up in arms about a fake reporter spreading agit-prop and receiving leaked intelligence memos. Seems that's more designed to ensure we lose--in fact, it indicates we've already lost. We've lost connection to our ideals of a truly free press, adherence to the rule of law, and being a beacon of democracy and liberty in our own right.

[Thersites]

Sounds like the mainstream media need to stop paying so much attention to the lunatic goon squad that is the right wing blogosphere. There are problems with the boradcast and print media, but they are not of the sort that can be addressed by talking to people who want you up against the wall and scalped. Good luck with that, though...

[RonH]

I think Eason Jordan resigned because he knew that if the Davos tape came out it would make the situation worse, not better.

I'll bet Nixon felt the same way about his tapes.

[SDN]

"A lot of righteous indignation against ONE Eason Jordan but none for a lot of dead journalists (collateral, targeted or otherwise). They shouldn't be D-E-A-D. Are we missing something here?"

Nathaniel, are you missing the term "reasonable risk" from your vocabulary? My Business Law courses 25 years ago define that as the kinds of risks expected from a given activity. For example, if you climb mountains, it's a reasonable risk that you might fall. Go on safari, and it's a reasonable risk that something with big sharp teeth might catch up with your baby-pink butt. "Some days you eat the bear, and some days the bear eats you."

Similarly, Ernie Pyle took the chance that he'd get shot. He was just another guy in fatigues and a steel helmet. "It's not the bullet with your name on it; it's the bullets (artillery shells, tank rounds, etc.) addressed to Occupant." One of the examples cited involves a cameraman (in the same sort of garb the "insurgents" wear) pointing a shoulder cam (which at 100 yards or better looks like an RPG or anti-tanke round) in the direction of an American unit that was being attacked AT THAT TIME by RPG fire. It's regrettable, but it lacks the requisite intent to be a crime.

If either you or Mr. Jordan has any evidence backed up by anything other than faith, produce it. The military will thank you for it. One of the overlooked points about Abu Ghraib is that the press picked up on this story ONLY because they read the investigation report of the ARMY.

[neilsthepoet]

The Bad News View

Cnn and other reporters
Like them are complicit

In undermining our leadersip
Lowering troops moral
Devaluing missions accomplished
And all by acting like our pals

Because they really really care
Because this is a Democracy
And they are so brave to dare
To question Authority

Nobody says you don't evaluate
Or never ever criticize
But if that's all you do
Doesn't that turn it into lies

If you never question the question
If out and out distortions
Are presented without a challenge
Doesn't BS get the larger portion

Of the camera's eye and time
Soldiers are also our citizens
How about some positive
At least every now and then

****
****

The Major Three are also guilty
As far as I'm conerned
As if....if they were on our side
Their neutrality might get burned

Abc Nbc Cbs
Jennings Brokow and Rather
Doesn't it as some point it turn
Into some pretty deep blather

PBS and NPR have always been
Publically funded shows
But as lopsided as they are
I don't know how anyone knows

They swear that they aren't bias
That they have no leftist leanings
Hell they're not even honest about that
They're so busy primping and preening

A lot like those Hollyweired half-wits
Just not so crazy about it
Like if you can pronounce objectivity
How could we ever doubt it

****
****

Quagmire Quagmire Quagmire
No plan No plan No plan
Yawl take out a bunch of hornets
Let's see what you understand

Is every step choreographed
When you aim up that spray
When you carefully aim and shoot
Don't you sort of scoot and pray

You exfiltrate the area
But you come back around
That's what our men are doing
When they go back into towns

They're checking things out
They're making it better
They're making it safer
They're reading their letters

But oh how dare we question you
No dissent amongst the dissenters
Once you've committed to the Dean
Of Academia Nuts they're can be no repenters

They don't have another view
They just flat out hate the president
All they've got is oceons of emotions
And they don't want to hear an argument

That's logical anyway
They're patriotism is off the table
They will let you know that with their
Last breath as long as they are able

Even as they continue to manipulate
And hammer home more despair
Committ their sins of ommission
But they just do it because they care

Because we need our friends back
Good buddys like Germany and France
We don't need to stand tall
We need to learn to sway and prance

But I'll never forget or forgive
The terrorists that want to kill us
And they'll do it anyway they can
With planes trucks or a bus

****
****

Cnn and other reporters
Like them are complicit

In sabotaging our spirit to win
To fight back as we must

These people are mental seditionists
And not worthy of our trust

Neils
11:14 am
09/14/2003
*
transcribed this time
8:26 pm
02/19/2005

[neilsthepoet]

A crock o dial tears
and other wrong numbers

****
****

All the fake people
Gather

And give their fake concern
As if there's only some tragic lesson
For the rest of us to learn

Who do not have their gifts
Their light into strategic insight
That it is always only loss
When America enters a fight

America is always making a mistake
America is always wrong
And we're just the mean ol bully
Flexin muscle to prove we're strong

****
****

Or then there's always someplace else
That's just as bad or worse
Like if we never ever made a move
We wouldn't end up in a hearse

All the fake people
Gather

And shed their politically motivated tears
And mix them in with their reservations
Second guessing and narcissistic fears

They love to be against
While saying they support the troops
Like that doesn't ring out hollow and
Come out smelling like day ol dog poop

What a bunch of sanctimonious twits
How low can you go
Feeding off the blood of brave men
Like that somehow proves they know

But they only listen to what they want
What backs up what they already believe
It seems they have a mask for everything
They've even got this one to show they grieve

It always comes back to them
Because that's what they're all about
The nattering naybobs of negativity
Sowing their seeds of doubt

****
****

They love to be against
While saying they support the troops
Like that doesn't ring out hollow and
Come out smelling like day ol dog poop

Neils
8:14 pm
08/03/2003
*
transcribed this time
9:55 am
02/21/2005