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.
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.
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.