Response from Eason Jordan

I emailed Eason Jordan to clarify what he said in the Davos panel, since I do not have a transcript or recording, and my notes are inexact. Here is his reply:

Rebecca:

Here's what's important.  First, I stressed insurgents are to blame for the vast majority of the 63 journalist deaths in Iraq.  Second, when Congressman Franks said the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the unfortunate victims of "collateral damage," I felt compelled to dispute that by pointing out journalists in Iraq are being targeted -- I did not say all journalists killed were targeted, but that some were shot at on purpose and were not collateral damage victims.  In response to a question about whether I believed the U.S. military meant to kill journalists in Iraq, I said, no, I did not believe the U.S. military was trying to kill journalists in Iraq.  Yet, unfortunately, U.S. forces have killed several people who turned out to be journalists.  In several cases, the U.S. troops who killed those people aimed and fired at them, not knowing they were shooting at journalists.  However tragic and, in hindsight, by Pentagon admission, a mistake, such a killing does not fall into the "collateral damage" category.  In Iraq and Washington, I have worked closely and constructively with U.S. military and civilian leaders in an effort to heighten the odds of survival for the courageous journalists in Iraq.

Eason

In a follow-up email he added:

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

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

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

Comments

[JD]

Eason Jordan might as well change his name to John Deere with the amount of backfilling he and CNN have done on this E-mail and elsewhere.

Numerous other blogs have gone into much detail (Captains Quarters, Hewitt, etc.) on Mr. Jordan's, er, propensity to state that journalists are being "targeted" by the military - and not just the US military either.

In a contextual view of his past public statements and actions, coupled with this incident, Mr. Jordan has no business being the CEO of any sort of journalistic entity save for Al Jazeera or Reuters.

The Blogosphere smells blood in the water on this one. Rather and CBS thought they could wait out the storm, but CNN provides an even juicier target, courtesy of Ted Turner's recent rantings and ravings. It will be interesting to see CNN's position on this in approximately 48 hours, more so when Senator Dodd and Congressman "Franks" return from their nice little Swiss junket.

[ALD]

Three words, Eason: Release the transcript. Or, even better, release the videotape. (Okay, that's more than three words; so sue me.)

That will instantly stop this entire kerfuffle in its tracks ... unless he actually did say what he has been accused of saying.

[rod]

EJ is a news exec--his job is to talk about the news, not make it. He is becoming a regular Martha Dean--a loose cannon who feels no need to reflect or filter his thoughts.

all of which would be no problem, except for the fact that he did a pretty scummy thing in cutting a deal with Saddam's henchmen.

I really think EJ's a really, really big liability about now. He says dumb things--and no one should rise and defend his Davos thoughts as nuanced or important--but he does dumber. what is keeping him on....ratings? CNN's ratings are becoming an open running joke. they dont have viewers in the US anymore--airports and people abroad. ANd people abroad often have a very different agenda for their news content.

he might have had your back once, but the man's time is past. And I say that as a reporter for an NYC daily.

nice blog.