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

[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.