His Sunday column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette makes the point I have been arguing for over a week now:
A controversy you’ve probably heard about, and one that many people haven’t, illustrate why readers cancel subscriptions.
“It’s fun to shoot some people,” Lt. Gen. James Mattis said at a conference in San Diego on Feb. 1. “You go into Afghanistan, you’ve got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. Guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway, so it’s a helluva lot of fun to shoot them.”
Mattis’ remarks caused conniption fits throughout the news media. Typical was the Miami Herald, which said Mattis should have been given a tougher punishment than the verbal reprimand he received from the commandant of the Marine Corps. “His callous remarks make light of the terrible toll of war,” the Herald whined.
Mattis — arguably our most effective combat leader — already has been ably defended by my friends Ralph Peters and Mac Owens. But I enthusiastically second his sentiment. If I were still a young Marine, I would take enormous pleasure in personally sending Islamofascists to hell.
Journalists who got their panties twisted over Mattis apparently see nothing newsworthy about having the executive vice president and head of news for CNN accuse the U.S. military of deliberately killing journalists.
Eason Jordan, who resigned Friday, told a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that “he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who was there, and demanded proof, which Jordan could not supply.
The Davos confab ended Jan. 30. Many journalists were there. Yet in my column published last Sunday, I became the first “mainstream” journalist to mention Jordan’s remarks.
If what Jordan said were true, it would be a bigger scandal than Abu Ghraib, about which we in the media have made sure you have heard. And if CNN’s top news executive slandered U.S. troops, that also is — or ought to be –news.
And to those who are arguing that Jordan is somehow a “victim” of blogger McCarthyism, I will defer to the response of the folks who write PowerLine, and were among the most aggressive in pursuing this story:
Now that Eason Jordan has resigned, folks are eager to defend him instead of trying to ignore his situation. The defense comes in two forms: first, that he made a mistake but that the mistake should not have cost him his job; second, that he is the victim of McCarthyism, sacked for expressing unpopular views.
The answer to both defenses is essentially the same. Once strong evidence emerged that Jordan had accused the U.S. military of systematically murdering journalists, his legitimate options were the following: (1) he could try to show, through the tape of his remarks, that he made no such accusation, (2) he could present evidence to support his charge, (3) he could retract his charge and apologize, or (4) he could modify his charge and present evidence to support the new charge.
Jordan opted for none of the above. At that point, the question became whether CNN would be led by a monger of vicious and unsupported anti-American rumors. CNN, hoping to remain distinct from Al Jazeera at least for the time being, apparently answered that question in the negative. Where’s the injustice to Jordan in this scenario?
I will concede that Jordan’s right of free speech allows him to make his sick accusations. Will you concede that the exercise of free speech also comes with consequences? Jordan was told to put up or shut up. At the end of the day, CNN told him to shut up. Works for me.
Powerline is apparently short on imagination. Eason chose a fifth option (there are probably many more). When challenged at the conference about his comment he tried to explain what he meant. The blogger, who did the chanllening though didn’t accept the explanation. In fact he used it to bash Jordan.
As for your comment that the exercise of free speech comes with consequences, may I suggest you brush up on your civics lessons. The amendment protecting free speech is designed to keep people from experiencing adverse consequences as a result of exercising that right. It is literally against the law to fire a person for critizing the government or a branch thereof such as the military. Shame on you for not knowing better. You haven’t been gone that long!
And just why is his accusation “sick”?
Let’s get the Eason Jordan story straight. First off, several main stream newspapers did report on this incident before it became the latest “gate” story for bloggers. Kurtz was not the first person to run the story.
More improtatnly though take a look at what the blogger, R. Abovitz, who witnessed the entire thing at the conference wrote the day afterwards:
“During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted.” Notice in this first hand account that Eason Jordan did not use the word assasinate or murder or even the word deliberate.
“To be fair (and balanced), Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it.” Gee John your blog buddies conveniently left this part of the story out. Oh, Captain’s Quarter linked to Abovitz as credit for his first write up on this story only the Captain used the term assassinate. Hmmm, puts a new spin on it doesn’t it? Makes the whole accusation seem more hihgly charged, more inflammatory, more awful. If it were so awful why didn’t the Captain let the words speak for themselves? Why did he have to spin it?
“Members of the audience took away what they wanted to hear, and now they will use it in every vile and twisted way imaginable.” This is true and it is unfortunate. However, John and Ashley are guilty of the same thing.
“As a last note, I think that this article is a good pointer to the future of the news: average people, freely saying what they want, as they saw it, for anyone to see. To me, that is freedom of the press.” Apparently though freedom of the press is just another way of saying liberal and unAmerican. Am I understanding you correctly John and Ashley? Before jumping to conclusions you two ought to do your homework.
-R
I alluded to in my last comment, and will reiterate here that I don’t have any better idea of Jordan said than you do. I then laid out my reasons for thinking he is probably guilty of what he has been accused of. I do not think the freedom of the press is liberal and unAmerican. I don’t think he was exercising freedom of the press I think (based on what I know so far) that he is guilty of slander and treason.
Carol, the first admendment protects speech against GOVERNMENT action. Had the US put Jordan on trial for treason (and it would have been a close call), then he might legitimately claim some first admendment rights. That he resigned under pressure for undermining the credibility of CNN has NOTHING to do with free speech.
Furthermore, you ignore the fact that Davos was not the first time Jordan had made these allegations. So, you can’t explain this away as a simple slip of the tongue.
Ashely is right in her characterization of Jordan’s conduct. If he has evidence of targeting by the US military, he has a duty to bring it forward. If he was just disparaging our troops in front of an international audience, resigning his position was the least he could do. I personally would have liked to see him agree to be bitch slapped by a couple of Marines.
Well John you are just plain wrong again. Your employer may not fire you because you exercise free speech, particularly when the speech is criticism of the government. Lot of court cases on the subject. I suggest you check them out. An employer may fire you for using poor judgement (or if you ar a general they can “counsel” you). Jordan said the military had not just killed but had targeted 12 journalists. When asked if he could prove this was true he stated that he could not and that he did not personally believe the targeting was deliberate but that the accusation was being made. Sorry John but there is no other way to interpret this as poor judgment unless you mean poor judgement for criticizing or repeating an allegation against the military. Under your thinking the reporters who broke the Abu Garib scandal are also guilty of por judgment and therefore should be fired. Sorry kiddo it cannot be done in a free society. You bloggers just helped make it less of a free society by distorting the truth and then targeting not just public opinion but the advertisers for CNN. If this can happen to Jordan it can happen to anyone, including you and me. The litmus test will get more strigent everytime the rabble is successful at pulling this off. The question should not be can democracy survive the media but can democracy survive bloggers!
You both ignore the fact tht he was repeating allegations made by others. I am sure it would make you both more comfortable to sweep the mess under a carpet. John you misquoted Jordan. Ashley we do have an idea of what Jordan said because Abovitz was there and wrote his article following that days events. I am much more likely to believe what Abovitz wrote than Captain’s quarters, Powerline or Lngtimegne. These three bloggers merely picked the story up embellishing it along the way like the child’s game of teltphone line. This is where one child whisper to another and that child then whispers it to another until the message is passed one from one to another throughout the whole group. Inevitably the message heard by the last child is different from the message said by the first child. We teach our kids that game to instill in them the power of rumors and how they can distort the facts. Well that is what these bloggers are playing.
Carol, here on planet earth private sector employers can fire at will. Your argument is bogus anyway because Jordan wasn’t fired he resigned. Guess maybe he knows what’s on that tape, eh?
Firing at will does not mean fire in violation of a law. For instance you could not fire an employee for being black or being female. You could fire them because you decided to reduce the overall number of employees or because you think they have a bad attitude. In other words you cannot discriminate because that would be against the law and you cannot similarly fire a person for the sole reason of viaolating a constitutionally protected right such as free speech. You know this and are simply making a specious argument.
You were on stronger ground when you said this wasn’t about free speech. The problem was in your blog you did allude to his right to free speech so I responded in kind. Whether or not this is truely a case about free speech or simply a case of rabble rousing the result is the same. Those people who will tolerate no criticism of the government have trampled on the a right that many world wide think of as inherently American. For those with an antiAmerican bent you’ve simply given them a new reason to criticize America, support for their charge of hypocrisy and a reason to mistrust us. For those intent on turning others away from America, you aided them plenty.
You claimed that if the US put Eason on trial for treason it would be a close call. Eason did not commit treason. His actions do not amount to giving aid to the enemy. If in fact these journalist (who by the way were killed and were targeted in some instances by the military I assume because the soldiers thought they were the enemy) are aligning themselves with insurgents then I would think Eason’s words would serve to discomfort them not aid them. It does not aid the enemy when we review ourselves for excesses, abuse or even errors. It makes us look stronger wehn we are willing to police our own behavior.
Besides which John you are ignoring what Abovitz wrote. Eason said he knew of 12 journalist targeted by the military. He said he had no proof of this allegation and tha the did not personally believe it was true. How is this treason? How is it outrageous? Several months ago Eason is reported to have made a remark that allegations were being made by some journalist that they had been arrested and tortured by the military. Well John that is true -some journalist have made this allegation. Why don’t you admit that you went with the story after coming across it on Captains Quarter and you failed to do any back ground check. Why dont’ you go to your first blog on Eason where you were complaining that the MSM reported on the general but not Eason. Problem is MSM did report on Eason but it wasn’t as big a story as a general saying he liked to kill people. You know take that jackass general’s comments and Eason Jordan’s comment together and it appears JOrdan may be on to something cause our military leaders think its fun to kill. Now how big a leap does a person with an AnitAmerica frame of mind have to go to connect them dots? Who really did the damage, the guy you bolggers venerated for no other reason than he is a genreral or the guy you trashed FOR NO OTHER REASON than he was a member of MSM. That is what this is really all about!
Pingback: buy valium