It truly is a new world. Eason Jordan’s resignation is an incredible victory for the blogosphere as it demonstrates that the MSM can no longer set the agenda on what will be considered news.
Jordan’s exposure as a biased anti-American hack would never have occurred ten years ago. Through the power of the Internet and some incredible first rate reporting by Michele Malkin, Ed Morrissey and many, many others this story became a news event that ultimately could not be ignored. Even now the MSM’s grudging acknowledgement of what occurred at Davos fails to fully report the depth of Jordan’s transgressions over several years, instead spinning the story as Jordan being a victim of bloggers bloodlust. As Captain’s Quarters notes, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reports:
Gergen said last night that Jordan’s resignation was “really sad” since he had quickly backed off his original comments. “This is too high a price to pay for someone who has given so much of himself over 20 years. And he’s brought down over a single mistake because people beat up on him in the blogosphere? They went after him because he is a symbol of a network seen as too liberal by some. They saw blood in the water.”
Which of course completely ignores similar remarks Jordan made in Portugal last November:
Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN, said there had been only a “limited amount of progress”, despite repeated meetings between news organisations and the US authorities.”
“Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces,” Mr Jordan told an audience of news executives at the News Xchange conference in Portugal.
Apparently, the MSM still doesn’t get it, which is sad. But in the end that does not matter. Because in this brave new world in which we live, thousands of bloggers will report the news traditional media wants to hide or ignore. And with each passing day more and more viewers of the networks and major newspapers are discovering that alterantive news sources are available that are proving to be more reliable and fair. Which is not to say that bias does not exist in the blogosphere, but that bias is acknowledeged up front. The traditional media’s insistence on maintaining the charade of impartiality will only serve to diminish what remains of its crediblity.
It is good that Jordan is gone. It is exceptional that the tide has turned in the power struggle for fair and balanced reporting. How many more frauds like Dan Rather and Eason Jordan will it take before the MSM understands the peril of bias?
The big blogs did the heavy lifting here. But all bloggers can take pride and satisfaction from their part in spreading this story and keeping it alive until it had to be reported by the mass media outlets. The pajamadeen have prevailed in this battle. And the taste of victory is sweet indeed.
cross posted at The Wide Awakes
You are using the term “bias” pretty loosely here as if the word were interchangeable with the phrase, “opinion I don’t like.” Eason did not display bias, he displayed criticism. He pointedly and brazenly accused the military of targeting journalist. Earlier In Portugal he stated that he believed to be true reports (coming from journalists) that the military was arresting and torturing journalists. Bias is when you write a story as fact but use verbage to portray an event or person in a manner so as to taint the judgement of the reader. The blogsphere is rife with bias and no it isn’t stated up front. You all act as if you are doing genuine reporting. Eason jsut quit because he wasn’t PC in his remarks made recently at a closed conference. Closed conference meaning it was off the record meaning people could supposedly speak their minds. In the America that this is rapidly changing to where people can no longer speak their minds for fear of having their words used against them. In Eason’s case he was castigated because he has expressed his belief that journalist have been arrested and tortured by the military (as reported by journalist) and because he took exception to calling the deaths of journalist as collateral damage stating that the journalist were targeted. He recognized his remarks failed to convey what he meant and he explained himself. However, the blogger in attendance described this as Eason backpedaling. Realizing how his remark has been taken Eason tries to explain. That is pretty much what anyone would do but for some reason in Eason’s case that wasn’t good enough. The blogger in question did not want to let Eason soften his comment or back away from it if you will. I guess it was just juicier to report Eason was claiming that the military was killing journalist because they were journalist and not accept his explanation that he took exception to the use of the term collateral damage. Funny thing is Eason is not the first American to take exception to the term collateral damage. Relatives of dead soldiers killed by friendly fire have taken exception to the term for decades. They would perfer to see someone take responsiblity for the carelessness that resulted in the death of their loved ones. Collateral damage is actually an euphemism for an accetable loss of life in the carrying out an operation. Eason obviously did not think it was acceptable. I may be no fan of Eason’s, I thought his article in the NY Times about the unreported atrocities by the Hussien regime was a sop to neocons, but I am disturbed by the wave of political correctness being generated by the blogsphere. While I may believe that most of the men and women of our armed forces serve bravely and with distinction that doesn’t mean that I don’t think the military machine is above criticism. I hate to think that our country is devolving into a place where citizens are not free to criticize the military or hold it accountable for its actions. Abu Garib is proof of that if you needed it. Conservatives love to poke fun at political correctness but that is precisely what has been practiced in this case-a the new brand of PC tha now includes the parameters that you cannot criticize the President or you are antiAmerican, unpatriotic, a liberal (god-forbid), anyone on his staff such a Rice (or else you are a racist) or the military. What does this sound like? McCartheism revised with a new twist. Sorry but in my opinion the blogworld did not do America any favors. Instead of generating debate that might lead to transparency they have insured the issue of journalists being killed, arrested and possibly tortured will langusih behind a red curtain of political correctness, the truth hidden. That is too bad. The truth could well be that the deaths were all unavoidable, the journalist arrested perfectly justified given the situation and claims of torture exaggerated. However, because some people don’t want this issue to see the light of day we will never know for sure and conspiracy theories will abound for some. Worse yet it prevents any action being taken to prevant future accidental killings.
Great balls ‘o fire Carol! All I can say is you must must be a mind reader ’cause I felt that this post really required a response and if I were as good a writer as you I would have said the same thing !! Concur…concur…CONCUR!!
Hey John, Please clue me in on where I can find these unbiased sources you spoke of…”in this brave new world”.Gimme a break.
Wally, I specifically said that every source is biased. It is denying the bias that is the problem. CBS and CNN should just proclaim themselves to be “Your Liberal News Service”. It is pretending to be putting out the news in a balanced fashion that is dishonest.
So the head newsguy of CNN is exposed as anti-military and borderline treasonous. Do you deny his bias does not potentially distort how CNN chooses to cover the war?
And the real point is that it was my biased sources who watchdog the media that brought the Eason story to light. The MSM did not think one of their own calling our soldiers murderers was newsworthy. And yet when General Mattis said a few weeks ago that he “enjoyed” killing our enemies, it was headline news. If you can’t see what is wrong with that (leaving aside what both men said, just the way the press chose to report/not report), then be glad media bias is not a big ol’ cottonmouth laying in your yard. You can’t avoid what you can’t see.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. MSM picked up both stories. Eason did not alledgedly say soldiers were “systematically targeting journalist” and he did not call our soldiers “murderers”. If he had it would have been a bigger story. Eason said that the dead journalist were not collateral damage but had been “deliberately targeted.” There are dead journalist that were killed by American soldiers and in some instances they were targeted. Eason’s comment wasn’t simply taken out of context; it has been distorted beyond recognition. The difference between the treatment of the two men lies in their remarks, what one of them actually said and a distortion of what the other said. Eason criticized the military. That is his right and the right of every American. Right now soldiers are fighting to defend this right for Iraqis and Afghanis. If its good enough for them to have this right then by golly its good enough for us to have that right without fear of reprisal. Everytime you ignore the obvious and go along with this shameful situation in the name of partriotism you move us closer to a time that the very values we hold dear will be wrest away from us through political correctness designed to censure disent. As for the general, an unfortunate by product of his job is that people get killed. He doesn’t, no he shouldn’t, paint the picutre that America revels in the death and mayhem that necessarily accompany the fight for freedom. He adds fuel to the criticisms and hard feelings many abroad already feel towards this country. He makes the job of every soldier more difficult. Eason’s comments the real comment or the distorted comment simply does not have that effect or a similar effect on journalists or soldiers. We are quickly moving to a point where the far-right is suppressing our ability to dissent, to air criticisms freely, to challenge the status quo. If people fear that their jobs, their ability to care for their families will be impacted by speaking out then they will quit speaking out. It happened in Germany before WWII and it can happen here.
I read your comment Mom and the last part made me think:
“the far-right is suppressing our ability to dissent, to air criticisms freely, to challenge the status quo. If people fear that their jobs, their ability to care for their families will be impacted by speaking out then they will quit speaking out.”
That could be a very real danger (from either side). But, the fact is, that no one knows exactly what Jordan said. He could have easily cleared his name by asking for the video of the event to be released. He didn’t. And, the “deliberatley targeting” comment – you don’t really have to go out on a limb to interpret that. It is hard, I think, to misinterpret that. Please don’t defend someone because people who have a different political ideology than you attack him. You don’t want people like Jordan on your side.
The saddest part to me, is that your last post on this subject sounds like a sloppy paraphrase of this Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6490-2005Feb7.html
Unfortunately, I am unable to read the Post article since it insist my email address is nto valid so I will simply have to take your word for it. It doesn’t surprise me however, to find that there is another person out there who thinks as I do on this subject.
I could not care less about Eason Jordan. However, I do not like to see him railroaded. People make rash statements from time to time. Sometimes it is jsut the case where what we say comes out the wrong way. Eason tried to clarify what he meant. The general didn’t and yet all he got was a counseling which means he got nothing. A counseling is not a form of disciplinary action. The president has made rash statements, Rice has made some whoppers and Rumsfled’s middle name is “rash statement.” Clearly it did nto cost them their jobs. It is okay because they are Republicans. Don’t kid yourself Ashley, this is all about controling public opinion. I suggest you check out Easongate.com to see the crowd you are running with. Personally I have never thought displaying such hatred was indicative of patriotism. What is worse is these bloggers, this includes you John, only did this becasue they wanted to fles their muscle and have something to write about to attract readers. Sorry kiddo but that is wrong. Decency is seriously undervalued in America and tolerance is under attack. Bloggers with aren’t helping.
By the way many people have asked the people in charge of the Davos Conference to release the tape and they are refusing not Jordan. Although, my understanding is that the blogger who was in attendance and questioned Jordan believes he may be able to secure a copy of the tape. I think they should look into the deaths of those journalists if for no other reason so that they can devise a way to reduce this types of incidents.
Pingback: buy valium