That is the question today. The Wall Street Journal, of all places, weighs in with an editorial that dismisses the Eason Jordan story as not a "journalistic felony," and certainly not nearly as serious an offence as Rathergate. Instead, blame is laid at the inappropriate furor of amateurs. Power Line responds with a well-written riposte, taking the Journal to task for their lack of attention to this matter, as well as similar actions in Mr. Jordan's past.
I don't know why the mainstream media has such a tough time with this, so I'll spell it out for them. We expect that the media will report the truth. We expect that the truth reported will be backed up with evidence that explains the presentation and the interpretation. And if that evidence is later proven incorrect, we expect prompt and complete corrections. Period, end of discussion. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that I have a simple question to ask any time a statement which I know to be wrong is made: Really, and do you have any evidence to support that?
The fact that journalists die while pursuing stories in a war zone is tragic, and Mr. Jordan may well be concerned about this loss of life. Had his repeated statements indicated distribution of blame to both sides and the accidental nature of the problem no 'kerfuffle' would have ensued. Instead he lays the blame solely at the feet of American soldiers...repeatedly...and intimates that it is intentional. ALL WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIMSELF. As the head of a major news organization he should know better, and expect better of himself.
That is why this is a big deal.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has much more, including Jeff Jarvis' comment on CNN: "We didn't want his head — most of us didn't. We wanted the truth."
UPDATE: Captain Ed notes Ms. Malkin's piece in the NY Post on the topic, and adds his own two cents.
We didn't want Eason Jordan's head because Eason Jordan works for CNN. We wanted accountability for a corporate executive that went overseas on multiple occasions to issue slanderous allegations against the US military simply to drum up business and gain a competitive advantage for access in countries already hostile to the United States...
Perhaps the media will learn the lesson of accountability to its readers and viewers after Eason's Fables, even though they failed to do so after Memogate. Based on the clueless responses seen so far, they can look forward to a couple of more blogswarms before they figure it out.
UPDATE: The Dinocrat and Captain's Quarters have more, lots more, on Jordan and the Wall Street Journal's curious editorial this morning, which according to Hugh Hewitt was written by none other than Bret Stephens. To see why this is important, go here, or here.
From Dinocrat:
A final thought
“An indefensible remark” is often enough to get a person fired. Jimmy the Greek and many others have found that out. The issue in the case of Eason Jordan is not one indefensible remark, as the Journal says, but a series of similar remarks made publicly over a period of years. In presenting a defense, it is wise to acknowledge the evidence on the other side. In this very odd editorial, the Wall Street Journal does not do so.
UPDATE - Final: Hugh Hewitt has apparently retracted the information that Mr. Stephens authored the editorial in the Journal. As Ed Morrissey notes, regarding the lack of disclosure by Mr. Stephens of the reason behind his presence at the conference:
He wasn't just a reporter covering the event, and that information should, in my opinion, have been included in his report.
He then, in a further update, after a private conversation containing information he won't disclose, retracts even this monday-morning quarterbacking. Obviously it's difficult to assess the entire situation without the requisite facts. Suffice it to say that Mr. Morrissey's blog has always been reasonable and logical, and if he has information that vindicates Mr. Stephens as regards conflict of interest, even though it is true that the WSJ editorial did not disclose his reason for being at the conference, I'm satisfied.
Comments