The Eason Jordan Story…Still Invisible.

Here’s now it stands today.

Howard Kurtz, media critic assuming that the media being criticized isn’t actually media for which he works, had his live online chat on the Washington Post’s web site. He took 19 questions and here’s how they broke down: 10 questions about Deep Throat, and the rest about such subjects as UNSCAN (no biggie..the press was all over it, says Kurtz), Martha Stewart, a conservative member of the White House Press Corps, and the target audience of the new Washington Examiner.

None about Eason Jordan. Zero. Nada.

I know for a fact that there were at least seven questions asked about the subject because I asked one and Will Collier of VodkaPundit asked seven. Does Kurtz really want us to believe that he couldn’t have left out, say, the insipid question about whether the Washington Post has a betting pool about the identity of Deep Throat, to ask about the lack of coverage of a man who has apparently accused US soldiers of targeting journalists without evidence? I’ve not heard anything back from him regarding the e-mail I sent him on Friday. Combined with the blackout during his Media Backtalk and his regular column today, I have to conclude that he’s ducking the story entirely. That’s a bad thing. He ought to be ashamed and, as far as I’m concerned, his professional integrity is in the trash bin with me.

Though he didn’t answer my e-mail either, Congressman Barney Frank spoke with Michelle Malkin and seems to have confirmed the Jordan comments as originally reported.

Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately “expressed deep skepticism.” Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, “explaining that he wasn’t saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined.”

Rep. Frank said he didn’t pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was “somewhat disturbed” and “somewhat exercised” and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan’s assertions were “disturbing if true.” I have a call in to Sen. Dodd’s office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but “left open the question” of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. “Give me specifics,” Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.

Rep. Frank has not yet heard back yet from Jordan.

Good job, Michelle. I mean, sure I’m disappointed that he wouldn’t reply to me (but hey, if you had to talk to someone about this who would you choose – me or Michelle Malkin?), but I’m glad that someone managed to talk to him and got an eyewitness report of what Jordan said.

Hugh Hewitt is also still strong on the case. He has links aplenty and makes a good point.

Three out of four witnesses to the remarks have gone with an account of Jordan Eason offering the “targeting” analysis, only to back down when challenged by Frank.

The third witness is Richard Sambrooke, Director of BBC World Service and Global News. He gave a statement to real media critic Jay Rosen on what Jordan said. Here’s an excerpt.

Eason’s comments were a reaction to a statement that journalists killed in Iraq amounted to “collateral damage”. His point was that many of these journalists (and indeed civilians) killed in Iraq were not accidental victims–as suggested by the terms “collateral damage”–but had been “targeted”, for example by snipers.

He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists, although there are others in the media community who do hold that view (personally, I don’t). They had been deliberately killed as individuals– perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don’t know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion.

Sambrooke believes that Jordan was misinterpreted by Frank and by most of us out here. He seems to quibble with the definition of the phrase “collateral damage”, which to him means people killed by indirect fire, as opposed to direct fire.

Without arguing what the definition of “is” is, this doesn’t hold a lot of water with me. The important thing in what Jordan said was not how the journalists were killed, but that Jordan named a specific number of journaists and presented not even the smallest shred of evidence for his accusation. He committed slander, in my opinion, and this far he’s getting away with it.

There’s a puzzler in his statement, though. Sambrooke said, “…he [Jordan] clarified his comment a number of times to ensure people did not misunderstand him.” This statement seems to say that Sambrooke was pretty clear on what Jordan was tryig to say and that he worked very hard to make his position clear. Okay, I can accept that for now.

Except if what Sambrooke says is true, why do we have reports of foreign journalists and attendeed of the panel coming to Jordan congratulating him for what he said? If what Jordan said was no big deal, according to Sambrooke, why would audience members, including many Arab members, call him a “very brave man”?

Okay, so you might ask me, “Why not wait until Wednesday when the Sisyphean Musings blog gets that copy of the videotape?”. Darned good question. That would settle the matter once and for all about what Jordan said, at least, and would then narrow the question to what evidence Jordan has for his charges.

Except that’s not going to happen for a while, and perhaps not ever.

Sisyphean Musings reports today that he’s been contacted by Mr. Adams, the media man at Davos, who tells him that they haven’t found the tape and, when they do, will have to make a decision on whether or not the tape can even be released. Seems there’s something called the “Chatham House Rule” that may prevent the forum officials from releasing the tape, but there’s a question about whether that panel was operating under that rule or not.

That particular point is confusing Rebecca McKinnon, who was present at that panel discussion also (and quotes the relevant forum rule that said that any panel held in the room where this panel was held would be considered “on the record”). She contacted Mr. Adams and got a much less than satisfactory answer.

my understanding was that since this session was not webcast or broadcast it was ‘off the record’

Certainly, no announcement was made at the begining of the session – as far as I remember – that it would be on the record.

In any case – a session summary is available on our website and we will not be trying to get a transcript of the session.

So Mr. Adams didn’t believe the discussion was on the record, but Ms. McKinnon and several other journaists there, including the man writing on the Forum’s official weblog believed it was. Let’s not overlook the fact that this story first appeared on the Forum’s official weblog. That posts, and follow-ups to it, are still there, unedited. I would think that Mr. Adams as the Big Media Guy at the Forum, would have some editorial control over the Forum’s official blog and if the panel was indeed not on the record, then he would take the appropriate corrective action. That or someone else would, in order to make sure the blog conformed to the official rules in place at the time of the panel. They haven’t, which tells me that the “Chatham House Rules” weren’t in effect at the time. It also tells me that Mr. Adams, or someone more powerful than him at the WEF, may be doing some serious, industrial-strength stalling right now using those rules to prevent the release of the videotape and providing a reason not to release a transcript.

And finally, as usual, both Easongate and LaShawn Barber are staying on this story. Go read them both, often.

No related posts.

Category: Easongate