Easongate Keeps Moving, Without the MSM

A couple of weeks ago I waxed rhapsodic about Michelle Malkin because she “gets” blogging.

Well, this week has amply proven it. After scoring an interview with Congressman Barney Frank on the Eason Jordan story, she follows up with an interview with David Gergen, who headed the panel in which Jordan was a member.

Gergen inadvertently puts his finger on why this story isa big deal.

Gergen said he was approached after the session by European journalists who expressed the belief that American troops were “roughing up” journalists and Iraqi nationals. He also said people left the event “concerned and wanting to know more.”

Jordan’s charges, made without a shred of evidence to ack them, have caught the attention of journalists in other countries. His recklessness created a potential story out of nothing and confirmed the worst suspicions of others.

That’s the result of irresponsibility and that’s why bloggers like me want Jordan held to account.

But that isn’t going to happen until the MSM gets involved.

Malkin also bags the trifecta of Gergen, Frank, and Dodd by getting a statement from Senator Dodd’s office. According to his spokesman, the Senator “was outraged by the comments”. Doesn’t sound like Jordan explained himself nearly well enough, as Richard Sambrooke said, does it?

Gergen’s comments also bring back a quetion I asked earlier today. Gergen said, according to Malkin, that he considered the discussion off the record. If that’s true, then why has the Forum allowed its own weblog and a journalist who was there to attribute what was said to anyone? Why haven’t they so much as mentioned the rules in play at the time of the discussion?

Rodger Morrow also has an account from yet another eyewitness, Justin Vaisse of the Brookings Institution. Morrow gives us Vaisse’s account of the statements, in French, and an English translation thanks to Mick Stockinger. The nut of the account is:

Called on to clarify his statement, he said that outside of deaths attributed to rebels, 12 journalists, including Americans, were killed by the American army, not by deliberate attack, but in the context of a hostile climate towards the press, where the tone was set by Donald Rumsfeld himself. Many journalists feel that among young American soldiers, many would like to “do” a journalist in the course of combat.

Things are not looking good for Jordan, but he’s still living the charmed life of the protected as long as the MSM continues ignoring the story.

And what of Howard Kurtz, critic of all media except for the media for which he works? Well, Mickey Kaus has been giving him serious grief (and since Mickey is a bigger blogger than I, he gets his e-mails answered). Here’s what Kurtz told him.

I have a story in tomorrow’s paper. Had you been kind enough to check earlier, I would have told you that I flagged it for The Post on the day that I was crashing on CBS naming Bob Schieffer as Rather’s temporary replacement and said we should pursue it. Two other Post reporters pursued it, spoke to Jordan and decided not to write anything based on the fact that what was actually said was in dispute. I had nothing to do with that decision. I’ve since picked it up, done additional reporting and filed my story.

Uh huh. Well, Mr. Kurtz, I did check earlier. I wrote you Friday evening and asked you, but you decided to say nothing. I may not be a big-time media guy or a bloger that gets a bazillion views a day, but I’m not without a voice.

And right now I’m saying that your answer isn’t sufficient. You’ve had several columns and a one-hour web chat to say anything about the story yet you haven’t. Only now, after what I can only imagine has been an incredible amount of hectoring from the blogosphere have you decided to look into the story yourself. I would have thought tat comments made by an executive of a media company would fall under your purview as media critic/watcher, but perhaps I was wrong.

And your story that two reporters decided not to write anything because the story was in dispute doens’t hold water. To this point, what Jordan said has not been in dispute. What he meant seems to be in some dispute, but the majority of the witnesses, not to mention reports about the attitudes of many in the audience, seem to stack on one side pretty heavily. Since this is a news story, though, the reporters don’t have to worry about getting to the heart of his meaning. All they have to do is to confirm what he said and how he said it. The bloggers have apparently managed that trick without the backing of a major daily newspaper. Thus far, Jordan has been largely silent on the issue, only giving a brief “explanation” that muddied the water further. Surely that silence is news in itself. Report the story and let the pundits and the readers acribe meaning to it.

So his story in Easongate is supposed to be out tomorrow. We’ll see.

Ed Morrisey has penned an open letter to his Congressmen and is offering it for anyone to send to theirs. I recommend sending it or something similar to it, to your representatives also. This is a serious matter, I believe, and it deserves investigation.

Meanwhile, the Easongate juggernaut that is LaShawn Barber rolls on. She’s still an indispensable place for information on this story and you need to check her site often.

And if you’re a media type looking for someone to interview on the blogosphere’s reaction to Easongate, you’re going to look a long time before you find someone as articulate and engaging a person as LaShawn.

Oh and if you’re looking for all my Easongate posts, you can find them under the one Easongate category. Just click it and you’ll get all the goods.

No related posts.

Category: General