Howard Kurtz, a Week Late and a Few Sources Short

Howard Kurtz has finally brought something in on the Eason Jordan story!

Don’t get all excited. He missed a goodly part of the story.

What CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan said, or didn’t say, in Davos, Switzerland, last month has become a burgeoning controversy among bloggers and media critics.

If by “media critics” he means Jay Rosen, then he’s at least one critic short. You need two to make it a plural. Unless of course, he is also including bloggers as media critics. Who can say?

Here’s the “he said, he said” on the story, as Kurtz recounts it.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who attended the World Economic Forum panel at which Jordan spoke, recalled yesterday that Jordan said he knew of 12 journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq. At first, said Frank, “it sounded like he was saying it was official military policy to take out journalists.” But Jordan later “modified” his remarks to say some U.S. soldiers did this “maybe knowing they were killing journalists, out of anger. . . . He did say he was talking about cases of deliberate killing,” Frank said.

Jordan denied that last night, saying he had been responding to Frank’s comment that the 63 journalists who have been killed in Iraq were “collateral damage” in the war. “I was trying to make a distinction between ‘collateral damage’ and people who got killed in other ways,” Jordan said last night. “I have never once in my life thought anyone from the U.S. military tried to kill a journalist. Never meant to suggest that. Obviously I wasn’t as clear as I should have been on that panel.”

In some of the cases, “with the benefit of hindsight, had more care been taken, maybe this could have been avoided,” Jordan said, referring to shootings that involved mistaken identity. But, he said, “it’s a war zone. Terrible things happen.”

That appears to be Jordan’s story. Even though he said “targeted” he didn’t quite mean that. He meant that they weren’t “collateral damage”. Unfortunately, I think that Jordan’s definition of that term is different from just about any person you’d choose to ask. If we got twenty people together in a group and asked them what “collateral damage” meant, you’d probably get an agreement that anyone killed or anything damaged who’s not directly involved in a conflict would be considered “collateral damage”. Jordan seems to be slicing that definition pretty thin, to include only deaths caused by indirect fire: bombs, artillery, mortars and such. Maybe that’s how he’s defining it, but that’s not how most of us see it, I’d wager.

Here’s a real point of dispute, and this is where Kurtz has missed a couple facts.

No transcript exists of the Jan. 27 session, which was supposed to be off the record, and a videotape of the event has not been made public. The dispute erupted when Rony Abovitz, co-founder of the technology company Z-Kat, posted an account on the forum’s Web site of what Jordan said, while also noting that he had backpedaled when challenged.

Well, no, it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be off the record. Kurtz might have found that out had he spoken to Rebecca MacKinnon, who was also there and who reported the comments just as Mr. Abovitz did. In fact, MacKinnon, based on the rules of the Forum, believed the discussion was on the record ecause it was held in a place that was specifically listed as a place where all the discussions would be on the record.

That belief had to have been further reinforced by Mr. Abovitz being able to attribute the remarks to Jordan on the official forum blog. Had that discussion been off the record, I don’t doubt that the forum officials would have corrected the blog in very short order. Now Mr. Gergen believed the discussion was off the record, but the rules i place as well as Mr. Abovitz’ blogging put that question very much in doubt.

That’s something Kurtz might have found out simply by reading any one of the blogs following the story. MacKinnon was on the record in her blog last week and she’s ben linked by any number of other bloggers. Just follow the links, Mr. Kurtz. It’s not difficult. For instance, since Kurtz mentioned Ed Morrisey’s Captain’s Quarters blog, it’s obvious that he at least read the post where he calls for people to write their Congressmen and ask for an investigation into Jordan’s allegations. How could he have missed Jordan’s other similar statements, the post knocking down Jordan’s quoted number of at least 12 “targeted” journalists, or MacKinnon’s account? I’d have to conclude that this was a “this will shut them up” story so he could say that at least he covered Easongate.

That dog won’t hunt, not with me. Kurtz’ story is shoddy and poorly-researched. It missed a couple very important points and states at least one fact that isn’t a fact. He ought to be ashamed of this article and for the nearly one week’s delay in filing this piece of journalistic tripe.

I’ll tell you what, Mr Kurtz. If you don’t really want to report on the story, then hook me up with the principals. Get me a recommendation to Jordan, Congressman Frank, and Senator Dodd and get them to talk to me. I’ll handle the reporting from there. I’m sure that Ms. MacKinnon and Mr. Abovitz will talk to me, as would Mr. Morrissey. I’ll file the story in a day. What do you say?