Easongate: Another Witness Writes
Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal has an interesting editorial today about Easongate. Stephens was also present at the panel discussions and adds his recollections to the ongoing debate. As it happens, Stephens’ account generally matches those of at least seven others.
But Stephens pretty much downplays the whole thing, blaming the furor on a ravenous pack of bloggers out for blood.
There’s a reason the hounds are baying. Already they have feasted on the juicy entrails of Dan Rather. Mr. Jordan, whose previous offenses (other than the general tenor of CNN coverage) include a New York Times op-ed explaining why access is a more important news value than truth, was bound to be their next target. And if Mr. Jordan has now made a defamatory and unsubstantiated allegation against U.S. forces, well then . . . open the gates.
Well, sure there was that editorial. But more germane to the discussion was that he’s done this before, last November – same accusation in front of an international audience. And moreso (as you’ll read at the bottom of that link), Jordan wasn’t the only CNN employee there in November who made that accusation.
Once may be chance, but two or three times is definitely a pattern.
Did I mention three times? Jordan also said the same thing in 2002, only instead of US soldiers being the killers, it was the Israelis.
Stephens could have mentioned any of these. He mentioned the Easongate blog, which brings up each of these instances. So that information was right in front of him. Instead, he downplays Jordan’s other accusations and instead brings up an editorial he wrote that has nothing to do with the charges he made at Davos.
Do you think Stephens’ editorial would have had a different tone had he mentioned that Jordan had made this same accusation two other times? I do.
Stephens recounts the incident, but tosses in something I’d not read before. After Congressman Frank confronted him on the charges, Jordan said, “there are people who believe there are people in the military” who have some antipathy for journalists. His specific example was of a soldier who sent a reporter to the back of the line at the Green Zone because he didn’t like some of the reporters stories from Iraq.
We may read that and think “bad soldier” (though, to be honest, I don’t), but that’s a far cry from “targeting” journalists for death or torturing them.
Here’s where Stephens goes wrong. He takes the last thing Jordan says as the definitive thing Jordan said.
I’ll leave it others to draw their own verdicts, but here’s mine: Whether with malice aforethought or not, Mr. Jordan made a defamatory innuendo. Defamatory innuendo–rather than outright allegation–is the vehicle of mainstream media bias. Had Mr. Jordan’s innuendo gone unchallenged, it would have served as further proof to the Davos elite of the depths of American perfidy. Mr. Jordan deserves some credit for retracting the substance of his remark, and some forgiveness for trying to weasel his way out of a bad situation of his own making.
No, that’s not what happened. By Stephens own account, Jordan made a direct accusation that he drew back to the level of innuendo only because he was confronted about it. It was not Mr. Jordan’s innuendo that was challenged but his allegation.
I seriously doubt that the quite liberal Barney Frank, no friend of the Bush administration, would have gotten so exercised about Jordan’s comments had they been of the “I know some people who think this” sort. Mr. Stephens makes pretty plain that his initial comments weren’t of that nature.
What Jordan did wasn’t merely a display of liberal bias. It was a direct accusation of a crime in front of an audience that contained people kindly disposed to believe that the US would commit such a crime. It was accusation of evidence and incitement in the middle of a war.
Jonah Goldberg also commented on the Stephens editorial today and comes to prety much the same conclusion. But he said something at the end that made me think for a moment.
As Stephens says, Eason was spreading an innuendo not an allegation. He was playing to his audience and he said something that they — and no doubt he — thought was perfectly plausible on its face. Of course, he didn’t really think it was true. For if he did, he would have put a reporter on it.
It may be true that Jordan thinks his charges are true, and it may not. We don’t know and he won’t tell us. .What we do know is that he repeats the same charge as if he believes it is true. He states it as fact as if he believes it is true.
I’d prefer to believe that he thinks the allegation is true. Goldberg believes that it’s not. And if he’s right, then what Jordan has done is far worse than making a reckless allegation without proof. If Jordan really doesn’t believe that journalists are targeted by US soldiers, that means that he’s been intentionally feeding a lie to hs audiences. His audiences have contained people who mean us ill and have the means at their disposal to damage our war effort. That’s very, very close to sedition, if not outright treason.
That’s why I want the Davos videotape released. We’re not going to know what was said for sure and under what context until we see it. We need to see it to fairly judge what Jordan was actually doing in that discussion and how seriously to weigh the affects his comments could have had on the audience members.
Oh, and did you notice that Stephens quoted Jordan and paraphrase both Jordan and Frank? It sure doesn’t look like that discussion was very “off the record”, does it?
No related posts.
Category: Easongate
