CNN executive Eason Jordan: EH, beg pardon?

Just pointing out your inconsistencies. I don’t think shooting at them is the solution.

inconsistencies? where? when a news team knows in advance where an attack is going to take place, as al-jazeer has been so adept at doing (IMHO from advanced knowledge of the attack), they then become MILITARY targets…to be clear, they are no longer civilian targets.

If that is they way they choose to operate then they lose any protective scheme that PRESS brings them.

Now,honestly, I was flippant when I said target the al-jazeer news team, and I do believe you knew that fox, but if there was proof that ANY news team was accompanying a terrorist or insurgent group, then they would become a legitimate target, all in MVHO.

They wanna be Hemmingway…fine…then ride with the ambulances. Ride with the enemy? Wear a helmet and a flak jacket.

If it were up to me, I’d RFID tag every member of the press and monitor them.

But it’s [i]a[/i] solution. :laughing:

[quote] when a news team knows in advance where an attack is going to take place, as al-jazeer has been so adept at doing (IMHO from advanced knowledge of the attack), they then become MILITARY targets…to be clear, they are no longer civilian targets.

If that is they way they choose to operate then they lose any protective scheme that PRESS brings them.

Now,honestly, I was flippant when I said target the al-jazeer news team, and I do believe you knew that fox, but if there was proof that ANY news team was accompanying a terrorist or insurgent group, then they would become a legitimate target, all in MVHO.
[/quote]

Apparently, you are not being flippant. You would like to take a bet both ways, judging by your own words.

It sounds like you think its appropriate to arrest and charge or even shoot at journalists who have leads on stories and then express outrage at a news organization that takes umberage with that.

Fox, you have GOT to kidding me. Where are the sensibilites of “news” reporters who go out with insurgents to record bombings and shootouts?

When I said I was being flipant, my comment about shooting at al-jazeer reporters was CLEARLY outrageous. OK? Moot point. I won’t say anything in jest again.

How in the hell, can a guy, a 20 year old kid, on a armoured car going to be able to tell the difference between an insurgent and a reporter IN A BATTLE ZONE?

Oh, but he had on a CNN jacket. Give it a rest. Don’t you think that every insurgent would wear a CNN vest if he knew that the US troops would not fire upon him because of it? Press with the enemy? They are morons if they think freedom of the press will stop a high speed projectile.

The point is this: the coalition troops are fighting a war, NOT reporting one. If news guys want to go out and get the big scoop with the insurgents, they are consciously moving into harms way. They should not be allowed or encouraged to do this.

I am NOT playing both sides of the fence here. CNN should stay with the US forces, NOT with the insurgents. The US troops have taken it under their responsibility to protect reporters. Should they choose not to report under this umbrella of protection to get the “other side of the story”, which is incredibly stupid IMHO, then their deaths cause me no great pain.

You seem to think that the news agencies are outside the rule of war, and in that you are very wrong. They are ALLOWED to be there BY the military. They should stay where it is safest. And that is NOT looking down the barrels of coalition rifles.

If you had had any military training, you would know, when you fire on the enemy, you shoot to kill. You don’t make sure the PRESS are in the all clear. Where is your condemnation of the insurgents who strap bomb vest onto Down’s syndrom children? Why is the most obvious war crime not even mentioned? But a CNN guy gets shrapnel in the head and that is a story because MAYBE the shrapnel came from a US weapon discharge.

CNN and al-jazeer and any other news agency that willingly allows its reporters out into a battle zone, unprotected, bears the responsibility for their deaths. And to even consider that the coalition forces would NOT open fire on a mob, or a truck, or any ENEMY position because the PRESS was present is ludicrous.

Your position is indicative of the pervasive distrust the media has for the US government, the US military and any and all wars. I don’t want to see any civilians killed either, believe me, and the best way to stop this is to not allow dipshit civilian reporters into the field in the first place. However, the military knows of the media’s distrust of it and so allows them access…and they don’t have to…so that a clearer and more objective review of the war and its progress may be had.

And what does the media do with it? They make the war into a story they think they can write. Hubris. Just because something is written, or reported, does not qualify it for a pulitzer. But we have reached a stage in the media where the “news” is info-tainment and not news.

The press should not be there.

Healthy distrust is not such a bad thing.

Why would you think I wouldn’t condemn insurgents strapping bombs to a Down’s Syndrome kid?

Do you think I support the insurgency?

I support integrity. If I think its lacking or not apparent then I support the rights of people to say so, I don’t care who they are.

I can remember quite clearly when the French bombed the Rainbow Warrier in port in New Zealand. To me that seems like an outrageous thing for a western government to do but the fact is all governments propogate outreageous behavior on some levels. The media forms part of the checks and balances on outrageous behavior and this needs to be respected, not hounded.

I can see you are a partisan advocate for hounding and cowing the media so that your point of view is the only one. Well, I’m not. Embedding soldiers with the troops is a stunt to ensure reporting is biased. If you have to rely on these soldiers to get you home then you will paint them and their predicament in a more positive light. As I have a lot of respect for military service I don’t see that as being an altogether bad thing, but I can still see it could defintely influence a reporter’s objectivity.

Those reporters that are prepared to operate outside that umbrella of protection might well be crazy motherfuckers, but they’re my kind of crazy motherfuckers. They’re the people who bring you the news you don’t want to hear, I respect that and I respect the fact that they get close to the story. If their deaths cause you no great pain then … what’s left to be said, but “Eh? Beg your pardon.”

31 journalists have been killed. The details of each are here:

rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3

In a warzone, shit happens.

[quote=“Fox”]
I support integrity. If I think its lacking or not apparent then I support the rights of people to say so, I don’t care who they are. "[/quote]

Interesting that you mention integrity, as it leads us back to the OP, Eason Jordan. I’ll get there in a moment.

On a side thought, I have to say that respect you for your well thought out responses to this thread. It could easily not have gone this way. “'Nuff said.”

Now, when you write, “I can see you are a partisan advocate for hounding and cowing the media so that your point of view is the only one,” I’m afraid I can’t disagree more. I too am seeking some honesty and integrity and it is NOT coming from CNN and much of the more liberal swaying MSM as far as I can tell. I’m not trying to push my opinion on you or anyone else. Maybe I am being overly sensitive about certain issues, particularly Iraq and the UN, but that does not prevent me from reading a wide variety of news reported from a wide variety of news sources. I want to see the facts, and it the MSM’s JOB to give them to me, don’t you agree?

When someone like Eason Jordan spouts off outrageous and unproven accusations as he has done, he deserves some press. And he is getting it now as the other folk who were in the room when he made these accusations are speaking up (read here michellemalkin.com/archives/001448.htm)

But why didn’t he draw it immediately? He is a bigwig in the media and the forum he was speaking in held other major news people and US politicians. So, why has it still not been reported by a major news agency? Hmm, it stinks.

Like I said, I want the facts, the transcripts, and the interviews with the people actually present. If you can look at the facts and disregard the source, as I’m sure you will, since you categorize me so easily as one sided and anti-media), this next link will be much easier as it’s a right wing political blog:

billroggio.com/easongate/

Read the stuff in quotes. Make up your own mind after reading. And should you find a left wing blog that is covering this story, let me know. I’d like to see their take.

Here’s a little something:

"Barney Frank Talks

Michelle Malkin has spoken with Rep. Barney Frank regarding Mr. Jordan’s comments. Rep. Barney Frank was present at Davos when Mr. Jordan made his comments.

Just got off the phone with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who spoke with me about Easongate. Rep. Frank was on the panel at Davos.
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., [b]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."[/b]


Gosh, I guess it’s not just me who would like to see credible evidence.

Jd, here are just a few examples of journalists expressing their concerns about being targeted by US troops.

Apparently, Mr. Jordon is not alone either.

[quote]In a particularly unsettling case last month, American troops detained four Iraqis working for Reuters and NBC, held them for three days, and subjected them to sleep deprivation

CS,

I just analyzed your religous beliefs from my Shit Happens-O-Meter and dicovered your most favored religion is Taoism.

“In a warzone, shit happens.”

JD,

I also noticed your most favored religion is Jesuitism.

TAOISM: Shit happens.

CONFUCIANISM: Confucius say, “Shit happens.”

ZEN: What is the sound of shit happening?

JESUITISM: If shit happens and when nobody is watching, is it really shit?

ISLAM: Shit happens if it is the will of Allah.

COMMUNISM. Equal shit happens to all people.

CATHOLICISM: Shit happens because you are bad.

PSYCHOANALYSIS: Shit happens because of your toilet training.

SCIENTOLOGY: Shit happens if you’re on our shit list.

ZOROASTRIANISM: Bad shit happens, and good shit happens.

UNITARIANISM: Maybe shit happens. Let’s have coffee and donuts.

RIGHT-WING PROTESTANTISM: Let this shit happen to someone else.

JUDAISM: Why does shit always happen to US?

REFORM JUDAISM: Got any Kaopectate?

MYSTICISM: What weird shit!

AGNOSTICISM: What is this shit?

ATHEISM: I don’t believe this shit!

NIHILISM: Who needs this shit?

AZTEC: Cut out this shit!

QUAKER: Let’s not fight over this shit.

FORTEANISM: No shit??

12-STEP: I am powerless to cut the shit.

VOODOO: Hey, that shit looks just like you!

NEWAGE: Visualize shit not happening.

DEISM: Shit just happens.

EXISTENTIALISM: Shit doesn’t happen; shit is.

SECULAR HUMANISM: Shit evolves.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE: Shit is in your mind.

BUDDHISM: Shit happens, but pay no mind.

SHINTOISM: Shit is everywhere.

HINDUISM: This shit has happened before.

WICCA: Mix this shit together and make it happen!

HASIDISM: Shit never happens the same way twice.

THEOSOPHY: You don’t know half of the shit that happens.

DIANETICS: Your mother gave you shit before your were born.

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST: No shit on Saturdays.

JEHOVAH’s WITNESSES: No shit happens until Armageddon.

MOONIES: Only happy shit really happens.

HOPI: Corn fertilizer happens.

BAHA’I: It’s all the same shit.

STOICISM: This shit is good for me.

OBJECTIVISM: Our shit is good for you.

EST: If my shit bothers you, that’s your fault.

REAGANISM: Don’t move; the shit will trickle down.

FASCISM: Shit makes the trains run on time.

CARGO CULT: A barge will come and take all the shit away.

EMACS: Hold down Control-Meta-Shit.

DISCORDIANISM: Some funny shit happened to me today.

RASTAFARIANISM: Let’s smoke this shit.

CHARISMATIC: This is not shit and it doesn’t smell bad.

MASONIC: Shit happens, but we can’t discuss it during Lodge.

Fox, this stuff I’ve heard about…can you post the links next time though…and all I can say especially with regard to the Iraqis and the al-jazeer guys…I wouldn’t want to be on the ground, in uniform. There are too many damn people running around over there claiming to be who they are not. If it were me, I’d arrest ANYONE who looked out of place. Ere on the side of caution. The mess tent suicide bomber is one excellent example of this confusion of who is whom.

And today, CNN reports that…what…a hospital was bombed? Is that right? Something like that. I’m guessing he was dressed accordingly…but this is speculation on my part.

More specifically now to Al-jazeer. I think the US military has shown incredible RESTRAINT in dealing with these guys. They are aware of insurgent plans and movements, as seen by video footage BEHIND the rockets being fired…what? a guy with a video camera can sneak up of insurgents from behind and calmly and steadily hold a camera on them and they won’t care? Horseshit.

These are not imbedded reporters. This is complicity. They are providing a service for the terrorists and insurgents. And they are getting rich off it no doubt. The last quote you provided is an outright lie. They have filmed shootings as they happened.

The third quote would be really funny, if it weren’t so true and sad. The troops, I love this, have not been adequately explained about the job of the journalists? Excuse me, have the journalists been briefed on the soilders’ jobs? “Get the f*ck out of the way!” What’s the priority here, troops or journalists?

“As a result some US troops have an aggressive attitude towards reporters, said Ms Cazes-Tschann - who visited Iraq in July.” So do I. They shouldn’t be in the field.

I do not doubt this aggressive towards th either. I was in the USMC, and the treatment those guys and gals are getting now in our own press (and I’m talking about non criminal activity issues, ok, not abu ghriab and the murder of innocent civilians, which are being handled in military court as they should be) it doesn’t surprise me that some reporters are getting pushed around and their stuff broken.

However, and let’s keep this on Jordan…this is NOT what he was talking about now was it? What he said was enough to shock a 20 year pal David Gergen, as well as Barney Frank, and Dodd. He said, or is reported to have said that the US was murdering journalists in a premeditated way. The odd word out here is “targeted.” If the reporter was thought to be an insurgent, then of course he would have been targetted! Line up the sight, and pow! So yes, those journalists who were deliberately killed, ie “targetted” were most likely killed because they were there and they looked like the enemy (the Iraqis anyway) and they were in the battle zone, not because they were journalists. Frank was right IMHO, they were collateral damage.

Anywho, I want to hear/see the tape and read the transcript. The people had the right to know, right?

and yours fox?

Actually, for myself, I’d prefer:

ZOROASTRIANISM: Bad shit happens, and good shit happens.

RASTAFARIANISM: Let’s smoke this shit.

:laughing: :laughing: :bravo:

Looks like we’re not going to get the tape or transcript. :frowning:

sisypheanmusings.blogspot.com/20 … ate-v.html

Easongate Upate V
Mr. Adams informed me that the WEF has decided, at this time, not to release the video of “Will Democracy Survive the Media?”

I followed up with specific questions concerning who else has contacted him, about the session summary, and whether the decision can be revisited if the session participants request the video be released. I sent him those questions with my brief notes in an email so he could, as they say in the legislature, revise and extend his remarks.

I have asked his permission that his reply be publicly available.

The one question/answer that I think I should summarize here, now, is whether he was contacted by anyone requesting that he NOT release the tape. He was very clear that no one had contacted him requesting the tape not be released.

Yes, I am disappointed. The rock rolled down the hill. The plan now is to get Eason Jordan, David Gergen and Rep. Frank on the record requesting that portion of the tape be released.

UPDATE: I am withholding much of my initial reactions until Mr. Adams has had a chance to reply to my email. That’s not an open ended time frame. But …

I do want to point out the irony of the WEF not releasing this particular video. From the summary: “… an informal consensus was reached that a healthy media makes for a robust democracy and one cannot survive without the other.”

The media did not demonstrate “health” in its non-coverage of this session and the controversy this past week. It is not a sign of the media’s or democracy’s “health” that the media meekly sits back, allowing the WEF to withhold video of a discussion that created this much controversy on such an important issue.

This is the antithesis of robust. This is the antithesis of informed citizenry. And I plan to remind CNN especially of this everytime I hear some complaint about someone not releasing something (i.e., VP Cheney’s Energy meetings for those on the left that found no interest in this).

OK, that’s probably more than enough. I feel a little better now.

And yet here’s some more more main stream media…Investor’s Business Daily:

investors.com/editorial/issues01.asp?v=2/8

Crossing Jordan
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Media: The past year saw the toppling of several high priests of High Church Journalism. This week yet another wobbles: the top news executive at CNN.

Eason Jordan first inflicted himself with controversy two years ago, when President Bush finally launched the invasion of Iraq. Jordan took to the op-ed page of The New York Times to strangely admit covering up several instances known to him of Saddam Hussein’s torturous and murderous ways.

Why the cover-up? Because, he acknowledged, he needed to maintain a bureau in Baghdad. If he’d reported on the dictator’s cruelty, sometimes involving Iraqis working for CNN, why, CNN would have been expelled from the world’s hottest news spot.

Jordan treated the op-ed piece as a spiritual cathartic, his secrets finally released because the war was on and he could write freely about Saddam. His revelations were met with both criticism and praise. Did he not bear a special responsibility, critics demanded, to tell what he knew about Saddam’s regime before the war?

The cable guy skated

Well, here ya go. Eason Quit CNN. I can’t say I’m happy. I would have preferred to see the tape and transcript and then been wrong. This story went as far as the Miami Herald, and I guess he didn’t want to ruin CNN with Rather-scandal.

here’s the link: news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … n_jordan_2

CNN News Executive Eason Jordan Quits

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

NEW YORK - CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amidst a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq .

Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being “unfairly tarnished” by the controversy.

During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum (news - web sites) last month, Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted.

He quickly backed off the remarks, explaining that he meant to distinguish between journalists killed because they were in the wrong place where a bomb fell, for example, and those killed because they were shot at by American forces who mistook them for the enemy. (jdsmith: * see note)

"I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise," Jordan said in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.

But the damage had been done, compounded by the fact that no transcript of his actual remarks has turned up. There was an online petition calling on CNN to find a transcript, and fire Jordan if he said the military had intentionally killed journalists.


Note: Well, actually, he is still trying to backpeddle here. Those present say that he actually DID state, backoff, then restate his assertion that troops were murdering journalists.

Last paragraph, note the IF. This was no witchhunt by the bloggers who ran with this story. They wanted the facts, the transcript, because it was hard to believe that someone in Jordan’s position would say something so inflammatory, without credible evidence. The petition is on easongate.com btw.

I too wanted to see the transcripts, but it’s doubtful now. So, now, I cannot even give Jordan the benefit of the doubt. He did not clear his name. Only the transcript would do that.

I finally saw a report on CNN about this last night. The tape, which could save what remains of Jordan integrity is still wrapped up somewhere…

makes a guy wonder why?

one of the most powerful executives in one of the most powerful news organizations in the world is forced to resign for making unsubstantiated anti-military smears in front of an influential international audience. the same man who admitted that they censored anti-saddam material from earlier broadcasts in order to present a distorted picture of iraq so saddam would let them keep reporting from iraq.

seems to me if you were truely interested in propaganda, this would be a big deal. but i guess nobody on the left cares because there’s no “gay whore” angle to it?