Um, what's there to mob about? Either he said something, or he didn't. Either what he said was true, or it wasn't. Why the "gate?"

The "gate" label is being applied by Hewitt et al. And that's exactly what bothers me here.

It's a loaded term that presupposes an intentional coverup of a criminal - or at least guiltworthy - covert action to damage someone. In this case, the someone being damaged is believed to be the US military, the coverup is by the MSM rather than the Nixon Whitehouse.

Rebecca MacKinnon raises the question of whether the blog push has gone beyond asking for the transcript of the Davos session to becoming a mob action against Jordan. It's a fair question, I think.

However, I don't think either CNN or the MSM are off the hook on this one. As MacKinnon notes, the larger question is whether Jordan believes that the US military deliberately kills journalists. It's hard to escape the impression that a) he does and b) he said so to an international audience who lapped it up.

Check out her first entry on the topic -- right there in the comments is one P. Lukasiak, a close associate of Bill Burkett's. Yes, the Rathergate Burkett. Mr. L. wants nothing more than to shift the discussion away from Jordan to conspiracy theories about the bulge between Bush's shoulderblades at the election debate. But along the way he does indeed point us to what he considers the factual basis for the allegations Jordan is said to have made. Which illustrates why this story needs to be addressed.

If Jordan in fact said what people recollect he said, then there's a serious issue here regarding irresponsible action on the part of a major news executive which the MSM are doing their best not to cover. And that probably DOES warrant a "gate" label.

But I'm seeing a whole lot of people who are ready to boycott advertisers etc. based on what they've read so far. I personally want to know exactly what was said - and ideally, to see video so we can see body language, tone of voice etc. as well as the words on a transcript. Until then, I'm holding fire.

But I'm not going to let this drop off of my radar, either.

Okay, I'm with you there.

Robin: A few points.

First, the control of this story rests exclusively with CNN and Eason Jordan. Candor and speed on their parts would have prevented any sense of cover-up. Jordan/CNN's first response was to assert wrongly in the recollections of Rony and Rebecca that Jordn had used the word "targeted" in response to remarks by Barney Franks.

Second "Easongate" is the name of a blog set up by a group of very experienced bloggers. The use of "-gate" implies a cover up and or stonewall, which is exactly what we have here. It is a "loaded" term, but completely applicable to this situation. I do not agree with American Digest's view of the story's development, but many responsible folks do. And when Mickey Kaus is out there banging on Howard Kurtz for not reporting the controversy, coupled with Jay Rosen's questions, it is hard to argue that this is a "political" story at all. It is a journalism story, and one not being covered by the MSM journalists who I would have expected to have at least given as much attention to Jordan's speech as they have to General Mattis' remarks.

Third, I raised the question of blog fairness with Renecca because I don't want Jordan to get the benefit of a sympathy wave from folks who don't understand the underlying issue.

At this point there is pressure on Jordan because it is deserved. No major political figure could go nearly 10 days after making such a controversial statement without answering questions. Jordan is such a figure. Folks who want to criticize the bloggers pushing for answers need to ask themselves what is the real story here. The answer is the specifics of what a senior American news exec said to multi-nationl gathering of very influential people about the tactics of the American military vis-a-vis journalists. That's it. When Jordan answers questions and the videotap is played, the blog swarm will dissipate if there is nothing controversial in it. If he said what Rony reported him to have said, he should be fired. Redirecting atention away from the key question is complicity in CNN's stonewalling.

Hugh Hewitt

Hugh, as the wife of a retired USAF officer and as someone closely associated with our Army now, I certainly take seriously the impact of Jordan's reported remarks. Those are people I know and love out there in places like Iraq, and the comments Jordan is said to have made were about them. Not happy 'bout that.

Nor have I been particularly impressed by the MSM here. I wrote a rant on the more general issue of press bias and credibility to Jim Romenesko late last night -- it was about 3 times as long as it needed to be, but the gist of it was that there are a lot of literate, capable people who are fed up with shoddy reporting and innuendo. I regard the blogosphere as a corrective in the market of ideas. So I don't disagree with applying heavy pressure to have this story reported.

That said, I do wish bloggers would use careful language in their own commentary. Rebecca makes it clear that, while she has memories of the incident with Jordan, she does not have verbatim on his remarks. That alone should give bloggers pause before they write that he did say such and such and that Arab leaders did rush up to congratulate him.

Maybe it's just my centrist / libertarian tendencies. Or my care to generally avoid partisan statements, given where / with whom I work. Or the fact that my Myers-Briggs profile shows that I like to see lots of sides of things rather than close on a single judgement quickly. (smile)

Your point about Jordan being a major political figure is dead on. Jay Rosen makes that point too, and I commented about it on PressThink earlier today.

the larger question is whether Jordan believes that the US military deliberately kills journalists.

I don't know that this is the most accurate way of framing the question. Among other things, if Jordan actually believed that, CNN would probably have run a story on it, and he probably would have stood behind his words instead of temporizing when they become public, and he probably would have trotted out evidence or at least names, and the blogosphere would probably be screaming for an investigation of the military instead of screaming for the transcript.

I'd say the larger question is whether Jordan deliberately lied about the US military targeting journalists; if he did, what his reasons for doing so were; and whether and in what way those reasons affect his news judgement.

We drink from the information stream of the mainstream media, and we use their stories to help determine the issues of the day. If that stream is being poisoned by falsehoods, it's an issue of the utmost importance and of far more moment than whether Eason Jordan was trying to get a little egoboo and access by putting down the US military in front of a receptive Davos audience. This question, and its importance, are exactly why the blogosphere tends to jump on mainstream-media shenanigans with both feet, and the suspicion of falsehoods in the media stream is largely responsible for the growth of the blogosphere in the first place. Eason Jordan has a great deal of power. His decisions can potentially swing elections, bring about military defeat, and change national policies. Public attention to his statements is the only means of accountability we have for this powerful man.

Yes, accountability is the real question here, isn't it.

if Jordan actually believed that, CNN would probably have run a story on it, and he probably would have stood behind his words

We are hypothesizing until we see and hear the tape.

However, If Jordan could prove what he is reported to have said, he would probably do all the things Jaed says. However, if he believed them but could not prove them, he would probably act as he he has. That is the crux of the matter. This is what he believes, not what he knows or can prove. This belief is so deeply held that he expresses it in public, apparently repeatedly. And it does color everything that goes on at CNN, hiring, reporting, and editing.

How powerful is this guy? While Barney Frank did confront him at Davos, Rep. Frank, never shy of a camera, has not said a word about it since. Sen. Dodd, said nothing there, and nothing since. David Gergen, apparently disturbed then has said nothing since. Not one peep put of the media while at the same time, within 24 hours they can crucify Gen Mattis for talking like a Marine. Actually, nicer than I imagine a Marine talks.

If a mob is brewing, perhaps it is because of the way the public is being treated by the media elite. The media has done this to its victims often enough to know that these things don't get better with time. The sooner the tape is generally available the sooner this is over and the mob goes home. Until then, the curious will continue to ask questions and the mob will get larger and less controlled. CNN should do the responsible thing and have the tape released and played immediately.

A tape exist, supposedly, so we will all know soon.

I'm inclined at this point to believe the accounts of Eason's comments. If he had NOT made the comments, with the tape existing, putting them out in public would have made the story go away.

Nobody in the Media wants to report it because it would get you blackballed. It's an expression of disloyalty (to your fellow journalists) in favor of the story. Journalism doesn't work that way ... it's a matter of following what the opinion makers, your bosses, and the other elites determine the story will be. Certainly NOT digging something up on your own. Any journalist or news organization could have gotten this story either alive or dead by finding and airing the tape. That they deliberately chose not to suggests an elite vs. story orientation.

Of course, the story will get out; and if the tape is what I suspect it is, it will be disaster for CNN. Who could trust them, knowing their senior management thinks the military murders journalists (tinfoil hat territory?)

However, If Jordan could prove what he is reported to have said, he would probably do all the things Jaed says. However, if he believed them but could not prove them, he would probably act as he he has.

He need not have courtroom-quality proof to have evidence that he could bring forward. Names, dates, specific stories he's heard, military talk he has overheard.... Something more than the "Gosh, he meant some journalists were killed accidentally, which is why he responded so vehemently to someone's statement that journalists were killed accidentally" we've gotten from CNN's PR department.

To put it another way, if he believes this happened, he presumably has some reasons for the belief, something that leads him to believe it. Why not share those reasons, if they exist? (And, of course, if he does have concrete reasons to believe the military is murdering journalists, we need to know about that ASAP. It seems to me that it's his responsibility to bring any such information to the public, to Congress, and/or to the military command.)

Now I admit that we don't know for certain that he said what is reported. However, the Davos blogger says he did, at least one other witness corroborates it, and Jordan himself has not stated that he didn't say it. That's not proof but it's a pretty strong indication - certainly enough to start asking serious questions.

Rebecca has used it to keep track of links to the Easongate discussion on the blogs

Freeman Dyson is right! We are all post-darwinians now, and the new evolution is memetic evolution. This story has spread across the blogverse like wildfire. It seems each time this happens, eg rathergate, it happens quicker, prolly because the connections establish faster.

Robin:

That said, mob attack is a lousy way to run a society and I worry that we are seeing bloggers be manipulated for political purposes.

A mob? What makes you think Chester, Brian, Blackfive and I started Easongate for political purposes? No one manipulated us. We did this on our own. We started it because we do not want people in positions of power such as Eason Jordan to casually slander US servicemen without consequences. If servicemen coming to the defense of their brothers and sisters is a mob mentality, then I am guilty as charged.

Hugh Hewitt, or anyone else for that matter, never asked us to start this blog. In fact, the idea was mine. After I posted on Friday, which included my letter to CNN, many people contacted me to ask how they could help. I thought the best way for us to get to the bottom of Mr. Jordan's statements was to apply pressure on CNN. Chester, Blackfive and Brian volunteered to help, and we put together the blog.

We can either post ad infinitum in the hopes of the MSM noticing, or we can actually try to put the pressure on ourselves by mobilizing our resources. I chose the latter option.

As a former soldier, I am outraged at his recent comments, as well as his past comments. If the accusations he makes are true, then he should submit his evidence to the authorities. If they are not, he must suffer the consequences.

Or we could all just engage in collective navel-gazing while the MSM covers for one of their own.

Oh how poignant. What is a mob attack by
bloggers is just hard hitting journalism
when the Mainstream Media does it.

Can you spell hypocracy?

I do object to the use of the
Term Something-gate.

That is an old tired worn out paradigm.

Why not use something from THIS century.

Baghdad Eason the CNN Information Minister? ;-)

What makes you think Chester, Brian, Blackfive and I started Easongate for political purposes? No one manipulated us. We did this on our own. We started it because we do not want people in positions of power such as Eason Jordan to casually slander US servicemen without consequences. If servicemen coming to the defense of their brothers and sisters is a mob mentality, then I am guilty as charged.

Bill, it was not my intent to suggest that you four started Easongate for political purposes. I understand standing by our troops - even as a civilian, I've gotten that same support from my co-workers, as I've tried to give it back.

However, I can't help but note two things. First, that this issue was originally and still is in many ways being driven by Hugh, who does have a strong political stance. I'm not criticizing him for that, nor does that automatically make me discard his insights. But I note it, and it makes me just a little careful about jumping on the bandwagon before I have more evidence.

And second, that right now, we do not know that Jordan slandered the troops. We do have good reason to think he may have - and CNN's spin was rather less than convincing. So I think he probably did -- but until I have something closer to the details, I'm withholding judgement just a bit.

It's not hard to be suspicious of the MSM's attitudes after watching the lousy reporting that came out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Going after an MSM biggie is both understandable and emotionally rewarding after we saw CBS stonewall on Rathergate and all of them ignore the reconstruction work and the professionalism of the troops we have in theatre - or even those who worked the tsunami, for that matter.

So by all means, push the MSM to cover this story. At the same time, though, remember that just as we tear apart the MSM for shoddy biased reporting, so too the blogosphere can and should be held accountable when it plays in the big time this way. Let's be careful to distinguish what we know from what we suspect and are demanding evidence about.

Can you spell hypocracy?

Yes. It's spelled 'hypocrisy'. (smile)

More seriously, Dan, there's a fine line between hard hitting journalism and jumping to conclusions because they match our beliefs.

The latter is called "confirmation bias" and I think we had best make sure we aren't acting out of it before we go after Jordan and CNN. I'll say it again - what we criticize the MSM for, we'd best take care we're not guilty of as well.

That's my only concern here, but it's a real concern.

It's just instructive to compare how journalists treat informal remarks made in specialized settings when made by their own -- instead of by US flag officers.

Jerry Boykin addressing a group of his fellow Jesus-followers may be a pandering, displaying his personal religious bigotry, or he may be making a perfectly reasonble theological point. But his remark about "false gods" was picked up and published within hours, repeated and discussed by reporters and pundits right and left for weeks. The public may or may not agree with Boykin but nobody is in any doubt about the general's position regarding Islamic fundamentalists.

James Mattis addressing a group including many of his fellow military officers may be making an in-joke, confessing a common failing, or attempting to whip up enthusiasm like a high school football coach. But whatever the background his remark about men who are "fun to kill" was picked and published within hours, and has alreadly repeated and discussed by reporters and pundits right and left for days. (Has it been a week yet? Is the commentary over?) Again, how we interpret the situation is ours to decide -- but there seems little secrecy to to Mattis's opinion.

Eason Jordan addressing a group including many fellow journalists made at least one remark, among many, that raised eyebrows. But for a week now HIS remark has been shrouded by the media and despite the "mob" of blog punditry the intent and background of his stance is ambiguous. AmTRIGuous. I dunno. Could be "any number" of intents burying in Jordan's decision to make that remark in that venue.

Now, I figger anybody workin' for Captain Outrageous Himself, the Mighty Ted Turner, is a like-minded self-aggrandizing liberal bull-shitter. I could be wrong. But machts nicht. It's not the stance, it's not the bias. It's the interesting journalistic news judgement that leads to the conclusion that what flag officers say in any venue is newsworthy, but what news-controllers say is personal and private -- unless they specifically sign off on the editorial column. Which Eason has done regarding about keeping Saddam Hussein's secrets secret.

That's what makes me interesting to follow the scent and join the pack of hounds baying after the fox. Or in this case, after CNN.

Robin,

Read our site purpose. We are more than willing to investigate if his claims are true. Also, I have publicly stated I will apologize if I am wrong about his comments at Davos. We still do not know wexactly what he said, but the coverup of this certainly is not building my confidence.

The other thing to consider is the media's unwillingness to cover this story. People at the conference (several, including Rep. Barny Frank) stated Mr. Jordan said what we believe he said. It deserves coverage. If the media will not, then we will.

And if we are wrong we will admit to as much.

As I noted in a new post, Frank's comments as reported by Malkin do add another layer of credibility to the story. And it does have the feel of the DAVOS organizers slow-rolling sysiphus on the tape, perhaps in response to behind-the-scene pressure from CNN but more likely out of the instinct of many conference organizers not to be the ones who expose an influential attendee.

Apologies if the blogosphere is wrong would be appropriate, but if it were the case (as I think it probably isn't) that Jordan has been seriously misrepresented, one could argue that an apology would be small compensation for the damage to his professional reputation. However, as he is a pretty public figure and the damage would probably be judged to be small, an apology would suffice for all concerned, I suppose -- at least officially.

Unofficially, both sides will emerge from this incident with deeper distrust of one another, I fear.

"And it does have the feel of the DAVOS organizers slow-rolling sysiphus on the tape, perhaps in response to behind-the-scene pressure from CNN but more likely out of the instinct of many conference organizers not to be the ones who expose an influential attendee."

This comment -- and many others of a similar temper -- suggest to me that the organizers of the next WEF will have to be very careful in checking for hidden bugs and vetting the maintenance staff. Otherwise, "Chatham House Rules" or not, it may be broadcast (or webcast?) in real time.

Robin,

On your last point, I don't think deeper distrust of the other, is what has happened or will happen. You are correct that this episode has caused deeper mistrust of the mainstream press by the bloggers and blog readers. But it does not engender mistrust of the blogosphere by the media. People do not "mistrust" those who are relentless in trying to uncover painful truths; the word you are looking for is fear.