Thanks. You're absolutely correct about the tape. That's why I fear for it not getting out.

Another spade full of dirt. This item looks headed down the memory hole, unless Frank makes an issue of it.

That's Democrat representative and Democrat senator. And I suspect that Barney Frank at least has opposed the war all along. If he got ticked off enough with Eason Jordan to confront him then and there, it really is bad.

Yup. But what closed it for me is Gergen, because he's a trained and highly respected pro with a reputation for accuracy and level-headedness. Take his account AND Frank's response AND the two bloggers (one of them also a pro who likes Jordan a lot) and it does add up at this point.

If CNN buries the tape, then the other networks won't be able to show clips over and over again. That will limit the damage somewhat.

I'm not convinced, though, that either CNN or Jordan will necessarily suffer much in the way of negative outcomes from this. CNN has been way behind in viewership for a while now in the US. They need more viewers and are most likely to get them outside of this country. Moreover, MacKinnon reports that Reuters is considering getting into the international broadcast business, which would mean more competition.

I still think there's a good chance that CNN will be one of the bidders for al Jazeera when it comes up for sale in a few months.

I will offer a reward:

THE PRIZE: I will do whatever you want. I'll thoroughly research and write at length on the topic of your choosing; or I will post a glorious and glowing review of your own blog, post it and shamelessly beg all bloggers I know to post a link to it; or, for those so inclined, I will refrain from blogging or commenting at all for 2 weeks (please don't pick that one).

THE CHALLENGE: Be the first kid on your block to e-mail me or e-mail any of the administrators of Easongate one or more linkable quotes from Eason Jordan where he states on behalf of himself, CNN or journalists in general, "I/WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS".

I want that quote(s) framed in my office next to his conniving mug and I will pay for it in kind.

... there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined.

I find this little weasel-squeak qualification to be as offensive as the original remarks. Notice how effortlessly Jordan flips from one slander (the military establishment is targeting journalists) to another (American soldiers/baby-killers are targeting journalists), both of which suit his prejudice.

As long as we're speculating, there may have been instances of journalists deliberately giving away the positions of US troops, or otherwise abetting enemy attacks, so they can film casualties. They may also have been cases of CNN executives savagely beating and sodomizing their secretaries, and being insufficiently disciplined for it.

Seems to me Dodd, Frank, and Gergen aren't either pajamahadeen or members of a VRWC (Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy). To their credit, they appear to be telling the truth.

Of course, what really needs to be done is release the videotape!

Well to some extent its not "news" that CNN holds our military in low regard. This story seems to be of the dog bites man variety.

Charges that the U.S. military are deliberately murdering journalists is not new.

The left-wing hate group (correction, progressive media watch dog group) un-FAIR made similar charges in 2003 and 2004. As of Feb. 08, 2005 08:00 EST, I cannot find any reference to the current Jordan affair on FAIR's web site, which is pretty pathetic for a so-called "media watchdog" group.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Is Killing Part of Pentagon Press Policy?

April 10, 2003

The Pentagon has held up its practice of "embedding" journalists with military units as proof of a new media-friendly policy. On April 8, however, U.S. military forces launched what appeared to be deliberate attacks on independent journalists covering the war, killing three and injuring four others....

And this:

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/040311.html

Media Beat
March 11, 2004

They Shoot Journalists, Don't They?
By Norman Solomon

To encourage restraint in war coverage, governments don't need to shoot journalists -- though sometimes that's helpful....

During the Clinton administration, un-FAIR labeled such accusations as "inflamatory."

http://www.fair.org/articles/gun-control.html

February 2000

Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment
by Jeff Cohen

...Given the inflammatory utterances from NRA leaders, toned down after the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed by ardent member Timothy McVeigh, the NRA has not fared all that badly in the media. One board member wrote that masked federal agents are "scarier than the Nazis" and should be "targets." Another declared: "The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to threaten the government."

Only after Oklahoma City did national media notice official NRA rhetoric about the "storm-trooper tactics" of firearms agents, a.k.a. "jack-booted government thugs," who have the green light to "murder law-abiding citizens."...

In the spirit of Ted Turner, CNN is more interested in its global market than its U.S. market. Jordan was simply catering to the sensibilities of his target audience, namely, European hotel visitors, Arab coffee house patrons, South Asian resort vacationers, and global political elites. . .

Sorry, but hugh Hewitt is wrong here.

"You can't blast heroes as killers and walk off the field to a cocktail parties in Davos and pretend nothing happened."

Sure you can. In the Middle East (and increasingly in Europe and Canada as well), any slander is considered permissible if the target is American, for all the reasons Armed Liberal explains here. The reaction in Davos should surprise no-one. Especially if you've been reading Nordlinger's witty and wise running commentary from inside the conference.

Gerard Van der Leun's Eason Jordan and the Unwritten Blacklist is even more scathing - bt after watching, say, MSM coverage of the Swift Vets controversy vs. coverage of the Air National Guard allegations against W., it's hard for me to argue with his conclusions. Money 'graphs:

Unless, of course, you don't care about appearing on cable news shows to sooth your vanity and pump your book, or care about landing that book deal to begin with, or care about someday having a show of your own, or care about advancing at your institution or receiving a better offer from another newspaper, magazine, television network. Strike at someone like Eason Jordon and all these things will, somehow, just not be offered to you.

And, in their hearts, journalists and columnists understand this. Eason Jordan is a member of a caste system and that system punishes those who tell tales out of school by labeling them "untouchable."

At the end of the day, nothing's going to happen with the Jordan story. The videotape will be lost and the transcript will not surface, and all will move on to the next four-hour news cycle. Jordan will be back working the room and being worked next year at Davos.

You see you can blast heroes as killers and walk off the field to cocktail parties in Davos and pretend nothing happened if you and your cohort control the careers of all that might expose you.

That's how, absent a net worth of at least $500 million, you get to Davos in the first place."

Hat tip and thanks to Donald Sensing for pointing me to that essay.

Meanwhile, as Robin Burk notes in her follow-up post, Roger L. Simon sums up why Easongate matters so much.

I responded to Gerard Van der Leun in the comments to his posting:

Andrew Sullivan and some others brought down the editor of the New York Times by hitting the NYT hard with all of its mistakes and scandals. Bloggers have saved a Presidency from the likes of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes; indeed, they made sure that two stories blew up in CBS's face, back-to-back. They've caused everyone in the national media to "know doubt." They will hang on every word that Eason Jordan utters from now on. They will have microphones and video cameras everywhere. They will learn to cultivate friendships with people who can supply them with information on Jordan. Some will learn to bribe. A few will learn to blackmail. They will learn the uses of anonymous reporting. Jordan's competitors, those who want his job or his market share, will learn the arts of the anonymous informant.

Moreover, Eason Jordan does not merely have subordinates as associates. He's part of a for-profit company whose profits will be damaged as bloggers continue to erode its prestige. He works under company officers and a company board who will come less and less to tolerate the embarrassment and losses Jordan brings on them. Nor ought we to discount the possibility that some of those company officers and board members are patriotic and will consider themselves to have done something for their country if they manage to push Jordan out of his job.

But Jordan must fear more than those threats. From now on, he has to fear every crack shot in the armed forces--not so much if he has slandered them, but more if he has not.

Eason Jordan is learning how to play the Arafat game: one message for the US audience, and the exact opposite message for the euro-arabian audience. Only at Davos he forgot that his audience comprised members of both groups. Hence the backpedaling and denials-- but those denials have been reported only in the US press, and only in a rather obscure column by the Post's media critic, who happens to be on CNN's payroll. No backpedaling for the european and arab media.

Perhaps we will see CNN try to spin off a separate brand with separate editorial staff that's, er, targeted at the arab and european markets. Jordan's US team can tell its US audience one story and the Eur-abian team can tell their audience another story, and whenever the twain meet, as in Davos, handlers will be present to ensure that all messages for the combined audience are swabbed through and through with ambiguity.

If there were a futures market on this scenario, I'd give it a 70% probability.

It's not that journalists are being targeted by the military.

Journalist's "authority" is being targeted by bloggers.

But just for fun ... let's assume that some young troopers do have some grudge against particular journalists. Who would be the most likely targets? Geraldo Rivera? Peter Arnett? Andrew Gilligan? I mean, positing a trigger-happy media-watching impulsive pyschopathic sniper-trained "goon" who's watched his honor and competence "slapped around" by the TV Taliban -- who might be perceived as the most fun to kill?

To me, the fact that Geraldo has NOT been shot or fragged by "accidental" or "ocllateral" or friendly fire is strong evidence that Eason's claims are false. But then, I have strong opinions.