An innuendo: "American reporters are being killed by US Troops."

An allegation: "I know of 12 journalists that had been targeted and killed by US troops in Iraq."

A retraction: "I appologize for my statement. I, in no way, believe, or meant to convey a belief, that US troops intended to kill, torture or injure any journalists."

Not a retration: "Well, I don't know for 100% certain that journalists are being targeted; I'm just saying . . ."

Can we have the tape please?

Not a very liberal position, is it?

Demanding a tape?

Your case doesn't pass the Branzburg test.

The Al-Arabiya (I think it was them) had a colored fabric over one whole side of a building explaining that they were a news organization, and a US tank nailed it.

You think our guys care?

This peice from the London Economist should disabuse you of that notion.

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/economist.html

I would think that demanding a tape wouldn't be a "liberal" or "conservative" position so much as a "cares about the truth" position.

Frankly, I don't care if they had a sign proclaiming themselves to be Quakers. It is possible to lie on signs, you know. I don't support the deliberate targeting of journalists, but without some very strong evidence, I'll not accuse the soldiers of murdering noncombatants, nor tolerate it from the elites of the MSM.

Oh, and what is the "Branzburg test"? Branzburg v. Hayes held that there is no "reporter's privilege"; that is, reporters must reveal their sources to grand juries when subpoenaed. 408 U.S. 665, 685 (1972) ("newsmen are not exempt from the normal duty of appearing before a grand jury and answering questions relevant to a criminal investigation"). What the &^%$* does that have to do with this?

So, if it suits a political agenda, you can demand people turn over their private property.

Now I understand.

You should really take your reading of Branzburg to the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association because they have it all wrong! Don't delay, act today!

So, if it suits a political agenda, you can demand people turn over their private property

Um, yes. If my neighbor says "I have proof that your brother is a child molester," there's no moral or legal principle that says I can't say "Oh yeah? Let's see it!" This isn't a matter of legal compulsion (a subpoena), it's a matter of clearing the air.

I suppose the owners of the tape in this case have a perfect legal right not to turn it over to me or anyone else, but that doesn't mean we're somehow forbidden to ask (or "demand").

The word "Branzburg" doesn't appear anywhere on the link you posted, which is about a state statute (not a Supreme Court decision) protecting journalists from making certain disclosures in the context of a civil lawsuit, not withholding information from grand juries in criminal cases. It is thus about as far removed from Branzburg as I can imagine.

But even supposing it were about Branzburg, you haven't explained what grand juries have to do with the current case.

And hey, if you don't like my "interpretation" of Branzburg, which after all comes from a direct quote of the case, why not follow my link and tell us what you think it says?

Full disclosure: a closer reading of the PA news association website shows that the shield law also applies in grand jury investigations. I typed too fast.

This law does not, of course, apply in federal court, where Branzburg still controls.

This does not, of course, mean that the reference to Branzburg in the Eastongate context makes the slightest bit of sense; it still doesn't.

Heck, if it's a matter of property, I'll spring for a blank tape.

But that's a completely misleading way to look at it. Presumably, if the statement were being taken out of context or being misquoted, Davos would have no objection to setting the record straight by releasing the tape (okay, "the information recorded on the tape".)

It's possible, of course, that the tape doesn't really have a good shot of it, and isn't conclusive one way or the other, but again, why not release it? Most people, even on the conservative side of the debate, would like to give Jordan the benefit of the doubt. A tape that showed that there COULD be that doubt would probably end the entire ruckus.

So why not release the tape? There's really only one reasonable conclusion.

Josh Narins -

Since you obviously agree with what Eason Jordan said, what's your problem with releasing the tape?

And what does confidentiality have to do with it? The WEF can't claim that Eason Jordan confided information to them, not when he made the remarks in front of an audience.

Ah, selective outrage. Where would political bloggers be without it?

There's a little Jeff Gannon story out there as well, you know.

After all, Anne Coulter can joke saying "would that it were so", regarding the military targeting journalists, and that's just ducky.

Brit Hume from Fox, and John Fund from Wall Street journal - memebers of the SLCM - can completely distort and take out of context FDR comments about social security,and that gets a pass too.

Fox, CNN and MSNBC, on commentators covering Bush's inauguration, can have Republican and conversatives outnumbering democratic and liberal commentators by a margin of 4 to 1 (And Fox has the closest balance) and that's just ducky.

Selective outrage, it keeps the blog wheel turning...

JC:

1. "Selective outrage" is not what makes the blog wheel turn. The ethereal wind does.

2. Complaining about selective outrage makes for poor moralism when it is used to excuse wrong-doing. When used in that sense it amounts to saying that two wrongs make a right.

3. The three things you mention are not equivalent to what Eason Jordan is accused of, and two of them are not even remotely connected to it.

Here is a much better example: Why are we not also trashing Danny Schechter ("Weapons of Mass Deception") who is going around saying the same thing Eason Jordan is - or rather, saying and yet-not-quite-saying the same thing? Or Robert Fisk, whom I suspect Jordan got his "information" from?

I have to agree that the Talon / Gannon story does not seem to me to rise to the level of Jordan's comments at Davos.

In the first case you have a not-well-known and not very influential person who used a "nom de blog", cheerleads for the Administration and is associated with tacky sex-based URLs. I think the White House was not wise to allow him to be credentialed but I don't see a scandal here.

Jordan is a highly influential person who directly controls the news output of a major international network. He has persistently made, or implied, very serious charges against the US military and he has done so in the hearing of other very influential people, many of whom took his words as confirmation of their suspicions.

It is a big mistake for BOTH sides of the political aisle to act as if what is at stake in stories like this is simply partisan advantage. A democratic republic needs access to fact-based reporting and even-handed, insightful news analysis. What Jordan apparently said and has done multiple times calls into question CNN's reporting on a deep and wide scale. To equate that to Gannon is both disingenuous and - more inportantly - to obscure this very important issues of the credibility of our professional news media.

Not a very liberal position, is it? Demanding a tape?

I said "please" turn over the tape. I never called for a grand jury investigation. Sheesh.

The main difference btw/ Gannon and Jordan is that last night I watched a clip of Gannon at a press conference and I was able to evaluate for myself what had happened. Frankly, Gannon looked silly and unserious.

I wonder how that tape became available? Subpoena? Illegal wiretaps?

"[T]he press has at its disposal powerful mechanisms of communication and is far from helpless to protect itself . . .." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 US 665 (1972).

Robin,

I agree with this comment of yours: "It is a big mistake for BOTH sides of the political aisle to act as if what is at stake in stories like this is simply partisan advantage. A democratic republic needs access to fact-based reporting and even-handed, insightful news analysis."

To your stated worry of "obscure this very important issues of the credibility of our professional news media", all you have to say is "Roger Ailes", and all you have to do is watch "Outfoxed".

This complaint about Eason, whatever the merits, (and again, seizing ONE quote, and then applying it to the whole of CNN is hyperventilation) is STANDARD PRACTICE at Fox.

And if you haven't noticed, Fox gets betters ratings than CNN.

So I'm sorry - I'm all for accountability in newsrooms - as someone who reads the Daily Howler religiously, every day I am confronted by a press corps that gives President Bush a pass.

So I'll take your statement about seriously when you start practicing what you preach. Do some spinsanity over here, that zings both sides, and not only one.

Otherwise, you ARE simply a partisan voice, all your claims of "centrism" notwithstanding.

Eason has resigned, so it seems the allegations were true. There is IMHO very little explanation for why he resigned instead of releasing the tape.

Eason and CNN have been caught admitting suppressing news out of Iraq in order to operate in Saddam's Baghdad, even to the point of knowing about planned murders of Saddam's sons-in-law and saying nothing.

Eason made this allegation in a Journalism conference in Portugal (allegedly) so this is not the first time it's been made.

CNN is allegedly in the hunt to purchase Al Jazeera, so anti-American sentiment regardless of facts is to be expected.

Basically, this is all business. CNN is trying to appeal to the base instincts of anti-American Europeans and Arabs for business reasons (CNN International, Al Jazeera) which puts them directly in the fire domestically.

Hence Jordan resigning. However, the long term effect is to brand CNN the left-wing version of Fox, full of anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment devoid of actual facts.

Talon/Gannon is as serious as Easton. Gannon was issued a press pass and he wasn't who he claimed to be. Given the unprecedented security surrounding the White House HOW CAN YOU GET IN WITHOUT CLEARANCE?
Who cleared a false name and for TWO years? How did he get access to internal briefings regarding the Plaume affair?

JC

So if we dont flog the honest and the good, we are not being ballanced ?

Shoot the rapist *and^ his victim, otherwise it isnt fair ?

and Outfoxed is no better than M Moores Potemkin village in F911

All views are not equal.