Thursday, February 10, 2005
'Easongate' from the WSJ
Wall Street Journal
'Easongate'
By BRET STEPHENS
February 10, 2005; Page A12
Did Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN, actually say the American
military has deliberately killed journalists covering the conflict in Iraq?
It's a serious question, at least to judge by the heat it's generated.
Google "Easongate" and you get 2,500 results. There is an Easongate.com
Web site, on which more than 1,000 petitioners demand that Mr. Jordan
release a transcript of his remarks -- made recently in Davos -- by Feb.
15 or, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, face serious consequences. Sean
Hannity and the usual Internet suspects have all weighed in. So has
Michelle Malkin, who sits suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.
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.
By chance, I was in the audience of the World Economic Forum's panel
discussion where Mr. Jordan spoke. What happened was this: Mr. Jordan
observed that of the 60-odd journalists killed in Iraq, 12 had been
targeted and killed by coalition forces. He then offered a story of an
unnamed Al-Jazeera journalist who had been "tortured for weeks" at Abu
Ghraib, made to eat his shoes, and called "Al-Jazeera boy" by his
American captors.
Here Rep. Barney Frank, also a member of the panel, interjected: Had
American troops actually targeted journalists? And had CNN done a story
about it? Well no, Mr. Jordan replied, CNN hadn't done a story on this,
specifically. And no, he didn't believe the Bush administration had a
policy of targeting journalists. Besides, he said, "the [American]
generals and colonels have their heart in the right place."
By this point, one could almost see the wheels of Mr. Jordan's mind
spinning, slowly: "How am I going to get out of this one?" But Mr. Frank
and others kept demanding specifics. Mr. Jordan replied that "there are
people who believe there are people in the military" who have it out for
journalists. He also recounted a story of a reporter who'd been sent to
the back of the line at a checkpoint outside of Baghdad's Green Zone,
apparently because the soldier had been unhappy with the reporter's
dispatches.
And that was it -- the discussion moved on. 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. Whether CNN wants its news division led by
a man who can't be trusted to sit on a panel and field softball
questions is another matter.
Mr. Stephens is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
'Easongate'
By BRET STEPHENS
February 10, 2005; Page A12
Did Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN, actually say the American
military has deliberately killed journalists covering the conflict in Iraq?
It's a serious question, at least to judge by the heat it's generated.
Google "Easongate" and you get 2,500 results. There is an Easongate.com
Web site, on which more than 1,000 petitioners demand that Mr. Jordan
release a transcript of his remarks -- made recently in Davos -- by Feb.
15 or, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, face serious consequences. Sean
Hannity and the usual Internet suspects have all weighed in. So has
Michelle Malkin, who sits suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.
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.
By chance, I was in the audience of the World Economic Forum's panel
discussion where Mr. Jordan spoke. What happened was this: Mr. Jordan
observed that of the 60-odd journalists killed in Iraq, 12 had been
targeted and killed by coalition forces. He then offered a story of an
unnamed Al-Jazeera journalist who had been "tortured for weeks" at Abu
Ghraib, made to eat his shoes, and called "Al-Jazeera boy" by his
American captors.
Here Rep. Barney Frank, also a member of the panel, interjected: Had
American troops actually targeted journalists? And had CNN done a story
about it? Well no, Mr. Jordan replied, CNN hadn't done a story on this,
specifically. And no, he didn't believe the Bush administration had a
policy of targeting journalists. Besides, he said, "the [American]
generals and colonels have their heart in the right place."
By this point, one could almost see the wheels of Mr. Jordan's mind
spinning, slowly: "How am I going to get out of this one?" But Mr. Frank
and others kept demanding specifics. Mr. Jordan replied that "there are
people who believe there are people in the military" who have it out for
journalists. He also recounted a story of a reporter who'd been sent to
the back of the line at a checkpoint outside of Baghdad's Green Zone,
apparently because the soldier had been unhappy with the reporter's
dispatches.
And that was it -- the discussion moved on. 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. Whether CNN wants its news division led by
a man who can't be trusted to sit on a panel and field softball
questions is another matter.
Mr. Stephens is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
