Why is the left unmoved by the forced exit of Eason Jordan?

[BurtWorm]

Or is it? Gannon seems to be taking up a lot of energy, but I have seen next to nothing here about how easily the right wing was able to get rid of one of the most powerful people in the newsmedia because he dared to suggest that the US military had killed journalists in ways that could not be considered "collateral damage." Isn't what Jordan said true? And if so, isn't his departure a more serious threat to the First Amendment than the access a freeper regurgibot had to White House press briefings?

Or is it?

[pearl]

1. The left is exhausted

like myself. but I am enraged and also the business at PBS is infuriating. A takeover and disgusting level of censorship.
I have answers but feel like I'm spitting in the wind.

[BurtWorm]

3. I hear you.

It's hard to even know what to do about the Jordan situation. I'm very easily distracted from it myself. But then I keep coming back to realize that Jordan lost his job for speaking the truth. That's a terrible reason for a journalist to lose his job.

[centristo]

7. where is the evidence?

If what he said was true, please provide links. I am unaware of any US plot to assassinate journalists in Iraq.

[Old and In the Way]

17. Well, if there were no journalists left to report assassination plots

I'd guess we'd be unaware that there was one. Of course, then we'd be unaware of just about everything that goes on there, except what the military command and this administration wants us to know.

[BurtWorm]

22. Please provide links to Jordan saying the US plots to assassinate

journalists.

[aquart]

18. How do you fight for someone who retracts his words?

HE didn't stand by them. Why should I?

[BurtWorm]

26. True enough, but what about the broader principle.

Jordan isn't the first casualty in the war against the free flow of information post-9/11.

[itzamirakul]

31. I am wondering if you shared your concern

about the Jordan situation with any of the media? Did you write to any of the news outlets and voice your displeasure or do you just share your feelings with us?

A lot of us are beginning to write in, email, fax, or phone these media outlets with our opinions. It will bring about change soon, I am sure. Why don't you get on board?

[BurtWorm]

35. Not about this case.

I've done it in other cases, marm. Thanks for the tip.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. I know!

I can only email and make calls after calls after calls. I'm busy too. This is all very time consuming for all of us.

[UdoKier]

2. It is a shame.

A lot of people just said "good riddance" because the guy oversaw CNN's transformation from somewhat credible, if sensationalistic news outlet to right-wing Fox News copycat.

But the real story is that yet another TRUE story of journalists DELIBERATELY being targeted and killed on the orders of military brass ( & higher) has been silenced.

We should be defending this guy (corporate whore that he is) if only for the sake of keeping the STORY alive.

[BurtWorm]

8. Jordan is an old CNN hand. He was in charge of news, not ratings.

The real enemy at CNN is Walter Isaacson, who came on after Ted Turner was bought out by Time Warner. The confusion about this may have a lot to do with the lack of sympathy toward Jordan among lefties. Of course, CNN has always been a business as much as a news organization, so it's always been about profit as much as "truth." But Jordan was on the "truth" side of CNN, not the profit side.

[K-W]

27. The truth side of CNN?

If Jordan respected truth, the resignation is a bit late.

I understand what you are saying, but CNN doesnt respect the truth.

[BurtWorm]

36. That's why I put the "truth" in quotes.

News is the commodity. I'm just making a distinction between the side of the business that is about money and the side that is about reporting what happens.

[centristo]

4. well he supposedly said that

US troops were "targeting" journalists. If he backed up this argument with any kind of factual evidence we wouldn't be having this conversation. But he didn't. He just pulled this outrageous statement right out of his ass.

[BurtWorm]

16. From what I understand, he said at least some of the journalists killed

in Iraq were not collateral damage. They were purposely killed by US forces. This is true. Several journalists were aimed at and killed by coalition forces, including the al-Jazeera journalist killed "live" during a report about a captured tank. But he said he they were killed not because they were journalists, but because the troops did not know they were journalists. The point is, the subject was the safety of jounralists in war zones, and Jordan was speaking the truth about one danger they face. Jordan lost some journalists in Iraq. He knows what he's talking about.

[YNGW]

23. That makes no sense.

>They were purposely killed by US forces. This is true. Several journalists were aimed at and killed by coalition forces, including the al-Jazeera journalist killed "live" during a report about a captured tank. But he said he they were killed not because they were journalists, but because the troops did not know they were journalists.

If the troops did not know they were journalists, how did they kill them on purpose?

US troops are not targeting journalists. He claimed they were. Good riddance.

[BurtWorm]

25. I can't presume to speak for Jordan, but I think one could make the case

that if a troop aims, fires and kills a person who *happens* to be a journalist, you could say they killed that person on purpose. This is what I understand Jordan later said he meant.

Just curious, how do you know they aren't targeting journalists? If they were (as a tactic, say, used only in very specific circumstances, to keep information about an action from spreading, for example), should a journalist report on it, or should it be taboo?

[YNGW]

29. It's not a matter of how.

You don't go around even suggesting the US military might be purposely killing journalists unless you have indisputable, documented evidence proving it. That's just something that's off-limits. Jordan lost his job over it. Maybe others who might be inclined to say these type of things off-hand will sit up and take notice.

[BurtWorm]

38. That is exactly what Jordan's firing was meant to convey.

Do not ever say anything unflattering about the US military while it is at war. Only journalists from other nations are permitted to do that (provided they don't get in the way of US army materiel first. ;) )

PS: Would an editor of the Nation lose her job saying such a thing? I don't think so. So why does Jordan lose his job (setting aside the political history of CNN, as someone else in this thread astutely reminded me)? Would the head of CBC, BBC or Telefrance News get in trouble for making the same statement as Jordan?

[aquart]

20. It's not that outrageous.

And I actually believe it's true. But he didn't stand by it.

[Hissyspit]

5. I'm not. There was more to it then what he actually

said - the political situation at CNN.

[YNGW]

6. You answered your own question

>he dared to suggest that the US military had killed journalists

Who wants to have someone running the joint who's going around making claims that the US military is deliberately targeting the press? Those kind of things are a cause for immediately being discredited.

[BurtWorm]

19. Is it true or not?

Did the US military kill journalists in Iraq? The answer is yes. They've even admitted it. The question is why did they kill journalists. Did Jordan say that they killed them because they were journalists? Only the people who were in the room know for sure, but I have never read a report where anyone who was present said that Jordan clearly blamed the US for killing journalists because they were journalists.

And no will ever be able to say such a thing anyway, whether or not it's true, because even if it were true, American journalists are not free to say such things about the American military, as the Jordan case makes clear.

[YNGW]

24. It was clear to me and others what he said.

I'll put it this way; to even suggest that the US military had targeted journalists, and/or to say it in such a way as to even suggest they might have killed some journalists on purpose, and/or saying it in such a way that others could contrive that's what you meant, would be enough to give him his pink slip. You don't go around even half-way kiddingly suggesting that might be happening unless you have indisputable documented evidence.

[K-W]

28. The standard of evidence need not be that high.

Unless you worship US militarism.

But yes, some proof would certainly be required.

[BurtWorm]

30. Why not? (I'm just playing the devil's advocate.)

Jordan was speaking in a forum about the safety of journalists in war zones. He's lost some of his journalists in Iraq and other wars. He's known as a person who takes the safety of journalists very seriously and personally. The forum is supposed to be off-record. (Why? Because it's being run by the people who control the universe--but that's another story.) Why should his even hinting that the US military had targeted journalists (which is not all that controversial a point outside the US, I might add), disqualify him from his job as head of a news organization?

[YNGW]

34. Because...

>Why should his even hinting that the US military had targeted journalists disqualify him from his job as head of a news organization?

Because it's irresponsible.

[BurtWorm]

37. How?

Please elaborate.

[centristo]

40. its irresponsible for a news media figurehead

to make brazen commentary against the United States' Armed Forces, especially when so many alraedy hate us. This man is supposed to be credible. If he said "George W. Bush slits the throats of kittens and drinks their blood" many would believe him beacuse this man is who he is.

That is why it is irresponsible.

I think you are arguing that Jordan was making a valid point, that CNN journalists have died due to collateral damage or "friendly fire". Perhaps Jordan was trying to make that argument, but he didn't use the right words. And then he didn't correct himself when he had the chance.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-021104cnn_lat,0,7789841.story?coll=la-home-nation

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/02/11/esn_res.html

[BurtWorm]

41. What he said afterwards about what he said and meant

hasn't been contradicted by others, has it?

"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.

David Gergen, quoted at Jay Rosen's blog at the link you provided, said:

Gergen said Jordan's resignation was "really sad" since he had quickly backed off his initial comments. "This is too high a price to pay for someone who has given so much of himself over 20 years. And he's brought down over a single mistake because people beat up on him in the blogosphere? They went after him because he is a symbol of a network seen as too liberal by some. They saw blood in the water."


Isn't what Gergen says the truth?

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Even Jordan himself would not stand by those statements

Why should anyone else? :shrug:

[Cooley Hurd]

11. To be honest, I didn't hear about it until the Guckert story broke...

...which is surprising, considering how much time I spend here.

[tishaLA]

12. Lots of this happened in the insular world of RW blogs

And we didn't react or reacted too late. I have a hard time believing it happened, myself, because the initial account was so muddled and foolish. I thought there was no way it would stick. But then Democratic politicians who were there turned against him--Dodd and Frank--and he got support from unlikely people like Gergen.

It was really a he said-he said problem, and I think a deal was struck for him to leave. I can't believe the pressure was such that it actually forced him to resign.

BTW, you need to edit your post. It should read, "Isn't what Jordan said true?," not "Gannon."

[BurtWorm]

32. Thank you.

What Gannon said is clearly NOT true. :puke:

[pmbryant]

13. Why should we care about Eason Jordan?

CNN is virtually as much of a propaganda outfit as FOX News these days.

Just because the right-wing doesn't like someone doesn't make him our friend.

:shrug:

--Peter

[SOS]

39. Agree

Who cares? CNN is a corporate front for the Bush Administration.
Jordan is concerned for the welfare of his staff. Fair enough.
But I couldn't care less about his resignation.

[Lindsay]

14. I am really torn about Jordan.

On one hand, I agree that the reichwing forcing media people out is a terrible thing. On the other, I have so little respect for the media that I am neither surprised nor upset by what happened to someone from CNN.

Now, if they start in on Olbermann or Stewart, that's a different story....

[realFedUp]

15. Jordan and owners should have fought harder

just like CBS should have done for the
investigation on Bush's awol.

[Walt Starr]

21. I see Jordan as having been part of the problem

and his exit being more closely tied to the Soros buyup of Time Warner stock.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.