EASON JORDAN REVIEW AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS
TKS
[02/07 10:27 PM]
Our story so far:
On January 28, Rony Abovitz reported that Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN, “asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others.” A report in the Wall Street Journal’s “Political Diary” column around the same time reported that Jordan implied that the American military was deliberately killing journalists in Iraq. He even “offered the story of an 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.”
On February 2, CNN then e-mailed a statement to several bloggers: “Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan’s remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists. Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions. Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of ‘collateral damage.’”
Later that day, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz said in an e-mail to TKS that “we are looking into it.”
Also that day, Rebecca MacKinnon, a self-described, "recovering TV reporter-turned-blogger," wrote hat she was in the room at the Davos event and that "Rony's account is consistent with what I heard."
On February 3, Eason Jordan made a comment to blogger Carol Platt Libeau:
"To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists in Iraq. I said so during the forum panel discussion. But, nonetheless, the U.S. military has killed several journalists in Iraq in cases of mistaken identity. The reason the word "targeted" came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of "collateral damage." Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the "collateral damage" statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists — not all — killed in Iraq were indeed targeted. When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is appropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine. But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of "collateral damage." That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time. Further, I have worked closely with the U.S. military for months in an effort to achieve a mutual goal: keeping journalists in Iraq safe and alive."
Also that day, Jay Nordlinger stated he had heard from individuals who were in the room that “Eason Jordan states — or implies (on this, I am not quite clear) — that the U.S. military is targeting journalists for murder in Iraq.”
Earlier today (Monday), Jay Rosen interviewed BBC director Richard Sambrook, who was also on the panel. Sambrook said, “Some in the audience, and Barney Frank on the panel, took him to mean US troops had deliberately set out to kill journalists. That is not what he meant or, in my view, said; and he clarified his comment a number of times to ensure people did not misunderstand him. However, they seem to have done so.”
Today, demonstrating stunning success in getting phone calls returned, Michelle Malkin got Barney Frank, David Gergen and Chris Dodd to confirm Jordan’s comments. Frank and Gergen explain that Jordan attempted to backtrack or to revise what he said. Unfortunately, what he said after the charge apparently wasn't terribly clear.
We now have five individuals saying CNN Eason Jordan initially stated that U.S. soldiers were deliberately targeting journalists (Abovitz, MacKinnon, Frank, Gergen, and Dodd).
This pretty much resolves the issue of whether Jordan made the initial comment. Now the part that could be cleared up is his backtracking remarks – were his comments vague enough to create the impression that his initial charge should stand, or did he make clear that this was no evidence to support this accusation?
This is why we need the transcript, or preferably the video.
Hugh had some bits of news this evening. He strongly suspects that the Jordan story will hit the mainstream media tomorrow morning, and knows that one of the mainstream media papers that contacted David Gergen to discuss Jordan’s comments is the Baltimore Sun.
nationalreview.com |
