Easongate
Glenn Reynolds via Instapundit
February 8, 2005 | 8:02 PM ET
The story of CNN news executive Eason Jordan's unsubstantiated charges that U.S. troops were deliberately killing journalists got more play today. Howard Kurtz had a piece in the Washington Post that advanced the story somewhat, though Mickey Kaus thinks that Kurtz, consciously or unconsciously, is letting his connection to CNN shape his reporting.
This story from the New York Sun is less kind to Jordan, and includes an interview with Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who was present when Jordan spoke, that spells out more details on Jordan's accusations:
<<<
nysun.com
Mr. Jordan, speaking in a panel discussion titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?" said "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat of Massachusetts who was on the panel with Mr. Jordan.
In an interview with The New York Sun, Mr. Frank said Mr. Jordan discussed in detail the plight of an Al-Jazeera reporter who had been detained by American forces, was made to eat his shoes while incarcerated in the Abu Ghraib prison, and was repeatedly mocked by his interrogators as "Al-Jazeera boy."
A man who said he was a producer with Al-Jazeera at the network's headquarters in Doha, Qatar, said he was unaware of any such incident, "although we have had problems with American troops in and out of Iraq." The Al-Jazeera producer refused to give his name.
Mr. Jordan's comments - prompted by a broader discussion of the dangers of covering the war in Iraq, in which some 63 journalists have been killed - left Mr. Frank, usually an outspoken war opponent, speechless.
"I was agog," he said. "I took a few seconds and asked him to basically clarify the remarks. Did he have proof and if so, why hadn't CNN run with the story?"
>>>
Why, indeed? And why would Jordan make claims, with no evidence, that reflect badly on his own country's military?
There may be an answer later in the story:
<<<
Mr. Jordan's remarks might have shocked the American attendees, but they certainly played well among some in the audience. The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, who covered the panel for his paper, told the Sun that after the panel concluded, Mr. Jordan was surrounded by European and Middle Eastern attendees who warmly congratulated him for his alleged "bravery and candor" in discussing the matter.
>>>
Worst case: Jordan said things he knew were probably false, in order to curry favor with influential people from countries that -- as CNN's American audience falls -- represent an important part of its market.
Best case: Jordan repeated rumors he had heard without knowing whether they were true or not.
Which is it? It's hard to say. And perhaps Frank -- along with several other attendees who have told essentially the same story of Jordan's remarks -- simply misremembered or misunderstood. There's a videotape of the presentation, but the folks who run the World Economic Forum at Davos are now backing away from earlier promises to make the tape available. In the absence of such evidence, people are likely to draw their own conclusions.
As CNBC host Larry Kudlow writes, "If the story is correct, CNN should have already fired Jordan. If the story is not true, Jordan or CNN must provide the counter-evidence."
We're waiting.
msnbc.msn.com |
