Sisyphean Musings - Ahhh, Sleep and Revisiting Easongate
What a difference a full night's sleep can make. Working a 6 hour time difference with Switzerland over the past several days really wore me down.
It seems to me that there are now three different stories in Easongate:
1. What did Eason Jordan say and why did he say it?
2. Was the session on or off the record and did WEF change their mind?
3. What is the relationship between the media, terrorists, guerrillas/insurgents and the military, especially during combat as in Iraq?
The first story is being driven by the accounts from people that were there and can easily be resolved with the release of the video. End of story. It is damaging to Eason Jordan and the WEF not to release the video. For Eason Jordan, many people have already visualized what's on the tape. He's being judged by the public without the tape. Not releasing the tape only fuels suspicion.
The second story I can speak to somewhat because of my email exchanges and telephone conversations with Mr. Adams. As I posted earlier:
<<<
I emailed WEF Media Director Mark Adams early Friday morning EST (04 FEB 05), just before 1:00PM Geneva time. I got two emails in response 5 1/2 hours later confirming that he has the video in "beta version", that he needed to make a copy, and asking how urgently I needed it. I replied by email:
Would next week be possible, say by Wednesday, to make a copy and mail it?
>>>
Was that a commitment to send me the tape? I didn't consider it a commitment, but I did consider it promising. Promising enough that:
<<<
I spent much of today on the phone with Robert Cox from Media Bloggers Association. We are trying to get a footprint in Geneva to work directly with Mr. Adams to get the video digitized and in our possession. Starting around 2:00AM EST tonight (8:00AM Geneva time, Superbowl should be over by then), we will be working contacts in Geneva and trying to reach Mr. Adams to expedite getting the video digitized and hosted online.
Mr. Cox will also be working with the hosting services that he put together for the Tsunami Video Hosting Initiative to host the WEF video when and/or if we get our hands on it.
Backup plan remains that if it ends up a VHS copy is "snailmailed" to me, I will get it digitized and over to Mr. Cox for hosting if that works out.
>>>
February 7, was the first time that Mr. Adams brought up the issue of whether this was an "on the record" session. This was before he had located the tape.
First Curveball: [Mr. Adams] warned me that the session WAS under "Chatham House Rule". This means that after finding the tape, he needs to get a policy decision about making it publicly available, as that would violate the Rule.
Rebecca MacKinnon, who attended this session where Eason Jordan made his remarks, has written previously about the confusion concerning whether this session was on or off the record:
The WEF is now saying it wasn't, or not completely, until they make a policy decision about it. However many of us at Davos believed the session was on the record because it was conducted in a room called Sanada 1&2.
She also provides a copy of the "official guidelines issued to media and potential bloggers before Davos began" and Mr. Adams' response to her about why the WEF determined this session was 'off the record'. Many of my readers and other bloggers have speculated, conspiratorially, about the decision by the WEF not to release the video. That's damaging to the WEF and the participants in this session. It's also damaging for the media in general since they're not demanding the video's release. As I wrote here:
<<<
I do want to point out the irony of the WEF not releasing this particular video. From the summary: "... an informal consensus was reached that a healthy media makes for a robust democracy and one cannot survive without the other."
The media did not demonstrate "health" in its non-coverage of this session and the controversy this past week. It is not a sign of the media's or democracy's "health" that the media meekly sits back, allowing the WEF to withhold video of a discussion that created this much controversy on such an important issue.
This is the antithesis of robust. This is the antithesis of informed citizenry. And I plan to remind CNN especially of this everytime I hear some complaint about someone not releasing something (i.e., VP Cheney's Energy meetings for those on the left that found no interest in this).
Releasing the video would really be best for everyone involved.
>>>
The third story is the one that really interests me. This isn't a new story, per se, but one I think has great importance now and into the future.
As I pointed out earlier, Eason Jordan's comments (according to the accounts) add to the history of media's changing role on the battlefield and its relationship to the military since World War II. The role of war correspondent has changed significantly since WWII. That makes sense, since how wars are fought has also changed over this time and worldwide mass communications today are VERY different than they were 60 years ago.
To give a comparison, during the first Gulf War in 1991, the Committee to Protect Journalists reports:
<<<
During the 1991 Gulf War, four journalists were killed in the line of duty. One of them, free-lance photographer Gad Gross, was executed by Iraqi troops after they recaptured the northern city of Kirkuk from Kurdish rebels. Iraqi forces detained several other journalists.
>>>
The complaint from journalists coming out of Desert Shield/Storm wasn't their safety, but their lack of independence:
<<<
Correspondents and their editors will be watching the Pentagon closely to see how much freedom U.S. troops will tolerate. In recent conflicts—Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War, and Afghanistan—U.S. officials have carefully managed the flow of information, restricting access to news events and in some cases employing censorship. More than 10 years ago, during the 1991 Gulf War, officials instituted a "pool" system that barred journalists from battles without a military escort and entailed rigorous prior censorship of all news and photographs.
Journalists don't want to be restricted to a "pool". Are journalists now complaining that embedding is not enough freedom and independence? Are journalists saying, "We want to be able to eschew the safety you can offer us and then complain about you because you're not doing enough to ensure our safety?"
>>>
One of the interesting aspects to me of the accounts from this WEF session comes from Michelle Malkin's interview with David Gergen:
<<<
Gergen said he asked Jordan point blank whether he believed the policy of the U.S. military was to sanction the targeting of journalists. Gergen said Jordan answered no, but then proceeded to speculate about a few incidents involving journalists killed in the Middle East--a discussion which Gergen decided to close down because "the military and the government weren't there to defend themselves."
>>>
He's right in that there was not a military representative on the panel. That's too bad. Would Eason Jordan have brought up such accusations if there was one? Would there have been a better discussion if there had been? Would releasing the video contribute to a better, more informed, conversation now?
I think so.
But I don't understand why Gergen thought the governement wasn't there to defend themselves. I'm guessing he means no one from the Bush administration representing the Executive branch. Rep. Frank was there. His comments are just as important, if not more, as Eason Jordan's. It's a real shame if this exchange between Jordan, Gergen and Frank will be lost down the memory hole because a video of it will sit on the shelves at WEF, gathering dust, never to see the public light.
Basically, not releasing the video, not making public demands for its release, really makes the WEF, Eason Jordan, David Gergen, and Rep. Frank look bad. It makes the media look bad. It denies the public an important discussion and instead fuels suspicion, anger and mistrust.
UPDATE: From La Shawn Barber:
<<<
So what remained of the allegation? “There are people who believe there are people in the military who have it out” for journalists, said Mr. Jordan. He then offered another anecdote: A reporter who’d been standing in a long line to get through a checkpoint at Baghdad’s Green Zone had been turned back by the GI on duty. Apparently the soldier had been displeased with the reporter’s dispatches, and sent him to the back of the line.
Did you actually say that, Mr. Jordan? Who are these people, Mr. Jordan? "Apparently" the soldier was displeased? According to who? Did the soldier mention anything about the reporter's dispatches or was this wild paranoid speculation on the part of the reporter?
May we please see the tape?
sisypheanmusings.blogspot.com |
