I am posting this as more of the "Story about the story." Kurtz's explanation doesn't ring true to me. I think after they went with the story, Kurtz or one of his bosses felt this was just too much of a "gossip" item. But it is interesting how pulling an item from a story can't be hidden anymore
Decision 08 blog says, "Frankly, the change is immaterial to me. Some have commented on the privacy of Marianne Pearl as a reason for the revision; Kurtz himself says space considerations were to blame (space considerations? It's not like we're talking about several paragraphs...). My problem is: I don't buy it.
Mickey Kaus is a great blogger and one of the few Democratic voices that I enjoy reading, but this one doesn't pass the smell test. A high-powered news executive having an affair, even with the widow of a well-respected writer who, for those who don't know, was murdered in cold blood by Islamic terrorists - this is the reason CNN didn't come to his defense? I think Jordan resigned for a far simpler reason. The CNN execs saw a copy of the Davos videotape - and it backed up the version of Jordan's remarks given by his accusers. To paraphrase William of Occam: when it doubt, follow the easiest path to your destination."
decision08.blogspot.com
Eason Down the Road
Blogs 1, CNN 0.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Friday, Feb. 11, 2005, at 4:14 PM PT
First, kill all the telling details! WaPo and CNN's Howard Kurtz emails to explain why he revised his Saturday Eason Jordan piece to cut out the juiciest, most suggestive detail of the "gossip about Jordan's personal life." (See before and after.)
[LB edit - BEFORE: Several CNN staffers say Jordan, who was distraught about the controversy, saw the handwriting on the wall in tendering his resignation. But top executives are also said to have lost patience with the continuing gossip about Jordan, including his affair with Marianne Pearl, widow of the murdered reporter Daniel Pearl, and subsequent marital breakup.
seattletimes.nwsource.com
AFTER: Several CNN staffers say Jordan was eased out by top executives who had lost patience with both the controversy and the continuing published gossip about Jordan's personal life after a marital breakup.
washingtonpost.com
[Kurtz] - For the Record
I compressed that paragraph about Eason Jordan's social life, without a word o advice from anyone, for one reason. I was trying to squeeze in several interviews I had done after the first edition into my story for later editions, and given dead-tree space limitations, was literally going line by line to save room. The first-edition story was published, but I thought it important to include more voices from the blogosphere for later editions.
[Kaus]
a) He didn't bury the lede. He removed the lede entirely due to "space limitations"! b) I take Kurtz at his word. But nobody can speak for their subconscious (otherwise it wouldn't be subconscious). That's why there are normally prophylactic rules against massive conflicts of interest. Maybe kausfiles could launch a lucrative spinoff, kurtzfiles, devoted entirely to WaPo's media critic explaining to his readers the non-corrupt reasoning behind his seemingly pro-CNN reporting decisions. [You're already there--ed Soft launch! Next issue, "A Salute to Jonathan Klein!" Tribute ads accepted.] c) You don't have to get actual 'words of advice' from someone to be influenced by them--to worry about how they will react. d) We don't kill widows around here: "Going line by line to save room." I used to do that! As Kurtz notes, it's a print thing. You don't have to do it in cyberspace. There's plenty of room. Which raises an issue: If Kurtz is cutting highly relevant information in order to squeeze his piece into the printed, hand-delivered version of the Post, why not at least publish the complete version on the Web? Doesn't the failure to take advantage of the Web's extra space put dead tree papers in the normally-futile position of actually suppressing a superior competitor (the full Web versions of what reporters produce)?
Update: I disagree with Instapundit, who decorously argues:
targeting parts of people's lives that don't have to do with the story -- like, say, Eason Jordan's love life -- seems inappropriate to me, and likely to lend support to the bloggers-as-lynch-mob caricature.
The problem is a) Eason Jordan's love life did have to do with the story. According to even the self-bowdlerized Kurtz it's why he lost his job--i.e. why he wasn't allowed to apologize profusely for his Davos remarks and carry on, which as Instapundit notes is otherwise a mystery; b) Jordan got into trouble, according to David Gergen, because he was "deeply distraught" over the deaths of journalists in Iraq. Why would his emotions get the better of his rationality? Mightn't it help answer the question if he's been involved with the widow of a journalist who's been killed covering the Middle East? ... I defend gossiping about people's love lives even when it's not obviously relevant to a particular story. That's a tougher case to make--Instapundit's right about the human cost of losing a private "backstage." But it's not this case. ... 12:26 P.M.
slate.msn.com |
