Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (99444)	2/8/2005 10:39:43 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793866

Investors' Business Daily Gives Jordan an Early Obituary Easongate An Alert Reader notes that Wednesday's Investors' Business Daily has weighed in on the Eason story on page A13. I had no trouble getting there, but the reader thought it might be subscriber only, so here is the whole thing: The past year saw the toppling of several high priests of High Church Journalism. This week yet another wobbles: the top news executive at CNN. Eason Jordan first inflicted himself with controversy two years ago, when President Bush finally launched the invasion of Iraq. Jordan took to the op-ed page of The New York Times to strangely admit covering up several instances known to him of Saddam Hussein's torturous and murderous ways. Why the cover-up? Because, he acknowledged, he needed to maintain a bureau in Baghdad. If he'd reported on the dictator's cruelty, sometimes involving Iraqis working for CNN, why, CNN would have been expelled from the world's hottest news spot. Jordan treated the op-ed piece as a spiritual cathartic, his secrets finally released because the war was on and he could write freely about Saddam. His revelations were met with both criticism and praise. Did he not bear a special responsibility, critics demanded, to tell what he knew about Saddam's regime before the war? The cable guy skated — in part because media friends defended him for protecting Iraqis in his employ. And, well, because editors do sometimes render morally ambiguous decisions in pursuit of higher truths. Now Jordan's in the stew again. Speaking last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Jordan made an arresting charge. He claimed the U.S. military, while pacifying Iraq, had targeted both American and foreign journalists. Panel chairman David Gergen, according to insider accounts, gasped. The man who'd worked in administrations from Nixon's to Clinton's demanded evidence. Liberal Congressman Barney Frank, who was there, also demanded proof. Jordan backed off — slightly. But afterward he accepted congratulations from Arab reporters who called him heroic. That's when the bloggers stepped in, including some who were actually there. Then master blogger Hugh Hewitt took up the case. Soon the blogosphere was electric with outrage over Jordan's irresponsible charge. Now there's an easongate.com, tracking the scandal's every fact, every claim, every angle, and demanding CNN come clean. Why "scandal"? Jordan was spouting outrageous charges with no basis in fact. In journalism, even in High Church Journalism, that is a cardinal sin. Rising to the topmost reaches of media power does not exempt one from the first rules learned in journalism class. The bloggers, who've done so much recently to correct the elite media's misbehavior — including sending CBS's Dan Rather to newsman's purgatory — now have Eason Jordan as quarry. Deservedly so. It's time for him to go. Wow. Seems like this is picking up, not dying. IBD seems to take it as a foregone conclusion that Jordan is toast -- and doesn't just foresee him dismissed because of his most recent claim. They see it as part of a history of poor decisions.

To: LindyBill who wrote (99444)	2/9/2005 8:26:20 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793866

U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair plans to allow only people who speak ENGLISH and have skills that are in demand to settle in Britain I used to volunteer in an ESL program for immigrants. I was surprised to find how many were not literate in their own languages. I had never given a thought to trying to teach English to someone not literate. If a Spanish speaker can conjugate a Spanish verb, he can learn to conjugate an English one. If you can't read and write at all, it's an entirely different matter, one way beyond the skills of a volunteer like me. I don't know that I'd require English literacy, but I'd sure require literacy.