SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (8202)4/1/2005 5:32:43 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
AJR Post-Mortem On Eason's Fables: Exempt Media Blew It

Captain's Quarters

Tapscott's Copy Desk points readers to a new article in the American Journalism Review which combines an in-depth interview of Rony Arbovitz with an analysis of the firestorm he touched off at Davos by reporting the comments made by Eason Jordan to the blogosphere. Arbovitz fires his guns at the mainstream media that ignored the story far too long for mere coincidence:

<<<

When Jordan dropped his bombshell, contending that 12 journalists had been targeted and killed by U.S. forces in Iraq, Abovitz felt compelled to challenge the CNN executive to back up the charges. "My reaction wasn't that he was lying; my reaction was that he was telling the truth," Abovitz recalls. "I thought what he was saying was going to be blown open wide by CNN in some major exposé, that he was letting us in on some huge Abu Ghraib-type scandal, but much, much bigger."

And so, Abovitz says he told Jordan at the session, "You have just accused the United States of something quite terrible in front of a lot of people who might be quite hostile to the United States, a lot of foreigners, in a pretty anti-American environment. I hope you have something to back it up." ...

Abovitz says he didn't decide to post anything on the forum blog until it became clear to him that journalists in attendance weren't going to write about the episode. So, late that night, Abovitz returned to his room, wrote down his impressions and filed his 1,094-word post. ...

In quick succession he got calls from the Miami Herald, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NPR, the BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Bill O'Reilly and conservative radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt, of whom he had never heard. He marvels at the fact that reporters in Japan and Australia wanted to interview him. He's not especially pleased with most of the coverage, believing that the mainstream press tended to explain away Jordan's statements while the blogo-sphere wanted the CNN executive's head.

He's especially critical of the way CNN handled the controversy and believes that the network could have defused the situation by responding more openly and urging the WEF to release the session videotape.

"It's like no one learned anything from Clinton and Monica," he says, "that evading and hiding and spinning [don't] work."
>>>

Let's be clear on this point; most of us in the blogosphere had the same reaction that Arbovitz had at the conference. We assumed that his statement portended some upcoming exposé by CNN based on his accusations. After all, Jordan ran one of the largest media empires in the world. If he had information that the US military deliberately targeted journalists -- an allegation that AJR and Arbovitz fail to mention he'd made more than just at Davos -- Jordan had ample opportunity and facility to show the proof. Instead, he remained silent, and it quickly became apparent that he had no proof at all to substantiate his allegations.

We didn't want his head, at least not at first. We wanted his proof
. The head of a news organization owes it to the public to back up such allegations with specific evidence supporting them. After all, the Exempt Media has been scolding us for months now that they have editorial checks and balances to keep spurious information from publication -- and here we have the top man at CNN making spectacular charges of murder and conspiracy reaching the highest ranks of the American military.

When it became apparent that Jordan had no proof, we waited impatiently for the rest of the Exempt Media to put their checks and balances into action to demonstrate their superiority. Instead, no one in the traditional press or broadcast networks even covered the story until the night before Jordan's resignation, two weeks after the blogosphere had exposed not only the Davos lie, but a series of statements Jordan had made in foreign venues alleging and/or implying that American and Israeli military wanted to kill journalists. Just as he had sold out to Saddam Hussein during the 1990s for continued photo ops inside Baghdad, Jordan sold out to the anti-American global press to increase his credibility and access with people like Al-Jazeera and others
.

Jordan got himself fired. The bloggers merely performed the checks and balances that the Exempt Media claim they employ on themselves, but which have been increasingly shown to be another journalistic urban legend.


Posted by Captain Ed

captainsquartersblog.com

ajr.org



To: Sully- who wrote (8202)4/1/2005 5:45:17 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Accidental Blogger

The American Journalism Review
By Neil Reisner
April/May 2005

How a biotech company founder went to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland and ended up costing CNN's Eason Jordan his job

Rony Abovitz didn't intend to be a media star, a darling of the right, a villain to the left. He just wanted to take in one of the more interesting sessions at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, a panel called "Will Democracy Survive the Media?"

He was drawn by the prestigious lineup of speakers: CNN Chief News Executive Eason Jordan; David R. Gergen, adviser to four presidents; U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.); Richard Sambrook, director of the BBC World Service; and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Afghanistan's minister of foreign affairs.

But as Abovitz listened at the January 27 session, it sounded to him as if Jordan was making an extremely disturbing allegation: that U.S. forces in Iraq had targeted and killed journalists. Abovitz took up the forum organizers on their pre-event invitation to contribute to the forum's blog and chronicled Jordan's controversial comments. The result was yet another tumultuous battle between the blogo-sphere and the mainstream media--with Jordan and Abovitz at its center.


Before it was over, Jordan had resigned and Abovitz found himself stunned by what he had stirred up. "It's not like being at ground zero, it's like being ground zero," he says. "I was half and Jordan was the other half."

While Abovitz soon became a hero to the right-wing bloggers who vilified Jordan, he says he had no partisan intentions. "My point was that I wanted to know what the truth was, and I was open to the truth being that the U.S. had done this," he says. And that was still the case six weeks post-Davos, after U.S. troops at a Baghdad checkpoint opened fire on the vehicle carrying Giuliana Sgrena, an Italian journalist freed in early March after a month as a hostage. An Italian intelligence agent died in the March 4 incident, and Sgrena was injured.

"It sounds like the core issues of Easongate live on," Abovitz says.

His biggest fear is that with Jordan out of the picture, what he considers one of the most important parts of the controversy--the mainstream media's initial reluctance to report on Jordan's comments--will fade away. Abovitz says he is wary of "big media's" corporate interests and their tendency--which he believes he witnessed in the Jordan affair--to circle the wagons when challenged.


The mainstream press "did not cover it very well, and I'm not sure the bloggers did very well, either," he says. "A lot of the mainstream media was late on it, confused; they didn't know what was being done. Some of the blogging was well done, some of the blogging looked like a lynch mob.. It's taken on weird aspects because it's like no one who's liberal can talk in public anymore, which isn't the point, or that bloggers are evil scumbags or that the mainstream media is all finished."

Rony Abovitz is an accidental blogger and an accidental media critic. He attended what could be the world's highest-end networking event only because the World Economic Forum named the biotech company he helped found, Z-KAT, as one of 29 "Technology Pioneers" for 2005.

Abovitz didn't start his blog (fixtheworld.blogs.com) until the episode in Davos. He was neither the citizen blogger praised by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin nor "one of those conservative online activists who believe the Internet is an opportunity to balance what they see as media pro-liberal bias," as the Guardian of London portrayed him. And he certainly was not "a blogger hired by the World Economic Forum," as The American Prospect described him in its April issue.

What Abovitz is is a 34-year-old, babyfaced, tousle-haired self-described geek, who sees himself as neither liberal nor conservative and is suspicious of power in general
. His only previous contact with journalism was as a student at the University of Miami, where he wrote satiric essays and drew cartoons for the student newspaper. He is registered to vote but not affiliated with a political party; he went to the polls for the first time in the last presidential election, but won't say for whom he cast his ballot. He follows the news, especially about Israel, where he has many relatives. He plays rhythm guitar in a rock 'n' roll band, Sparkydog. He's married, the father of a 4-year-old girl.

(Full disclosure: I see Abovitz most Saturday mornings in synagogue in Hollywood, Florida, where he sits on the other side of the sanctuary. Until Davos, my only interaction with him was occasional, a passing nod as we rounded up our children, who sometimes hang out together during services.)

Abovitz says he has come to appreciate the blogosphere's ability to help bring out the truth; at the same time he acknowledges that many bloggers are driven by political agendas. Most of all, he says the Jordan affair bears witness to the death of the gatekeeper model for distributing news. "The blog world is like a natural event. It's like an earthquake happened. It doesn't have [to be] fair or not fair, it just happens," he says. "And once the earthquake starts, it starts kicking down everything."

Abovitz says he knew the media panel was being videotaped and assumed it was on the record.
Because he was a WEF participant and not a journalist, he was not aware of forum directives barring working press from covering many programs, including the one in question.

When Jordan dropped his bombshell, contending that 12 journalists had been targeted and killed by U.S. forces in Iraq, Abovitz felt compelled to challenge the CNN executive to back up the charges. "My reaction wasn't that he was lying; my reaction was that he was telling the truth," Abovitz recalls. "I thought what he was saying was going to be blown open wide by CNN in some major exposé, that he was letting us in on some huge Abu Ghraib-type scandal, but much, much bigger."

And so, Abovitz says he told Jordan at the session, "You have just accused the United States of something quite terrible in front of a lot of people who might be quite hostile to the United States, a lot of foreigners, in a pretty anti-American environment. I hope you have something to back it up."


Jordan apparently backpedaled quickly. A number of participants said he stated that he hadn't meant to suggest that the troops were intentionally shooting at journalists. (Jordan told the Washington Post later that he was trying to make the point that many journalists' deaths weren't cases of "collateral damage," but of people being shot at intentionally, although not necessarily because they were journalists.)

Mostly, says Abovitz, Jordan just looked stunned. After the panel, Abovitz says, he asked Jordan, " 'Do you have a card? What did you just do?' " Jordan replied: " 'I really caused a shit storm didn't I?' and I said, 'Yeah, you did.' " (Jordan could not be reached for comment.)

Abovitz says he didn't decide to post anything on the forum blog until it became clear to him that journalists in attendance weren't going to write about the episode. So, late that night, Abovitz returned to his room, wrote down his impressions and filed his 1,094-word post
.

"My first instinct was that this wasn't a private talk, this was said in front of hundreds of people and it was going to be buzzing around thousands of people at the conference," he says. "And, in fact, it was, because people who weren't there came up to me and were asking questions about it."

He had no idea at the time what a frenzy he had unleashed. "It wasn't until I came back to the States almost a week later that I realized something really nuts was going on. When I landed, I got a call from the general counsel of my company that CNN was calling, that Eason Jordan was calling, did I read the Web, did I know what I'd done?" he says.

In quick succession he got calls from the Miami Herald, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NPR, the BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Bill O'Reilly and conservative radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt, of whom he had never heard. He marvels at the fact that reporters in Japan and Australia wanted to interview him. He's not especially pleased with most of the coverage, believing that the mainstream press tended to explain away Jordan's statements while the blogo-sphere wanted the CNN executive's head. He's especially critical of the way CNN handled the controversy and believes that the network could have defused the situation by responding more openly and urging the WEF to release the session videotape.

"It's like no one learned anything from Clinton and Monica," he says, "that evading and hiding and spinning [don't] work."

As the controversy ebbs, Abovitz wonders, "is there a way to do something constructive with all of this?

"It seems that once you're in it, you can either hide or keep pushing forward and try to get somewhere good."


Neil Reisner is a freelance writer and teacher living in Florida.

Contents Copyright 2004, American Journalism Review.

ajr.org



To: Sully- who wrote (8202)5/19/2005 11:19:35 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (27) | Respond to of 35834
 
The ghost of Eason Jordan lives on

Rathergate.com

Note to the mainstream media: When one of your own finds itself in a deep ethics hole due to slinging accusations without truth, don’t grab the shovel and start digging one for yourself.

Apparently, Newspaper Guild - Communications Workers of America President Linda Foley picked up the torch from former CNN news chief Eason Jordan to again accuse U.S. troops of deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq. Jordan’s unsubstantiated claims created a firestorm resulting in his resignation.

But unlike Jordan’s comments February at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the recording of Foley’s comments Friday in St. Louis is available. “The Point,” a commentary segment produced and carried by Sinclair stations, aired a portion of the tape. WorldNetDaily and The Point’s websites (click on the Point archives piece called “Words That Cause Grave Harm) both carry transcripts:


<<<

“Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or …ah, or… ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um…in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq.”

“They target and kill journalists…uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like Al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity…”
>>>

Yes, journalists die in Iraq — it’s a war zone. People die, and sometimes it’s for no other crime than being in the wrong place or zigging when they should have zagged. But once again, we see someone in a position of journalistic authority — the Guild-CWA represents 35,000 media workers — making accusations withoug proof.

For obvious reasons, I vehemently oppose the intentional shooting of non-combatants — talk about heads rolling in the military! But I also oppose civilians entrusted with delivering us the news violating principles and spouting off unsubstantiated rumor, innuendo or suspicion. That’s why at least 15 people died in Afghanistan because of one sentence in Newsweek.

Perusing their website, I came across this April 8 press release imploring President Bush to investigate “the record number of deaths among media staff covering the war in Iraq.”

So, Foley’s remarks on Friday must mean that the investigation has concluded and she has the proof she needs. That means she’s obligated to share it. And I mean proof. Yes, I’m sorry that an M1 Abrams tank lobbed a shell into the Palestine Hotel, killing two journalists and wounding three
(a summary of the Pentagon’s investigation can be found here).
globalsecurity.org

But I want proof of intentional malice. I want a video of a general signing his name to an order with “kill those lib newsies” splashed in 36-point boldface type across the top.

If there is no evidence, as I suspect is the case — maybe it’s just me, but people with rock-solid cases don’t punctuate their accusations with “um,” “ah,” etc. — Foley needs to either apologize or step down.

If this endless cycle of media self-debasing keeps up — baseless accusations, innuendo, forged memos — are people going to care when a journalist gets killed for any reason? If we make our profession any more reviled, our readers are going to come after us.

If you feel like asking her what she has resembling proof
(I am sending a message and will post any response I receive), Foley’s address is lfoley@cwa-union.org.
mailto:lfoley@cwaunion.org

UPDATE: More on this as it develops from The Blue State Conservatives and Rodger Morrow. Greg Pierce of The Washington Times also picked up on it. (links below)

UPDATE 2: For giggles, here’s the e-mail I sent to Ms. Foley:

<<<

Dear Ms. Foley:

It has come to my attention that you told an audience Friday in St. Louis that the U.S. military is “targeting” journalists in Iraq for death. A partial transcript of the recording of your comments has popped up on several credible Web sites.

As a journalist myself, I abhor the idea of military personnel ordering and carrying out orders to harm reporters. But I also abhor people in the news business making said accusations without proof. Your comments essentially boiled down to an accusation — “targeted” does not leave much room for interpretation.

Yes, journalists are dying in Iraq. But are they being intentionally singled out?

I am asking for what proof you have that this is going on. As a soldier as well as a journalist, I similarly would be disgusted if people in my honorable profession were shooting at people who could not shoot back. But I heard this before from Eason Jordan, who also had absolutely no proof that combat troops are intentionally putting journalists in their crosshairs.

As I say on my blog, if we keep making these unfounded accusations, will people care anymore when a journalist gets killed in the line of duty? We have little prestige left to squander.

So please, back up your statements with proof, or retract your statements. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Kevin P. Craver
Rathergate.com
>>>

rathergate.com

rathergate.com

worldnetdaily.com

newsguild.org

cwa-union.org

cpj.org

billroggio.com

radiobs.net

writingcompany.blogs.com

washingtontimes.com