Unfairly tarnished, Eason Quits

Blog-Trial: Unfairly tarnished, Eason Quits

"I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq. I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside."

-- Eason Jordan LINK-ABC News

While not particularly emotional one way or the other about Jordan's actual decision, I will say that this clearly was a case of blog-thuggery and unfair tarnishing, the kind of which I had spoken earlier in the week, and for which I was soundly whipped by Jim Geraghty of the National Review.

The 'Right-wing mouth machine' would like us all to think that Eason Jordan was "bad" and "unAmerican" for saying what he said. CNN has been complicit by their reticence to talk about tough issues. They wound up to be the biggest loser. They lost Eason Jordan. Eason was guilty before being proven innocent by no other process except one: the blog-trial.

The right-wing blogs seem to be the Supreme Court of the blogging community at large.

Why should this be so?

Why are no other rational voices important?

There was never a fair hearing anywhere in the blogworld or in the mainstream media over this case. There was only conjecture and a big agenda, which was to round up enough right-wing activists in the monkey-machine to petition CNN in the hopes they'd fire a man who was branded as a devil for daring to speak out for journalists' protection in a conference most believed was, for the most part, a private panel discussion.

These were "Easongate's" aims:

The purpose of this blog from the very beginning was as follows:

· Act as a clearinghouse for information related to Mr. Jordan's recent and past statement concerning the United States military.
· Provide analysis and commentary on the developing situation.
· Advocate CNN to take real and meaningful disciplinary action against Mr. Jordan.
· Create a petition expressing the public's displeasure with Mr. Jordan's statements.
· Gather information on CNN's advertisers and make this information available to the public.

The activists at Easongate still want the tape. (So Rush Limbaugh can play it 100 times a day *sarcasm*).

Jordan's decision to resign is neither here nor there to me, personally.

I will, however, explain to you where my passion comes in.

I am proud and happy to be a political blogger.

I am free to speak about issues which I believe are crucial to the health of our democracy and no one can fire me .

They can only target me for critcism, as National Review did. I believe that's a good thing. As President Bush would say, "Bring 'em on."

Larry Kudlow claims that CNN has been trying desperately to make the story go away. He says that "bloggers are doing their duty" by calling upon CNN to talk about the issue. To an extent, I agree with him there. CNN should have aired the issue out in public and began to talk about it realistically, from 'Day One'.

However, I have been 'trying desperately' to keep this story alive, from my own point of view. The National Review wishes to delegitimize anyone in the mainstream media who will not toe the White House line like good soldiers. As defenders of freedom and truth, journalists are charged with the duty of getting to the heart and core of matters, even when it means having to have a painful national conversation about those matters. Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth. So why are we so afraid?

In this case, CNN didn't want to have that conversation, the right-wing insisted upon it, and we all have lost something precious in the process. Until mainstream media admits they are the lap dogs of the White House and right-wing, they will always lose.

The people who are calling themselves "new media" are already giving themselves "credit" for Eason Jordan's resignation. I wonder if they realize (or care) that the "credit" signifies a degradation of fairness and freedom of speech in America?

CNN failed to realize, recognize, and appreciate the power of blogs who are in lock-step league with those in the "new media" who are trying to destroy the long-accepted scope and meaning of a journalist's freedom of speech. If that's "new media", count me out.

When I see blogs being used in a way in which I believe American journalism will approach another step closer to being pure propaganda, I will say so.

I'm saying so.
- Jude

____________________

Jay Rosen has posted a comprehensive listing of links and commentary about the resignation.


At the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz quotes Jay Rosen:

Jay Rosen [said] he didn't think Jordan "had engaged in a firing offense." Bloggers "made a lot of noise" about the Jordan flap, Rosen said. "But there was basic reporting going on -- finding the people who were there, getting them to make statements, comparing one account to another -- along with accusations and conspiracy thinking and the politics of paranoia and attacks on the MSM, or mainstream media."

Rebecca MacKinnon, who worked with Jordan at one time, says in her final thoughts about the issue:

"I think Eason Jordan resigned because he knew that if the Davos tape came out it would make the situation worse, not better."

Sisyphus has said:

"The tape, and Eason Jordan, would have allowed a full airing of this issue. Pull the skeleton out, shake out the paranoia, shake hands and go back to work.
Jordan's gone. The idea remains."

*My comment- While I understand, I will comment that Easongate is still heavily pressing for the release of the tape. J'accuse: I think there are far deeper motives here than getting people to "shake hands".

Jim Geraghty at National Review Online:

"I would have preferred that the tape be released, that the public have a chance to mull over his comments, and then let Jordan face whatever consequences were appropriate. I have a feeling that the discussion of the "blogs as a lynch mob" is going to get a lot of coverage in the coming days."

*My comment: Hmmm. It sounds as if Jim is saying Right-wing activists got their wish far too soon, before maximum damage could be done to Jordan's reputation and to CNN. And now he expects that the activism, in itself, will be criticized..perhaps even seen for what it is. I hope so. If the hangman's rope fits, the ones holding it must learn how to explain it when it's still caught up in their grasp.


At Editors Weblog, they title their blogpost: Eason Jordan affair: when bloggers appear as the sons of Senator McCarthy

"Sad conclusion in the Eason Jordan affair (see below the New York Times article), sad day for the freedom of expression in America and sad day again for the future of blogging: the defense of the US army honor seemed more important to some bloggers that the defense of reporters' work! Nevertheless, there is one advantage in this story: masks are fallen! Within the honest community of bloggers, some of them claimed to be the sons of the First Amendment, they just were the sons of Senator McCarthy."

My Comment: Well-said.


Steve Lovelady, Columbia Journalism Review's CJR Daily, has written to Jay Rosen:

"The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail. (Where is Jimmy Stewart when we need him ?) This convinces me more than ever that Eason Jordan is guilty of one thing, and one thing only -- caring for the reporters he sent into battle, and haunted by the fact that not all of them came back. Like Gulliver, he was consumed by Lilliputians."

Ummm..Steve...here's your Jimmy Stewart. Is anyone listening? *waving*

-- Jude

Gannon Talks (well, sort of..)

Jeff Gannon talks (well, sort of..)

Gannon aka Guckert is being cagey when questioned about the CIA memo.

"I answered their questions truthfully and honestly, but I would prefer not to say more. Guckert said he had recently contacted legal representation "for quite a few things," referring to the Plame case and the controversy over his White House access, but he would not elaborate. "I have always had an attorney on retainer, and now I believe I will have to put him to work."

__________________

*See William Rivers Pitt: The News Is Broken

"Once upon a time, working the White House Press Briefing Room was the crown jewel of mainstream political journalism beats. That was it; short of reporting live from under the President's desk or nailing down an interview with the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, you weren't going to get a better gig if you were a political reporter.
To hold such a position was also to be the repository for a great responsibility. If you are privileged enough to be placed there, if you have put in the time as a reporter to earn the right to be there, you are the first line of defense in the eternal struggle between the rights and well-being of the people and governments that are always willing and ready to lie, cheat and steal in our name and 'for our own good.'
Something like that might have once existed, but it is almost completely gone now. The sad and sordid tale of Jeff "Don't Call Me Guckert" Gannon" is a final nail in the coffin, as far as I am concerned."

UPDATE Feb 13:
I'm Not a Journalist, But I Play One on TV: Will Jeff Gannon Ever Meet the Press? from Mark Anderson/Poor Richard's Almanac

"This administration periodically tries to freeze out reporters who don't act like Guckert. They are trying to enforce the "Talon" code of behavior on the entire press corps.

Guckert was a plant, put there by the GOP, to help Bush and Scott McClellan avoid explaining Bush administration policy to the American people."

Rice Lied To America

Rice Lied To America

Condoleeza Rice (national security adviser) wrote a March 22, 2004 column in The Washington Post that "No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration."

Today, her outright lie to the American public has been revealed.

Dean At The Top

Democrats who supported some of Dean's rivals -- all of whom have dropped out of the race for chairman -- have adjusted to the idea of Dean at the top.

Cactus Dick and the Santa Fe Riders

Cactus Dick and the Santa Fe Riders

Before my father graduated from college and became an engineer for a private defense contractor, he made his living as a musician. He was in a western band called "The Santa Fe Riders".
In 1951, the band had a radio show at WKTV, Channel 2, in Utica, N.Y.

The emcee was someone I'm sure you'll recogize.
He went on to bigger (maybe better) things.

At Channel 2, Dick did many things including hosting his own country-western television program called, “Cactus Dick and the Santa Fe Riders.” Clark even sung on it, though he one time confessed that it was “very badly” done. He was getting a little over fifty bucks a week. He got a raise to $75 when he had an offer from Syracuse’s WHEN-TV.

Clark's chores at WKTV also included playing Cactus Dick, the host of the television station's country and western music show, Cactus Dick and the Santa Fe Riders. Besides serving as the show's announcer, Clark did some singing. "Badly," he confessed to Ralph Emery in 1992. "They used to make fun of me."

On the Dulling of Shining Examples

On the Dulling of Shining Examples

"Do yourself a favor. Read the guy his rights. It may be old-fashioned, but this will come out if we don't. It may take ten years, but it will hurt you, and the bureau's reputation, if you don't. Have it stand as a shining example of what we feel is right."

- Jack Cloonan, an FBI officer since 1972, who has worked antiterrorism cases

____________________

In the most recent New Yorker, Jane Mayer has written a comprehensive piece titled "Outsourcing Torture", which is being discussed by many, including scholars in the legal field. John C. Yoo was deputy assistant attorney general at the time he, along with his colleagues in the Bush administration, generated the now-famous set of internal legal memos advising the President that he had almost unfettered latitude in his prosecution of the war on terror. This laid a firm foundation for a shift in perspective that had been developing in the administration's attitude toward humantarian law, which had begun soon after 9/11, when administration attorneys began to advise President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees in the war on terror.

Yoo has been a chief advisor in arguing that the Constitution grants the President plenary powers to override the U.N. Convention Against Torture when he is acting in the nation’s defense—a position that has drawn dissent from many legal scholars.

Some knowledgeable about Constitutional law believe that the right wing has been embracing constitutional theorist Bruce Ackerman’s theory of amendment via ‘constitutional moments’ all too readily . (Not on just this one issue, but in general). Ackerman has written, "We the People can reclaim our power to rewrite the Constitution in ways that express our modern constitutional identities. We can become masters of our own house."
Yet, Professor Ackerman has also written, regarding Abu Ghraib:

"America has taken the lead in the postwar period in holding officials in other countries legally responsible for their abuses of power. It is time to judge ourselves by the same rules we impose upon others...[..]..Abu Ghraib has put America on trial before the world. More important, it forces us to look at ourselves in the mirror and define the relationship of law to our public life. Unless we act decisively, the present scandal may serve as a prelude to a grim future."

At times when many readers slap an anti-American label on American citizens like me, I would solemnly remind them of what I am saying here. The Founding Fathers crafted one hell of a constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison said, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." He wasn't just whistling Dixie. (Pun intended - look at the nation we nearly lost in the 1860s.) Madison was on to something that has kept the United States Constitution alive longer than any other charter of government in history.

A republic differs from a democracy like the rule of law differs from the rule of the masses. In the case of Alberto Gonzales and John C. Yoo, I believe they are neglecting to respect the rule of law. All of this is going to come back and bite us in the tail. Our Constitution is going to be damaged, and so is the strength and power of the United States.

Thinking carefully about the new legal perspective which Yoo has been advocating, I have a reality-based fear that our Constitution won't be "living" much longer. If a president is free and willing to ignore law on a whim, it gravely damages the theory behind having a constitution to begin with. We are at the door to the potential of tyranny, if we are not already there. It is a silent tyranny of which many Americans will miss the signs due to partisan blindness and media misinformation.

Idealistic or not, we are all schooled to believe that our nation prides itself on its republican values, form and health. President Ronald Reagan's "shining city upon a hill" is not a vision embraced by one political party alone. We are one, but we are many and diverse. We all want our nation to represent our common values and we would expect them to act morally and with the utmost respect for the rule of law in all national undertakings. Torture is not a moral value. Torture is no "chamois cloth of dignity". We are taking steps closer to the legal acceptance of torture, which will surely not enhance our "shine".

Everything that has been done at the top filters down to guys like Jack Cloonan, a veteran FBI agent. He understood that a breakdown in the respect for law would serve to dull the shining example we have set, as worshippers of democracy, as a decent people in a decent civil society, as Americans from that visionary city upon a hill. It is one of the bedrock principles of the rule of law that a law-enforcement officer cannot break the law as a means of enforcing the law. Cloonan understood that when he professionally came to face a situation where he had to decide how to handle an al Qaeda figure by the name of Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, a man who had run Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.

Read Cloonan's part in Jane Mayer's New Yorker story and think about how far the Bush administration has come to break down key legal perspective differences which have separated us from the terrorists.

From: Outsorucing Torture by Jane Mayer, New Yorker, Feb 14 & 21, 2005

A few months after September 11th, the U.S. gained custody of its first high-ranking Al Qaeda figure, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi. He had run bin Laden’s terrorist training camp in Khalden, Afghanistan, and was detained in Pakistan. Zacarias Moussaoui, who was already in U.S. custody, and Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, had both spent time at the Khalden camp. At the F.B.I.’s field office in New York, Jack Cloonan, an officer who had worked for the agency since 1972, struggled to maintain control of the legal process in Afghanistan. C.I.A. and F.B.I. agents were vying to take possession of Libi. Cloonan, who worked with Dan Coleman on anti-terrorism cases for many years, said he felt that “neither the Moussaoui case nor the Reid case was a slam dunk.” He became intent on securing Libi’s testimony as a witness against them. He advised his F.B.I. colleagues in Afghanistan to question Libi respectfully, “and handle this like it was being done right here, in my office in New York.” He recalled, “I remember talking on a secure line to them. I told them, ‘Do yourself a favor, read the guy his rights. It may be old-fashioned, but this will come out if we don’t. It may take ten years, but it will hurt you, and the bureau’s reputation, if you don’t. Have it stand as a shining example of what we feel is right.’”

Cloonan’s F.B.I. colleagues advised Libi of his rights and took turns with C.I.A. agents in questioning him. After a few days, F.B.I. officials felt that they were developing a good rapport with him. The C.I.A. agents, however, felt that he was lying to them, and needed tougher interrogation.

To Cloonan’s dismay, the C.I.A. reportedly rendered Libi to Egypt. He was seen boarding a plane in Afghanistan, restrained by handcuffs and ankle cuffs, his mouth covered by duct tape. Cloonan, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2002, said, “At least we got information in ways that wouldn’t shock the conscience of the court. And no one will have to seek revenge for what I did.” He added, “We need to show the world that we can lead, and not just by military might.”

After Libi was taken to Egypt, the F.B.I. lost track of him. Yet he evidently played a crucial background role in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s momentous address to the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a preëmptive war against Iraq. In his speech, Powell did not refer to Libi by name, but he announced to the world that “a senior terrorist operative” who “was responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan” had told U.S. authorities that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two Al Qaeda operatives in the use of “chemical or biological weapons.”

Last summer, Newsweek reported that Libi, who was eventually transferred from Egypt to Guantánamo Bay, was the source of the incendiary charge cited by Powell, and that he had recanted. By then, the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq had passed and the 9/11 Commission had declared that there was no known evidence of a working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Dan Coleman was disgusted when he heard about Libi’s false confession. “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq,” he said. “I could have told them that. He ran a training camp. He wouldn’t have had anything to do with Iraq. Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.”

Napoleon Dynamite's Top Ten

Napoleon Dynamite's Top Ten

Have you seen Napoleon Dynamite's Top Ten Signs You're Not the Most Popular Guy In High School (on David Letterman)?

My favorite was #2:

" Lord of the Rings Figurines - 50
Friends - 0 "

Runner-up was #9:

"Your only friend is the one that you built in shop class."

Gang Defang - Eason Jordan Hip Hop

Gang Defang - Eason Jordan Hip Hop

Heah's some punkass poetry from tha shiznit Kevin Hayden. He delightfully captures da hip hop version of da Right wing's bloggin' floggin' on Eason's noggin'.


Gang Defang
by Kevin Hayden

From Insty, to his Hughness, to Gang Green, and NRO,
relying on the cred of a liberal Boston homo
that they’d normally attack just for his being gay -
politics and bedfellows - let’s all sashay.

They’re greasin’ up Eason, hear them banjo’s a’playin?
The Do-’ims! and Screw-’ims! are squawkin’ and brayin’.
Cause Eason hurt America’s spotless reputation
in the classic Fantasia of their own imagination.

America, busy working, to pay the rent
issues its verdict with this comment:
“Jordan? Didn’t he retire from basketball?”
Let’s all dosie-do, and head to the mall.

Stunned by the lack of blood in the water,
the Polident sharks starved, for lack of a slaughter.
They headed for Harlem certain of one thing-
there’s always some mileage chompin’ Bill’s dingaling.

- The End

Middle East- New Hope?

We can work it out...?

Middle East- New Hope?
Middle East truce: Global reaction
The BBC has received thousands of emails in response to the ceasefire agreed between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Egypt on Tuesday.

From the news:

There's much to be happy about. If peace is the destination, it's a road worth traveling.
Israel is to return control of five West Bank towns to the Palestinians, and free an initial 500 Palestinian prisoners, with 400 more to follow. Abbas' main task (and big problem) is to gain observance of the truce by anti-Israel extremists such as Hamas. LINK
Hamas and Islamic Jihad have declared that the truce is not binding on them.
A member of the radical Islamic movement Hamas has been killed in a blast in the southern Gaza Strip.

Can You Guess Who Said It?

"Al Qaeda was no more attacking our "freedom" when it drove those planes into the World Trade Center than were Iroquois, Sioux and Apache attacking our freedom when they massacred settlers on the frontier."

Can You Guess Who Said It?

A clue: He's the same fellow who said this:

"Bush may find himself with the epitaph penned a century ago by an old imperialist who knew the region well:

"A fool lies here/Who tried to hustle the East."

Give up? Find him HERE.

WHO'S JEFF GANNON? Valerie Plame CIA-Gate

"Gannon's" role in Valerie Plame CIA-Gate?

"White House-credentialed fake news reporter "Jeff Gannon" from fake news agency "Talon News" was cited by the Washington Post as having the only access to an internal CIA memo that named Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA agent. Gannon, in a question posed to Wilson in an October 2003 interview, referred to the memo (to which no other news outlet had access, according to the Post). Gannon subsequently has been subpoenaed by the federal grand jury looking into the Plame outing."

WHO IS THIS GANNON GUY?

**He has just QUIT per Markos, who has talked to Howard Kurtz about it. This is getting to be a weird story, people.

At JeffGannon.com, it says:

"Jeff Gannon
A Voice of the New Media
The voice goes silent.
Because of the attention being paid to me I find it is no longer possible to effectively be a reporter for Talon News. In consideration of the welfare of me and my family I have decided to return to private life.
Thank you to all those who supported me."

Wow! I mean, why would he quit just because someone was "paying attention" to him?**

HOW WAS IT THAT HE WAS THE LONE PERSON WHO WAS ABLE TO GAIN ACCESS TO THIS MEMO?

WHAT'S UP WITH THE FAKE NEWS AGENCY? IS IT A FRONT?

WE MUST PRESS THIS ISSUE.

__________________

UPDATES:

Joseph Wilson on PropaGANNON - DAILY KOS

Atrios

Media Matters

Archived copies about "Gannon/Guckert"

World O'Crap

Yes, we're talking about "Jeff Gannon, Washington Bureau Chief, Talon News" -- Talon News being the rinkydink wingnut "news service" chaired by the same guy who runs GOP USA (the wingnut site that is less upscale than Renew American, but slightly more professional than BushCountryUSA, and apparently run by various members of the Texas GOP).

Open Letter To Rep Louise Slaughter

Louise Slaughter requests probe

Predictably and typical of his usual propaganda-pushing, Sean Hannity has called Gannon a "terific Washington Bureau Chief".

Bobby Eberle / GOPUSA - I had Bobby's "number" long before now. (See third comment on this post).

Cole v Goldberg - Better Than WWE

"Books are nice. They are rectangular and soft and have information in them. They can even be consumed on airplanes. Goldberg should try one."

"..when writing an op-ed, he can get away with only seeming to grasp the facts, whereas in person he can be busted and shown to be only a poseur."

"..All he has to offer us is a party line and a strongly held opinion. Not all pundits are in this category. Goldberg is particularly unsubstantive."


- Juan Cole


Cole v Goldberg - Better Than WWE

Ouch! Remind me never to get into a tangle with the good Professor. ;)

"An argument that judgment matters but knowledge does not is profoundly anti-intellectual. It implies that we do not need ever to learn anything in order make mature decisions. We can just proceed off some simple ideological template and apply it to everything. This sort of thinking is part of what is wrong with this country. We wouldn't call a man in to fix our plumbing who knew nothing about plumbing, but we call pundits to address millions of people on subjects about which they know nothing of substance."

Can I get an AMEN?

"Goldberg is hoping to Kerryize me because my position on the war can't be reduced to a sound bite. I don't really care. I'm not running for office and I'm not making any money to speak of from this punditry gig. If people can't imagine that you can hate Saddam and also think a unilateral war and long-term occupation of an Arab country are bad ideas, that is their problem."

Professor Cole, you are not alone. The problem is, because of the way the Right artfully frames their ideas, people actually believe that anything less than black and white is not to be trusted. Falling in with those Right-wing frames and talking points, the mainstream media failed to spark any meaningful debate before the Iraq war. In essence, they did lack the imagination and curiosity necessary to keep the Bush administration from dragging our nation into this unjust disaster. If we aren't on our toes, they'll be allowed to do it again. The Right is attempting to make intelligent and knowledgeable people look like devils. I was amazed that David Brooks offered such a destructive anti-intelluctual manifesto in the NY Times this week. Brooks basically says that if you're not Barney Rubble, you're Beelzebub. Heaven help this country. Do we really want it run by Barney Rubble, Ralph Kramden, Al Bundy, Jonah Goldberg, and Company?

Right Wing Cage Rattles as Dean Becomes DNC Shoo-In

Right Wing Cage Rattles as Dean Becomes DNC Shoo-In

Howard Dean has no opposition for DNC chair now. There will be no stopping the grassroots now.

The Right cries out, with newfound concern for those poor loser-Democrats: 'Dear Heavens! How could this happen?'

David Brooks blames the most evil force in America - intelligence. I'm not kidding you. If you aren't Ralph Kramden, you're Satan.

Richard Bond, the former head of the RNC, has told the press, "[Dean's] a very capable guy; he's got high energy, but he will reinforce all of their worst instincts. His style and message is one that will narrow his party's options rather than expand them." (And we'll trust him because he, like most Republican leaders, are on our side, right?)

"All I can say is, the Democratic Party is clearly endorsing doctor-assisted suicide!" cackled Kate O'Beirne on Capital Gang.

On the same show, Bob Novak, the douchebag who 'couldn't stop himself' from outing a CIA agent said: "This is suicidal and lunatic by the Democratic Party, and that is an opinion shared by a lot of Democrats that I talk to. This man can't control what he says."

On Beltway Boys, the always-pleasant see-through ideologue Fred Barnes said, "Howard Dean couldn't manage his way out of a wet paper bag."

We're no longer fooled by these bags of wind.

Dean has them in a tizzy because he's succeeding. With the force of the Democratic party behind him, there will be no stopping the grassroots (who are not nearly as liberal or radical as the perfidious pundits would have you believe).

National Review: They Figure I 'Just Had A Bad Day'

National Review: They Figure I 'Just Had A Bad Day'

Truth is...I had a great day!

At NRO, Jim Geraghty asks:

Is TimK really the face of the “right wing bloggers”? Or was he the most convenient example Camwell could find of a person on the right who used four-letter words and who is promising Jordan “a world of [excrement]”? Is it conceivable that TimK’s comment fits a bit of a stereotype of a knuckle-dragging, inarticulate bully of the right? It’s easy to portray that comment as “blog-thuggery.” Fortunately, its tone and tenor is worlds apart from what you find on most blogs.

Look, if Eason Jordan has his facts right, then the guys who committed the crimes he described ought to face the fullest consequences of the law. And Jordan – at least in his initial comment – apparently described outright premeditiated murder. Of course journalists ought to be concerned about that. Everyone should be.

But if it’s not true, and a network’s top newsman is irresponsibly spreading rumors… then journalists ought to be concerned about that, too.

Convenient? Well, the only thing I will say is that it wasn't very hard to find such a statement.

It seems that Jim would like to keep the discussion of the issue dispassionate, as well he should as a respectable writer. He doesn't believe Eason Jordan acted respectably at Davos. I understand. Eason seems to have either made a dreadful accusation - or it could be that he spoke, with conviction, from a terribly passionate place.

Jim didn't seem to appreciate my use of 'TimK' as an example of what the impetus for the right's push-push of this story just might be.

Jim may be a big voice among powerful voices, but mine is ringing loud and clear.
I think there's an agenda here.
The agenda seems to involve pumping out the narrative of the 'evil' Eason Jordan, who is an 'unprofessional' and perhaps even an 'unAmerican' member of the organization they frame as "the old media".
The frame of "old" connotates something no longer useful. Past its prime. No longer trustworthy. Ready for the dustbin of history. It perpetuates the 'liberal media' myth.

I believe Jim is missing the boat here, given his doubt about the reasons for passion from the Right on this issue.

The absence of passion is the farthest thing from which the Eason Jordan story has come to be about. As a matter of fact, it is about nothing but passion. We have passion for defending our soldiers against what many see as unfair, factually-unsupported attacks. We have passion for fellow journalists who are killed carelessly and with barely a nod of respect to the Geneva Conventions, it seems. We have passion for the ideas forwarded by the "new media". We have passion in our insistence that the mainstream media is not now, and has never been "liberal".

We argue passionately if we care.

I've had an ongoing discussion with a lot of people today. They're people with whom I don't generally chat. I find that there are quite a few people, such as the passionate Tim K, who aren't bad sorts simply because they use the "s" word. One theme I see clearly emerging from the right, on a people-to-people basis, is the belief that journalists who aren't embedded with military (or who are not American) may well be enemies. When I stated: "JOURNALISTS ARE NOT THE ENEMY", a commenter named Steve asked:

How do you define it when a group of people regularly show only the side of the story that makes America look bad? What do you call it when ‘journalists’ just happen to be on hand, cameras rolling, as terrorists execute Iraqi election workers in broad day light in the middle of the street? What do you call it when ‘journalists’ are right there to film a staged suicide bombing? What do you call it when journalists are so eager to get one more kidnapping on the wire they are duped by pictures of a child’s action toy? Are all journalists the enemy? Of course not. Are there people calling themselves journalists who are clearly against the American effort? Obviously.

I'm not saying Steve is right or wrong. I'm saying that we need to have this discussion. If we agree, as a civil society, to make our support conditional for the protection of journalists at war-time, I believe we are neglecting a value that is crucial to our traditional defense and promotion of free speech, regardless of where the journalists are from. If we promote democracy, we must show Iraqi journalists (for example) of all ideological stripes that they are free to speak their mind. Otherwise, our support for democracy in other countries is all a sick joke and the world will easily see it.

Would I like to see the story of Eason Jordan buried? Definitely not. It brings about a discussion that I think we should be having, no matter how much it pains either side of the ideological fence.

Do I understand the reasons for passionate right-minded people to get maximum mileage out of the story? Yes.

Do I understand why Eason Jordan said what he said? I think we have to listen to Eason's clarification, give him every benefit of professional doubt, and have a mature discussion about it.

If we care about our country's strength, it has to come from us - with passion and with an honest attempt to reach a goal of understanding. We won't get respect from the world until we learn to respect one another. We need the passion that I suspect led Eason Jordan to speak, albeit clumsily - perhaps even inappropriately, at Davos. Since we have a bona fide mainstream story floating out there, why don't we Americans roll up our sleeves and dig in?

Talk to one another. It might seem painful, but it's the only way we will bring about a positive change within this nation.


A final point.
Jim Geraghty said: "..if Eason Jordan has his facts right, then the guys who committed the crimes he described ought to face the fullest consequences of the law."


Was this the most "convienient" way to neglect the easily-researchable fact that early today, Howie Kurtz reported that Eason Jordan said: "I have never once in my life thought anyone from the U.S. military tried to kill a journalist. Never meant to suggest that. Obviously I wasn’t as clear as I should have been on that panel.”

I don't see that Jim is very willing to give his fellow journalist the benefit of the doubt.

Is this just another case of 'old media' vs. 'new media'?

You decide.

*A shout of thanks goes out to Anonymoses and Jay Rosen for linking some of my comments.


UPDATE: Since NRO is in denial about Righties and their agenda, take a look at the latest fun activity among the right-set: Tell A Friend about Easongate

From the folks at Easongate
"Tell-A-Friend" Day at Easongate: Today is "Tell-A-Friend" Day. Your mission today is to call, email or otherwise contact at least two friends whom you don't believe are aware of the Easongate story!

Eason Tale Hits Mainstream Out on American Street

Eason Tale Hits Mainstream Out on American Street

Here is an excerpt from my latest American Street entry:

Howard Kurtz on Eason Jordan

"Howard Kurtz takes a dispassionate look at what occurred at Davos. Read it (at the bottom) and ask yourselves how a seasoned newsman's passion for the protection of the lives and safety of those who carry out their work in the most dangerous of situations (to show YOU the truth) is, by any standard, "unprofessional". I would have to say just the opposite. The values Eason Jordan appears to espouse involve a concern, caring, and a call for the utmost protection for those who serve in the field of journalism. We all know that war is a risky place for journalists.

The Iraq war is a public action carried out, in my name and yours, by our government. The lives of those who serve the journalism corps in the middle of a war zone deserve every bit as much care and respect as the soldiers (the ones with the guns, I'd like to remind you).

I don't think Jordan Eason should be professionally crucified for what we can liken to a motherly nature when discussing a delicate matter (out of the public eye, for the most part - the Jan. 27 Davos session was supposed to be off the record).

Those who are hot on Eason's trail are only those who wish to inflict some political damage on the few in the mainstream media who still possess the extreme courage of conviction. This is not a case of Dan Rather using fake documents. This seems to be more of a case where a professional journalist has called, in his own fumbling way, for better judgement and a higher degree of care and liability on on the part of U.S. military in choosing their targets.

After what we saw happen at the Palestine Hotel, I don't think that's an unreasonable plea..."

UPDATE: At Press Think yesterday (Feb 8), the BBC's Richard Sambrook commented:

"...as a News Executive on a panel discussing the safety of journalists in Iraq I fail to see why I should not discuss any of these incidents. Unless they are properly, fairly and openly discussed, as I said in my original note to Jay [Rosen], it will simply feed prejudice on all sides. Responsiblity for the safety of journalists in war zones rests with the news organisations. But unless we can have a full and open discussion with the military about how journalists have been killed we cannot understand what more we may be able to do to protect them. You are all entitled to your personal opinions about CNN, the BBC, me, Eason, the Iraq War and anything else. However this started with the question of journalists safety in war zones and the high number who have been killed. For those of us with friends and colleagues out there, we will continue to try to understand why the casualties among journalists are unusually high and what more we might do to protect them."

Eason Jordan / Blogosphere Update

Eason Jordan / Blogosphere Update

Updates on the Eason Jordan blog-story are at Michelle Malkin's site and at Press Think. According to Jay Rosen, "it now appears that the World Economic Forum has decided not to release a tape or transcript, on the grounds that the session was held under rules preventing participants from being quoted directly."

In the most recent Press Think article, Richard Sambrook of the BBC talks about what Eason Jordan said in Davos:

"This culture of "closing ranks" coupled with hostile comments about the media from senior politicians and others, has led some in the media community (not necessarily Eason or myself) to believe the military are careless as to whether journalists are killed or not and to no longer respect the traditional right to report.

As yet, for example, there has been no adequate explanation for the attack on the media hotel in Baghdad, the Palestine, which killed one Ukrainian Reuters cameraman and one cameraman for Spanish TV in 2003. The US tank commander suggested he had come under sniper fire from the building. That is now clearly not the case; it was well known, including in the Pentagon, that the Palestine was used by the media and yet it was attacked directly and purposely. Why? An absence of explanation unhelpfully feeds suspicion in some quarters.

More than sixty journalists and media workers have been killed in Iraq since march 2003.

I am leading an international committee of inquiry into the reasons for the major increase in journalist fatalities around the world. It will make recommendations for improving safety and reducing risk and possibly suggest some changes to international law which ensure that when journalists are killed we can get a proper and open investigation and sense of accountability.

Finally, some people say, if it's so dangerous don't go. I'm afraid I believe that bearing witness, first hand reporting from wars, is a fundamental duty of news organisations. We need to do all we can to ensure we can continue to bear witness, but to do so without carelessly losing lives."

Anonymoses: A Blogollage

Anonymoses: A Blogollage


Credit: Anonymoses
*I'm the yellow-haired gurl - the only gurl appearing in technicolor ;)

I see Ed Cone, Dave Beckwith(Anonymoses), Billy Jones (The Blogging Poet), Kevin Hayden (American Street), Nick Lewis (PBA), Robert L. (Philoblogger), the lovely Erika G, Dave Hoggard (Hogg's Blog), S M Dixon (Vast Leftwing Conspiracy), Dave Weinberger, Jay Rosen (Press Think), and more..

Best Jonah Goldberg Nickname Contest

Best Jonah Goldberg Nickname Contest

At Rox Populi. Go ahead. What are you waiting for? You could win 50 bucks.

Ossie Davis 1917-2005

credit: PBS photo

Ossie Davis 1917-2005
A Tribute to the Actor and Civil Rights Activist
Democracy Now

MYTHS V. REALITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY

MYTHS V. REALITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY

On Social Security Policy: A go-to-website for reference to all the lies, exxagerations, misstatements, and Bushite bunkum.
eRiposte