« 17-Year-Old Compares Bush To Hitler | Main | Dodd Calls For Eason Jordan Videotape Release »

February 10, 2005

Bret Stephens Is Wrong On The Eason Jordan Matter

I take issue with the interpretation offered by Bret Stephens in this morning's Wall Street Journal of Eason Jordan's comments at Davos.

Stephens was present at the Davos session:

By chance, I was in the audience of the World Economic Forum's panel discussion where Mr. Jordan spoke. What happened was this: Mr. Jordan observed that of the 60-odd journalists killed in Iraq, 12 had been targeted and killed by coalition forces. He then offered a story of an unnamed Al-Jazeera journalist who had been "tortured for weeks" at Abu Ghraib, made to eat his shoes, and called "Al-Jazeera boy" by his American captors.

Stephens confirms in the above that Jordan did indeed accuse the military of targeting and killing twelve journalists.

Here Rep. Barney Frank, also a member of the panel, interjected: Had American troops actually targeted journalists? And had CNN done a story about it? Well no, Mr. Jordan replied, CNN hadn't done a story on this, specifically. And no, he didn't believe the Bush administration had a policy of targeting journalists. Besides, he said, "the [American] generals and colonels have their heart in the right place."

By this point, one could almost see the wheels of Mr. Jordan's mind spinning, slowly: "How am I going to get out of this one?" But Mr. Frank and others kept demanding specifics. Mr. Jordan replied that "there are people who believe there are people in the military" who have it out for journalists. He also recounted a story of a reporter who'd been sent to the back of the line at a checkpoint outside of Baghdad's Green Zone, apparently because the soldier had been unhappy with the reporter's dispatches.

So Jordan did not think that this most explosive of charges that he had just leveled was worthy of a CNN story? His attempt to backtrack, after realizing that he had shocked many who were present (which Stephens fails to mention, but that we know from other accounts), is clearly evident.

And that was it--the discussion moved on. I'll leave it others to draw their own verdicts, but here's mine: Whether with malice aforethought or not, Mr. Jordan made a defamatory innuendo. Defamatory innuendo--rather than outright allegation--is the vehicle of mainstream media bias. Had Mr. Jordan's innuendo gone unchallenged, it would have served as further proof to the Davos elite of the depths of American perfidy. Mr. Jordan deserves some credit for retracting the substance of his remark, and some forgiveness for trying to weasel his way out of a bad situation of his own making. Whether CNN wants its news division led by a man who can't be trusted to sit on a panel and field softball questions is another matter.

To state that "12 [journalists] had been targeted and killed" is NOT innuendo. It is a blatant allegation. There is just no way around that fact. I think it dubious to give Mr. Jordan credit for "retracting" his remarks when it appears he "retracted" them not out of a genuine, sincere sense of regret, but because he realized that he may have created an explosive firestorm. The only reason Mr. Stephens can find for CNN not possibly wanting to retain Mr. Jordan is that he can't sit around and field "softball" questions? That is a pretty unbelievable statement.

Mr. Stephens also fires a shot at those who have the audacity to question and seek further information about Mr. Jordan's comments:

It's a serious question, at least to judge by the heat it's generated. Google "Easongate" and you get 2,500 results. There is an Easongate.com Web site, on which more than 1,000 petitioners demand that Mr. Jordan release a transcript of his remarks--made recently in Davos--by Feb. 15 or, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, face serious consequences. Sean Hannity and the usual Internet suspects have all weighed in. So has Michelle Malkin, who sits suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.

There's a reason the hounds are baying. Already they have feasted on the juicy entrails of Dan Rather. Mr. Jordan, whose previous offenses (other than the general tenor of CNN coverage) include a New York Times op-ed explaining why access is a more important news value than truth, was bound to be their next target. And if Mr. Jordan has now made a defamatory and unsubstantiated allegation against U.S. forces, well then . . . open the gates.

Mr. Jordan's piece in The Times was to explain why he spiked news stories critical of Saddam Hussein so that CNN would not be thrown out of the country, plain and simple.

Mr. Stephens essentially confirms all that we thought we knew about what Mr. Jordan said and then, incredibly, dismisses Jordan's slanderous allegaton as no big deal. I do not find this examination of Mr. Jordan's remarks by Mr. Stephens to be either a serious or convincing one.

(article via Captain's Quarters)

Easongate asks if Bret Stephens has a conflict of interest. (via Stones Cry Out)

Posted at 11:25 AM Pacific