This piece in the LA Times blames bloggers for the untimely resignation of Eason Jordan.
But what's worse, the author reveals a fundamental unfamiliarity with the facts of the case. He appears not to know that Jordan has a history of slandering the military -- having made a comment similar to the one in Davos at a conference in Portugal. Might want to check those facts before writing the story . . .
And here's one of the most amazing passages:
What I don't understand is why they — and he [Jordan] — caved in so quickly. I wish he'd asked — begged, demanded — that the organizers of the Davos forum release the videotape of his panel. I can only assume that he said what he's accused of saying and that he doesn't want those remarks in the public domain, even if they were followed by his quick backtracking.
If Jordan did say American troops target American journalists, he should be ashamed of himself. But he shouldn't have lost his job.
The author's right about one thing -- CNN and Jordan should have sought release of the transcript. Without it, the only rational assumption is that Jordan made the remarks he was accused of (perhaps worse).
But as for the rest, how morally blind can any writer be? Even if the head of a prominent international enws organization slanders the U.S. military (having done so at least once in the past) -- with no evidence to back his accusation -- he shouldn't be fired, according to this piece. Unbelievable.
I couldn't disagree more. If a lawyer lies about the status of a case to a client, he deserves to be fired. If a doctor lies to a patient about the status of his health, that doctor should be fired. And if a journalist lies repeatedly, making inflammatory charges that could be used as propaganda by his country's enemies -- and makes them without any substantiation -- he should, undoubtedly, be fired. Especially when he's near the top of the world's largest, most respected international news organization.
I have heard that Eason Jordan, personally, is a nice man. And he may be. But just as bloggers have no business making overheated charges about him that can't be substantiated by facts, how much more does he have an obligation to be straightforward and honest in his treatment and discussion of his own country's military.
But what's worse, the author reveals a fundamental unfamiliarity with the facts of the case. He appears not to know that Jordan has a history of slandering the military -- having made a comment similar to the one in Davos at a conference in Portugal. Might want to check those facts before writing the story . . .
And here's one of the most amazing passages:
What I don't understand is why they — and he [Jordan] — caved in so quickly. I wish he'd asked — begged, demanded — that the organizers of the Davos forum release the videotape of his panel. I can only assume that he said what he's accused of saying and that he doesn't want those remarks in the public domain, even if they were followed by his quick backtracking.
If Jordan did say American troops target American journalists, he should be ashamed of himself. But he shouldn't have lost his job.
The author's right about one thing -- CNN and Jordan should have sought release of the transcript. Without it, the only rational assumption is that Jordan made the remarks he was accused of (perhaps worse).
But as for the rest, how morally blind can any writer be? Even if the head of a prominent international enws organization slanders the U.S. military (having done so at least once in the past) -- with no evidence to back his accusation -- he shouldn't be fired, according to this piece. Unbelievable.
I couldn't disagree more. If a lawyer lies about the status of a case to a client, he deserves to be fired. If a doctor lies to a patient about the status of his health, that doctor should be fired. And if a journalist lies repeatedly, making inflammatory charges that could be used as propaganda by his country's enemies -- and makes them without any substantiation -- he should, undoubtedly, be fired. Especially when he's near the top of the world's largest, most respected international news organization.
I have heard that Eason Jordan, personally, is a nice man. And he may be. But just as bloggers have no business making overheated charges about him that can't be substantiated by facts, how much more does he have an obligation to be straightforward and honest in his treatment and discussion of his own country's military.
posted by LadybugUSA at 2:45 PM
2 Comments:
Carol, I think the leftist media will never accept the guilt of Eason....unless we get a hold of the Davos video tape. That would shut them up. They have Bush tapes with a minister. Can't we get a copy of a lecture?
Re that bit about Jordan's untimely resignation: perhaps the adjective would look better with quotation marks around it?
Post a Comment
<< Home