By all means, work yourself up into a frothy rage over what a bunch of random commenters said on a weblog. And go ahead & conflate this blog with Freep, if that makes it easier to be angry at the commenters here.

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say… you think the troops DID shoot journalists and drew inspiration for that from blogs??? If so, come out and say it already.

For my part, I’ll stick with being angry at what CNN’s news executive said in a highly public forum, when speaking directly and deliberately to leaders of the world.

Tim

Anyone care to offer me an over/under on how many comments I can find explicitly wishing harm to come to a journalist, cameraman or photographer in Iraq at the hands of American soldiers? I’ll limit myself to here, LGF & Freep.

Words have meaning & consequences. Be men, take responsibility for yours.

Tim

He wrote “…where a journalist or cameraman in Iraq did or said something that the Right disapproved of.”

First off, is he commenting without even knowing what he is commenting about? Is this a purely knee-jerk contrarian [sic] action?

Secondly, the ‘thing’ the “journalist or cameraman” (would it be too much to ask that you find out?) did was to accuse the US military of targetting journalists for assassination. That, scalefree, should bother anyone, independent of Left/Right politics.

But you, in your righteous sanctimony and on-the-sleave ignorance, have come here to combat those hideous Right-wingers when you do not even know what the story is about, displaying for all to see that you were more concerned with getting in your punches at “the Right” than even having the foggiest notion of the issue.

Presumably Jordan did not get to his position by blurting out the first thing that came into his head otherwise the CNN lawyers would have spent most of their time handling libel cases.

The indications are that this was regarded as a legitimate thing to say,despite the enormity of its implications,that the US military was in effect getting carte blanche to kill journalists and that his organisation was too idle,incompetent or dilatory to cover it.

Quite a way to resign.

Use your noggin already. If this had actually happened, 1) it would have been a giant story and 2) it would require official investigation. So where’s the story? Where’s the investigation?

Please don’t try to tell me the press would not hunt this story down, if it were real!

But there’s nothing. This is a rumor the guy made up on the spot.

Now someone comes forward & says he thinks maybe some of those soldiers took that action that so many of you quite clearly approved of & perhaps even encouraged him into taking, and you act all shocked & hurt that anyone would suggest such a thing. Take the logs out of your eyes, brethren, & you might see things a bit more clearly.

Did any soldiers target journalists in Iraq? I honestly don’t know & I hope to God they didn’t. But if they did, I sure as hell know where they got the idea.

Tim

ìThese guys are not poor, if they are so frigging worried why don’t they get some security instead of relying on the murdering Americans to cover their asses?î

Why spend your own money if you can use the taxpayer funded best-trained security on the planet i.e. American troops free of charge? And then you can bitch about them and slander some, and get a great headline in the process.

Helveticus,

I cannot decide: is this a case of ìFalse but Accurateî reporting, or ìI was for accusing American troops of being murdering bastards before I was against itî ?

These guys need a new playbook.

“Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan’s remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists. Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions.

“Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of “collateral damage.”

If you read the comments of the eyewitness in the Davos session, it sounds hard to imagine that Jordan’s comments were taken out of context. He apparently repeated his assertion “a few times”.

I am of the opinion that people like Jordan, Ward Churchill, and others whose comments have come racing back to haunt them, are true cowards, backing down at the very first opportunity and claiming they were misunderstood. Bravo Sierra! If they actually said “US soldiers have murdered 12 journalists” or “The 9/11 victims had it coming”, what makes them so afraid – days, weeks, or apparently even minutes afterward – to stand by their own opinions?

Well, yeah! Were a major news exec and other journalists actually to believe there could be any merit to these charges, wouldn’t they investigate and then report on the biggest story of the year? How could prisoner panty and pyramid humiliation stories be a bigger deal than journos being targeted and murdered by our armed forces? Jordan must be waiting for Better Homes and Gardens to break the story before he jumps on it.

Or, perhaps he’s rumor-mongering to advance CNN’s business interests in European and Asian/ Arab markets. Nothing like a little anti-American and “honest broker” cred to increase corporate prospects overseas. Jordan’s accusations might also serve his political interests by increasing the natural distrust between media and military that had begun to dissipate a bit with embedding. Maybe he would like to see journalists stay more unsympathetic in their coverage of our Iraq efforts, just as those efforts were starting to get positive press.

Official inquiry, please.