44 Comments

1. BurbankErnie:

This should come as no surprise. Swiftees, Rather, good news in Iraq, all whitewashed and explained away in a one day non-story. Some day it may change and we will have honest reporting, but not now, and not with this story. We got a total of one editorial (Washington Times), a blurb from Brit Hume (Grapevine), and the final brush stroke from Kurtz, proclaiming this a non-issue, a small misunderstanding. I expect this to now be a dead issue.

Feb 7, 2005 - 10:06 pm 2. TmjUtah:

“No transcript exists of the Jan. 27 session, which was supposed to be off the record, and a videotape of the event has not been made public. The dispute erupted when Rony Abovitz, co-founder of the technology company Z-Kat, posted an account on the forum’s Web site of what Jordan said, while also noting that he had backpedaled when challenged.”

Et tu, Kurtz?

It’s nice that it was noted that Eason backpedaled. It would be A WHOLE LOT MORE USEFULl TO NEWS CONSUMERS IF WE KNEW WHAT HE BACKPEDALED FROM…

They can chase a Bush DUI story for four elections and pull out the stops to try to elect a nonentity with a magic hat, but they can’t seem to see the import of the head news executive of a U.S. based network asserting that U.S. policy is to shoot journalists? In front of an international forum?

And there’s doesn’t seem to be a transcript? In a room full of REPORTERS?

What, there are no Kinko’s in Switzerland?

I’m linking Easongate.com in the morning. Not like it will make a difference, but this whole situation is just shit on a Sunday suit.

Kurtz should be ashamed of himself for allowing his name to go over such drivel. He can go on my DU/Buzzflash/KoS list.

Feb 7, 2005 - 10:18 pm 3. TmjUtah:

Place holder? For what, Roger? It’s been ten days.

It only took thirty seconds of video of a sandstorm for CNN to declare OIF lost.

I guess it’s a matter of perspective.

Feb 7, 2005 - 10:19 pm 4. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Howard Kurtz and Dick Thornburg ought to run a clinic on “How to look like you are investigating while you cover up!” The problem is they aren’t very good at it so why bother. Credibility is not what the MSM is seeking is it? If they are then that claim is as great an insult as the both original sorry episodes that brought about such scandals. Kurtz even has the decency to broad brush blame “conservative boggers”… geez Howie that tactic sure helped Dan Rather and CBS too didn’t it!

You know I read about influential “right wing bloggers” And they listed, Little Green Footballs, Roger L. Simon, Michael J Totten and Instapundit as counters to Kos, Atrios etc. Only one problem… every person listed on both sides of the legder are… DEMOCRATS! Yes Roger didn’t you know that a pro-War liberal regardless of whatever position he may hold on Gay Marraige, taxes, etc., is a conservative, no scratch that, a neo-conservative the most damnble type… a heretic! As as you would say “whatever that means”.

Labeling is a way to prejudice and demonize. GOOD JOB HOWIE YE ARBITOR OF MEDIA FAIRNESS… NOT! I am sick of it! Quit labeling and talk positions or ideas, labels are meant to divide, I have never met a person I didn’t agree with on at least one thing. So yes Roger, pro-WOT is the qualifier, liberal or not, sorry we all fail. That means you, I and every other Democrat that had the gall to vote Republican if just one damn time, and that list includes every supposed “Right Wing Blog” that happens to be run by a Democrat listed in the list of “Influential Right Wing Bloggers”… please grow up! Of course people who know my history will understand that I changed to Republican just to run such politicos in my life away. The rest of you stay in the Democratic Party and drive them nuts for all I care, there is a place for such people as for me I am weary of it.

Feb 7, 2005 - 10:37 pm 5. WichitaBoy:

In certain circles–and we all know which circles–ideas, blogs, magazines, and people are labelled with the epithet “conservative” as quickly as possible in order to absolve the reader from the horrid obligation of having to actually listen to what other people not “of the body” might be saying. According to this hackneyed formulation, “conservative” = “right wing” = “Jesusland” = “Republican”, though Roger is none of these. The practice is akin to sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and shouting “I’m not listening! I’m not listening!”. It must be very difficult to maintain the faith if the faithful must be perpetually enjoined to eschew the unbelievers at all times and under all conditions.

It has reached the point that as soon as I read a sentence beginning with “The conservative blogs…” I immediately stop reading or listening, for I know that the information content of the piece is very likely to be zero. And so it proves again.

Feb 7, 2005 - 10:53 pm 6. Homer:

Well, Mickey Kaus called it. So we shouldn’t be suprised. But if I were Howard Kurtz I be a mite uneasy tonight. Being exposed serving two masters not very well, is not good for ones employment, on either job. Boo hoo,too bad.

Feb 7, 2005 - 11:52 pm 7. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

TMJUtah

They can chase a Bush DUI story for four elections and pull out the stops to try to elect a nonentity with a magic hat, but they can’t seem to see the import of the head news executive of a U.S. based network asserting that U.S. policy is to shoot journalists? In front of an international forum?

The first thing I noticed after I shed my prejudice towards those of different political stripes, or more properly put, opened up myself to allowing those of different political stripes carry the ball for what I believe, it became obvious the blatant inherent bias the MSM has toward not just Republican ideas but even if these Republicans carry ideas normally acceptable by Democrats they are treated as if some deviants sabatoging a good thing. I agree with WichitaBoy, focusing on stereotypical labels are indicators of the worthlessness of an article. Again, I consider myself an agnostic Jewish guy somewhat mugged by a few new realities trying to be thoughtful, but I am sure damn tired of it all.

Feb 7, 2005 - 11:59 pm 8. Rick Ballard:

I am sure damn tired of it all.

Two years and your tired? Try it for forty and we’ll talk.

This isn’t exactly a new schtick, you know? And you and Roger clapped and sang along with the bouncing ball for a lonnnng time. Nothing has changed an iota with the M$M. They were lying in ‘64 and in ‘74 and in ‘84 and in ‘94 and their lying today. Bravo for noticing but spare me the tired part. You’ll have plenty of time to get tired over the next twenty years because they’ll be telling the same damn lies each and every one of them. And with the Dems hiring Mr. “I hate Republicans” Dean as their lead singer backed by Commandante Marko$ and his Ko$$acks playing in perfect disharmony I’d say that your going to have quite a bit more to be tired of.

Feb 8, 2005 - 1:53 am 9. David Thomson:

ìI expect this to now be a dead issue.î

The year is 2005, and not 1995. You are way too pessimistic. This issue will not disappear—because we wonít let it drop down a memory hole. The blogging community has the final say. We just need to continue with the pressure. The MSM is on the run. You vastly underestimate our collective influence.

Feb 8, 2005 - 2:17 am 10. Terrye:

Rick:

It works both ways. I remember Mike Wallace doing a story on white gold, dairy farming, back when I was farming. The cow they showed was a hereford and was not a dairy cow at all and I thought, oh this will be fun. I was working from 5 in the am to 8 at night seven days a week and clearing minimum wage. I had a coffee maker and a radio in the barn and had to work milking around the damn program, I was that confined. I had broken a finger and had to finish the damn milking. I had been kicked, slammed up against the side of a barn,had to pull calves, work in weather so cold my clothes froze to me and weather so hot I grew faint from loss of body fluids and could not even go to my father in law’s memorial service because someone had to be there to milk. But hey, I was getting rich off that white gold they call milk.

It is not so much about conservative and liberal as it is about turf protection and stupidity. The media just wants to call the shots and control what we know and do not know. It makes them feel powerful. They consider the socalled conservatives more independent and as such harder to control, so they are nastier with them and of course they are partisan, but it is as much about the culture of media as it is politics.

That is why Clinton blew up at the Brit reporter in that interview and said you people [I paraphrase] don’t care what you do to people. He was right, they don’t.

Feb 8, 2005 - 3:17 am 11. someone:

Oh please. Clinton was as much the beneficiary of closing ranks against the truth as Jordan. Ask Betty Currie.

Anyway, looks like we won’t be seeing the tape. Big surprise!

Feb 8, 2005 - 3:33 am 12. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Terrye

Great points I agree with but…

That is why Clinton blew up at the Brit reporter in that interview and said you people [I paraphrase] don’t care what you do to people. He was right, they don’t.

Of course he was right, but the sheer irony in the above statement need to be explained.

Feb 8, 2005 - 3:49 am 13. Terrye:

someone:

See… this is my point. When they turned on Clinton, they did it with a vengeance. Now if they had not been so partisan they would have been reporting on some other things all along but they let it all go until it suited them and then they turned the whole process into a circus. But Clinton was still right, they do not care. That was the point I was making.

It would be nice if we could get beyond the constant partisan bickering about everything.

Feb 8, 2005 - 3:50 am 14. Terrye:

Joseph, used to be Samuel:

I know what you mean, but that is the point. Life is irony.

Like a woman who milked cows for years, gave up her youth doing it not to mention any hopes of financial security so that she could get lectures on capitalism from professors with tenure who like to call farmers welfare recipients.

Feb 8, 2005 - 3:56 am 15. someone:

Terrye: perhaps I compressed my point too much. Much of this episode is a flashback to the Clinton years. He knew that as long as everyone in the circle believes in group loyalty enough to stonewall the inconvenient truth, said truth will never appear. (E.g. the obvious fact that Clinton obstructed justice and suborned perjury from his aides.) Eason Jordan knows it too. Were you pleased that the inconvenient, needlessly upsetting truth was squashed then? (And don’t pretend the MSM wasn’t happy — and never, even after impeachment, stopped being so — to lap up the unbelievable denials of Currie, Vernon Jordan, et al.) Well, most of the country perhaps was. Same dynamic here, with WEF as Betty Currie — they’re not going to release the smoking gun, the absence of which gives our fair MSM license to buy Sambrook’s ghost of an alibi.

See, conservatives are used to the fact that MSM organs will never give a fair shake to anyone upsetting cherished leftish institutions, and will look for any fig leaf to deny credibility to their accusers. The New York Sun, on the other hand, has Easongate on today’s front page.

Feb 8, 2005 - 4:29 am 16. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Terrye

First… Of course he was right, but the sheer irony in the above statement need to be explained.

Should have read…

Of course he was right, but the sheer irony in the above statement need not be explained.

And by the way to those that may wonder, I have posted as Samuel in the past which is in truth my middle name, for personal reasons I felt it necessary. I am mostly past the reasons for doing so. My actual name is Joseph Samuel Friedman, I am out of the closet, sympathetic to gays, but I assure you very hetero-sexual.

Feb 8, 2005 - 4:58 am 17. Oyster:

Kurtz is a putz. Gergen is a putz. “This was a guy caught up in the tension of the moment,” Gergen said. “He deserves the benefit of the doubt.”

I thought Eason was a seasoned reporter. Caught up in the tension of the moment? What manure. The guy was surrounded by vehement anti-Americans and this is his choice of words? This is the topic he brings up? I’m sorry. It’s inexcusable. Perhaps he should consider moving his offices to France. Maybe he could set up on the ground floor of the new UN building there.

Feb 8, 2005 - 5:00 am 18. Richard Nieporent:

Speaking of irony, a conference of media people is off the record! Now why would that be the case? What do they have to hide? Don’t they believe in the public’s right to know?

So the question is who (besides the “conservative” blogging community) is watching the watchers?

Feb 8, 2005 - 5:04 am 19. Hogarth:

See… this is my point. When they turned on Clinton, they did it with a vengeance. Now if they had not been so partisan they would have been reporting on some other things all along but they let it all go until it suited them and then they turned the whole process into a circus.

This is what I predict will happen to JFK The Sequel if he continues to tilt at the 2008 windmill. The MSM will be backing their Golden Gal and will rake Kerry over the coals the way they should have done in ‘04.

Feb 8, 2005 - 5:15 am 20. Dave Schuler:

Neither Barney Frank nor Chris Dodd are either bloggers or media critics (except in the sense that we’re all media critics) and their accounts of things do not support Jordan. That’s a preponderance of the evidence; it’s not he said—he said anymore.

Feb 8, 2005 - 5:35 am 21. CERDIP:

That flushing sound is Kurtz’s credibility spiraling away. Too bad, but he pulled the chain himself.

Gergen has been standing staring into that whirlpool since the start of OIF. I expect him to pull the chain within a year…

Feb 8, 2005 - 6:35 am 22. Knucklehead:

Shouldn’t Jordan have avoided even the “appearance of {impropriety, prejudice, partisanship, stupidity, etc.}?

Hogarth,

Its probably a bit too early to tell, for certain, which Democratic candidate the MSM will choose to bless. St. Hillary seems a good bet. It will be interesting to watch the MS savage Kerry when it happens (assuming somebody hasn’t whispered in his ear by then). The Swiftvets charges will suddenly be worth taking seriously, his failure to release his full military records will become a big deal, the absurdity of Christmas in Cambodia will be trumpeted far and wide.

BTW, did anyone notice his carelfully worded promise to Russert re: signing 180 to release his military records? He basically said that once he sat down with the military and determined what was and was not in his records he would sign the 180 and have them released. I’d say that carefullness on his part lends some credence to the speculation that portions of his military record were subject to Carter’s amnesty and he wants to make darned sure whatever it is has been purged from the record. Sorta like a juvenile delinguent who wants to make sure his police record is sanitized once he’s reached legal age. Only in Kerry’s case we have a full-grown man who would be president and CIC. Sorry to go down the Kerry rathole but, heh, he won’t go away so he still remains a viable topic.

Feb 8, 2005 - 6:37 am 23. ricpic:

You have to ask yourself what led Jordan to make his comments in the first place. My guess is that he knew himself to be amongst “the anointed.” And that when you are surrounded by your own (even if some of them are – ostensibly – journalists ) you can be confident that there are things you can say that will not be reported to the benighted enemy camp; things that are just between “us.”

Feb 8, 2005 - 6:43 am 24. Clio:

Roger, everyone,

I’m going to buck the trend here and suggest that Kurtz is not the apologist hack he’s being accused of, nor is this piece a clearcut whitewashing of l’affaire Jordan.

Consider the prominent placement of Frank’s denunciation of Jordan, then later in the piece, a strong echo from Dodd. Granted, Kurtz might have noted the fact that both these men are liberalish New England Dems who opposed the war and have been vocal critics of the admin’s policy in the ME, but this is the WaPo and they assume a great deal of knowledge in their readership.

Kurtz definitely hurts himself by taking a cheapshot at “conservative bloggers,” but I think, Roger, your skin is thick enough to take such a mild jab.

The irony here is that while the supposed norm is for the media to serve as a check on the veracity of the government, here we have two politicians questioning the veracity of a major media figure, with one guy (Gergen) who straddles the line between the two worlds (rather uncomfortably, these days) trying to offend no one. Kurtz is clearly closing ranks with a fellow journalist but he is fair enough to give prominence to those “outside” his field who are clearly pissed off.

There is more than enough of the story here for a reader to decide what likely happened in Davos. Kurtz doesn’t have to stick a knife in Jordan to prove his own integrity. Let’s all get a grip.

Feb 8, 2005 - 7:02 am 25. thibaud:

The MSM silence is simply disgraceful. If our military is truly targeting journalists, then this is a scandal as big as Abu Ghraib, and Jordan is doing the nation and the world a grave disservice with his dance of the veils.

A better analogy is that Jordan and Sambrook are playing the Arafat game: one answer for the US audience, and a different one for the anti-US audience. Like the question of Arafat’s support for suicide bombers, the question of whether the US military targets journalists for slaughter is a simple, black-or-white, empirical one that does not admit ambiguity.

Time for a simple, yes/no answer from Jordan and Sambrook to this question: Do members of the US military intentionally seek to kill journalists?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Jordan must either retract his accusation or state it clearly and with supporting evidence. The worst possible situation is now developing: the anti-US contingent in Europe and the middle east now claim that a US news organization has confirmed a scandalous charge against the US military, and the press is refusing to investigate that charge and either confirm or dismiss it with evidence and logic. Shameful.

Feb 8, 2005 - 7:05 am 26. Knucklehead:

It is entirely possible that Jordan believes the US military is targetting reporters/journalists/camera crews. Clearly its a pretty dangerous job under such conditions and several dozen have been killed. It wouldn’t suprise me in the least that when they collect around the bar and/or billiard and dinner tables in the evenings they speculate about how their colleagues got killed and wounded and how US troops may be, from their perspective, a bit “trigger happy”.

For the likes of news executives like Eason Jordan they have a responsibility to their employees to pursue the matter with the DoD and, if they are unsatisfied with the reponse of the DoD, to present evidence to other authorities.

Eason Jordan, I speculate, chose to play to the gallery. He has no evidence to present yet the speculation among the journo crowd clearly exists, so rather than behave like an executive and tell them to bring him proof or stifle the speculation and behave like professionals, he fed their fears to be “one of them”. Not the way an executive should behave. He should be sent to pasture.

Feb 8, 2005 - 7:10 am 27. thibaud:

The fact that this happened in Davos before an audience that was largely European and arab suggests worse to come. As with the Jenin “massacre” hoax, as with Oil for Fraud, so it’s increasingly the case that media execs and leading journalists will be tempted to spin their coverage in order to appeal to a global audience eager to trash Israel, the US, and especially the IDF and the US military.

Today the BBC, tomorrow CNN. To be a global media organization increasingly means to be a purveyor of lies about the US and Israel.

Feb 8, 2005 - 7:23 am 28. jerry:

I don’t think there is a “there” there to this story. Yes, it provides an interesting insight into Eason Jordan and the MSM. He has already admitted acting as a propagandist for Saddam so CNN could stay in country. He admitted that he withheld information that could have prevented a murder. So why does it surprise people that he might imply/accuse the US military of targeting journalists so that CNN might gain credibility so it can expand its overseas [particularly Muslim] market share.

I think that there is also a bit of projection here as well. If he were an implicit accessory to a political murder, why wouldn’t lesser beings be tempted to shoot the pure and noble journalist?

Feb 8, 2005 - 7:34 am 29. thibaud:

From Jay Rosen’s blog, Richard Sambrook of the BBC responds to my question:

[thibaud] “Time for a simple, yes/no answer from Eason and Sambrook to this question: Do members of the US military intentionally seek to kill journalists?”

[Sambrook] Answer: No. As I indicated when Jay first invited me into this discussion. And as far as I am aware no-one has ever suggested that was my view.

For clarification, the controversy dragged Sambrook into it because he immediately followed his denial of Jordan’s assertion with this odd flight into semantic nonsense:

“They [the journalists] had been deliberately killed as individuals– perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don’t know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion.”

The audience included arab and European journalists, as well as US politicians. The former applauded and thronged Jordan, the latter were upset. There has never been any semantic confusion here, so Sambrook by introducing this notion was distracting us from the main issue. Jordan knew his words were the equivalent of a loaded gun. He chose to fire it, half-cocked.

Feb 8, 2005 - 7:41 am 30. thedragonflies:

So, why would I watch anything labeled as “news” on CNN, given the insanity of those reporting it? Oh, yeah, I don’t. And fewer and fewer are.

Maybe Howard Dean and Michael Moore can come to Eason’s rescue. That would be a big help to him.

As usual, it’s the cover-up that kills them. This is not going to go away.

Feb 8, 2005 - 7:52 am 31. Jody:

A quibble:

“Kurtz does not acknowledge his own professional ties to CNN in the article…”

At the bottom of the linked article, the following is written:

“Howard Kurtz hosts CNN’s weekly media program. Staff writer Lisa de Moraes contributed to this report.”

While this can be construed as not being “in the article,” to me it appears that Kurtz did a reasonable job disclosing his relationship with CNN.

A point with which Jim Geraghty concurs:

“I also notice that at the end of the story, the Post notes that Howard Kurtz has a show on CNN. Good disclosure.”

My point:

We can hold Kurtz’s feet to the fire for not pursuing this story more (where’s the tape?), the conservative blogger things, and for not shedding any additional light on the subject. However, it seems awfully small to me to criticize Kurtz for not disclosing his relationship with CNN in the article when a disclosure is given at the end of the article – the standard positioning for such disclosures.

Feb 8, 2005 - 8:00 am 32. Roger:

You’re right, Jody. I missed it.

Feb 8, 2005 - 8:08 am 33. Kyda Sylvester:

We all know that if MSM had brought sufficient pressure to bear, Kerry would have signed Form 180 and Theresa would have released her tax returns or they would have been forced to resign themselves to the consequences of not doing so. MSM did not apply more than perfunctory pressure because it did not suit their agenda. And so it will go with the videotape. I hope that every member of the new media who has an opportunity to speak in an old media venue will beat this issue like a drum.

Media types are forever castigating the Bush administration for its failure to “win hearts and minds”. Hell, we can’t even win the hearts and minds of our mainstream press. This paragraph from the Sun piece is very illustrative:

Mr. Jordan’s remarks might have shocked the American attendees, but they certainly played well among some in the audience. The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, who covered the panel for his paper, told the Sun that after the panel concluded, Mr. Jordan was surrounded by European and Middle Eastern attendees who warmly congratulated him for his alleged “bravery and candor” in discussing the matter.

Rick Ballard is right you know. Some of us have been pitched about in this cesspool of lies and obfuscation all our adult lives. But, hey, it’s far better to come late to the party than to miss it altogether. Strength in numbers, my friends, strength in numbers.

Feb 8, 2005 - 8:11 am 34. rod:

Roger,

thanks for the link. We try hard.

i feel badly that i did not include the potentially exculpatory Sambrook quote–that was an oversight of mine. The whole thing is baffling.

Feb 8, 2005 - 8:13 am 35. joe:

I think what we are seeing is MSM fighting back against the blogs. This really is about power and influence.

What we have is a report first published on the web. It was not picked up by MSM forever reason. There is a firestorm of sorts on this topic on the web. MSM is trying to ignore it. When it feels it must respond, then you get Howard?s article.

Whether MSM likes Eason is not important. Whether he said this is not important. What they want to do is to once again gain control of information. By not following up, MSM is telling all of us, we still have the power to determine what is news and what is not news.

Feb 8, 2005 - 8:30 am 36. PJ:

Indeed, thibaud, let’s have some sunlight. Why not? Are Eason and his Arab partisans afraid of an investigation? While we’re at it, let’s also investigate the “targeted” journalists, the stringers who happen to always be at the right place at the right time when a bomb goes off or some Iraqis are murdered. Who pays them, what are their past associations, employers? Open up your books, Al Jazeera.

No doubt some of them indeed have been killed in battle, but perhaps that’s because they are terrorists with cameras, not innocent journalists.

Feb 8, 2005 - 8:39 am 37. Rick Ballard:

I’m a bit bemused by the focus on Kurtz. Why would anyone expect him to go outside the narrative template? He is the M$M personified. It’s his job to circle the wagons and he’s never failed in it yet.

Why not focus on the location of the “fair and balanced” boys? Are they in an “undisclosed location” on this? I thought they were supposedly working with a ‘new’ template. Their silence is as deafening as it is damning. It’s not like Murdoch has to crack his billfold to actually pay any additional reporters.

Feb 8, 2005 - 8:54 am 38. richard mcenroe:

Why the focus on Kurtz? Because he is Eason Jordan’s Haldeman. Because there is this huge to-do about blogger transparency and accountablility and Kurtz gets to keep playing Grima Wormtongue to CNN.

And by the way, if the tape won’t be released, which US Senator or Congressman does Eason Jordan want to tell us is lying?

Feb 8, 2005 - 8:57 am 39. Spear Shaker:

Jordan was simply signaling to his CNN target audience, ie those that frequent Arab coffeehouses, European hotels, and SouthAsian resorts, that his company is not an American brand but entirely sympathetic to the U.S.-as-vicious-hegemon world view. . .

Feb 8, 2005 - 9:18 am 40. WichitaBoy:

There is indeed one important point to mention which PJ touches on.

The situation in Iraq is one in which the terrorists attacking coalition forces and the Iraqi people are unwilling to have “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” and who are not “conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war” (3rd Geneva Convention). How on earth are our soldiers expected to act? People in civilian clothes are shooting at them, blowing them up, and “journalists” are mixed among the terrorists.

I ask this: on whom does the responsibility lie here? Jordan has tried to blame the US military in his weaselly way and those who want to drink this kool-aid are slurping it up. If the terrorists and “journalists” were clearly marked there would be no problem. They have made their decisions. If accidents occur they are culpable.

Feb 8, 2005 - 9:43 am 41. jerry:

Wichita:

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. The reason that the rules and customs of war ban those in civilian attire from engaging in military acts is to protect innocent lives. When you cannot distinguish between combatants and non-combatants on the battlefield everybody becomes fair game.

Same thing goes for false surrenders. When combatants ambush their opponents with false surrenders it places those who actually wish to surrender in jeopardy.

The pro-communist left accused the US of war crimes during the Linebacker II strikes because we bombed a hospital clearly marked with the Red Cross symbol. When Telford Taylor, the Nuremberg Prosecutor, investigated the incident for the pro-Hanoi faction, he discovered that the NVA had placed AAA batteries on top of the hospital. [Which itself was at the end of a military runway]

Taylor concluded that the NVA was responsible for the attack on the hospital because they violated the conditions of the Red Cross.

So indeed, if journalists have been shot by US forces while they cover an engagement, it is merely an outcome of an environment where unlawful combatants operate. We can solve this problem by putting the unlawful combatants on notice that they will be treated in the manner of the traditional customs of war. Unlawful combatants are Hors de Combat, i.e., executed on the battlefield. Reporters will then understand that mixing in with terrorists and murders will more then likely get them shot instead of a scoop. Mr. Jordan should blame the unlawful combatants and not the US military.

Feb 8, 2005 - 11:04 am 42. ChristyK:

What is the significance of this Kurtz piece appearing in the Style section of the paper? Does this make it dismissive by the editors of the WaPo as “not really news” in the same way as the Boxer article a week or so ago in the Arts section of the NYTs was dismissed? Kurtz’s co-writer is usually on the TV beat, isn’t she?

Feb 8, 2005 - 11:16 am 43. Rick Ballard:

Good points, WichitaBoy and Jerry,

One additional item. The US military was absolutely explicit in its statesments prior to the onset of hostilities that they were not undertaking in any way to provide security for non-embedded reporters. Additionally, I am unaware of any claims that any journalist applying for embed status within prescribed time limits was denied.

The journalists and their sponsoring organizations are themselves responsible for the outcome. Kinda gives new meaning to the phrase “terminal stupidity”.

Feb 8, 2005 - 11:35 am 44. pouncer:

When it was discovered/revealed that Richard Nixon’s comments were recorded on tape — even though the tape in question were his personal (not gov’t-funded) property installed for his own purposed and never intended for the public record — the clamor to release the tapes from the media was incessant. Nixon released a redacted transcript. The clamor to release the original tapes increased. Nixon released the tapes, oddly incomplete. The media clamor increased again, assuming that whatever gaps existed were evidence-by-absence-of-evidence of dastardly doings.

Nixon, in later years, declared when the question first arose he should have publically burned the tapes in a bonfire on the White House lawn.

I expect Eason and his ilk to hold just such a bonfire really soon.

But I’m surprised nobody else is drawing the Eason/Nixon parallels.

Feb 10, 2005 - 5:18 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: