38 Comments

1. Jeff Harrell:

This is a man who was willing to overlook the evils of Saddam so that his reporters in Iraq would be safe.

But he was unwilling to tell the story of Saddam to help make the Iraqi people safe.

Eason made a choice. He chose to care more about his job than he did about the truth. My regret is that he lost his job over something that, in my personal view, is so much less significant than his Saddam admission.

(Get well soon, Roger. And remember, if anybody asks, you’re “more machine than man, now, twisted and evil.”)

Feb 14, 2005 - 10:07 am 2. Ken:

Roger, hope you get well soon.

As far as fact-checking goes, it’s been my experience (as a copy editor) that actual real-live fact-checkers typically are a luxury of places like The New Yorker and The Atlantic. In the fast-paced world of daily print journalism, copy editors are typically the last line of defense, and the fact checking of non-feature pieces coming in on deadline … well, uhhhh. Now, had I been working at the LAT (a paper I don’t usually read and one that I don’t think I’ve ever defended) and not been aware of the blogosphere, I wouldn’t have thought to question that particular “fact” because a) time is of the essence and you simply can’t question every single thing and b) you have to, at some point, figure you can trust your reporters to know what they’re talking about on at least some level.

Just saying.

Feb 14, 2005 - 10:34 am 3. ahem:

Welcome back, Roger. Easy does it…

You know, I wonder if part of the problem with fact-checking is the speed with which news now breaks. (Actually, ’strikes’ would be more the word.) In the old days, using old media, they may have had more time to look things up before going public. Now, they can’t afford to unless they want to get scooped. I can see an editor deciding to let the relatively less important details slide and checking only the more significant ones. I can see it, but I don’t necessarily like it. The result is a flawed and misleading public record.

Feb 14, 2005 - 10:35 am 4. Thomas Hazlewood:

“The amount of compromise that flows from a decision like that is stunning.”

Also stunning is that after his cathartic revelation the MSM failed to call for an accounting. Why? Perhaps because they were equally guilty of similar transgressions, such as, portraying Saddam’s ‘99%’ approval in the voting as a straight news item instead of pointing out that voting otherwise would mean a visit with a wood chipper.

Isn’t hiding the truth for access the same as being paid not to tell the truth? I think that’s called bribing the witness…..

Regards, and good health,

Feb 14, 2005 - 10:42 am 5. Canucklehead:

Is This Evidence of targetting Journalists? If it is, someone has stretched the analysis. First off, http://www.command-post.org has a couple of posts where the New York Times reports that the Palestine Hotel had been used by Senior Iraqi officials since the start of the Iraq War. The journalistic community is providing a “human shield – Eason Jordan” service to Bagdad Bob and his friends.

1 – http://www.command-post.org/archives/004598.html -

[snip]… Some senior Iraqi officials appeared to have abandoned the hotel where they took up residence during the first 20 days of the war in an apparent attempt to find safety for themselves in a building they assumed would be immune from bombing and ground fire…[snip]

2 – http://www.command-post.org/archives/004597.html -

[snip]…The toll on Iraqis appeared to have been severe, and senior Iraqi officials at the Palestine Hotel were seen clutching each other with tears rolling down their faces, whether for concern about their personal safety or about the pounding being taken by Iraqi forces could not be known…[snip]

When the 3ID rolled into Bagdad, they had some fighting to do. I suspect if an Iraqi observation post is discovered, the 3ID would take it out. Below are a couple of posts referring to their decision to target what they thought was an observation post in the Palestine Hotel; the same place that housed Senior Iraqi officials and a couple of hundred journalists who were enjoying good Baathist hospitality. It appears some journalists were wearing helmets and flak jackets (An odd choice for fashion accessories when staying with Senior Iraqi officials at the focal point of a combat area.)

3 – http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html -

[snip]…Military officials offered different explanations for the attacks.

Brooks initially said the hotel was targeted after soldiers were fired on from the lobby. Later, he told reporters, “I may have misspoken.”

U.S. Army Col. David Perkins, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division’s 2nd Brigade, which deployed the tank, said Iraqis in front of the hotel fired rocket-propelled grenades across the Tigris River. Soldiers fired back with a tank round aimed at the Palestine Hotel after seeing enemy “binoculars,” Perkins said…[snip]

4 – http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/jour-j19_prn.shtml -

[snip]…However, the official line was partially contradicted by the soldiers involved, who later spoke to several journalists. Sergeant Shawn Gibson, the tank gunner who fired the fatal shot, and his immediate superior, Captain Philip Wolford, who authorised it, denied they had fired because of shooting from the hotel. They said the 4-64 Armor Company of the 3ID’s 2nd Brigade, which was stationed on the Al-Jumhuriya Bridge soon after US troops entered Baghdad, was seeking to neutralise an alleged Iraqi “spotter” monitoring and reporting on US military activity. They aimed their fire at individuals with lenses or binoculars on a hotel balcony, from where some of the media were filming.

Gibson and Wolford emphatically denied knowing, or being told by their superiors, that reporters were stationed in the hotel. Three embedded journalists attached to the 3ID confirmed that their units appeared not to have been informed that the Palestine Hotel had become the media’s headquarters. One, Chris Anderson, a freelance photographer working for a photo agency, said his unit was told that the journalists were still at the Rashid Hotel, the former site of the Iraqi information press centre. In fact, on Pentagon advice that the Rashid Hotel would be targetted, the media corps had shifted to the Palestine Hotel three weeks earlier….[snip]

5 – http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/040903_three_die_in_attacks_on_media_ba.htm -

[snip]…In the hotel attack, according to a Centcom statement, “commanders on the ground reported that coalition forces received significant enemy fire from the Palestine hotel and consistent with the inherent right of self-defence coalition forces returned fire.

“Sadly a Reuters and Tele 5 (Spain) journalist were killed in this exchange. These tragic incidents appear to be the latest example of the Iraqi regime’s continued strategy of using civilian facilities for regime military purposes.”…[snip]

6 – http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/040803_us_warplanes_bomb_al_jazeera_off.htm -

[snip] … Al-Jazeera aired footage of Ayoub only one hour before his death as he was preparing to go live. He was leaning on sandbags and wearing a helmet and a flack jacket….[snip]

Finally, another observation from a TV viewer talks of small arms fire directed at a television camera. (If I remember this video correctly, the camera was setup next to a heavy machine gun.)

7 – http://www.felbers.net/mt/archives/000079.html -

[snip] …Then, suddenly, I heard shots and saw what looked to me like small weapons fire hitting the balcony directly in front of the camera. A second later the camera spun wildly and hit the floor, focussing briefly on a wall before Abu Dhabi cut the feed….[snip]

If you look at the referred posts, you will see most of them do not come from neocon sources. You decide what happened. The truth is out there if you look for it.

Feb 14, 2005 - 10:47 am 6. Yehudit:

Jordan’s repeated remarks about journalists targeted by military are indefensible, unless his huge global news org came up with proof, which they never have. The remarks are indefensible because they are innuendo. Repeated innuendo.

However, my impression is that part of the reason CNN didn’t report on Saddam’s doings was to protect their Iraqi sources, and I am sure every Western news org operating in a totalitarian regime has the same problem.

Also, I have said unkind things about Marianne Pearl, but I regret it because I don’t think Jordan’s affair has anything to do with this, other than if he is cheating, well, that’s one more thing we know about his character. but I assumed he wasn’t married, since the affair is such common knowledge, it doesn’t seem to have been hushed up.

Feb 14, 2005 - 10:49 am 7. Rick Ballard:

Proof perfect of a lack of bilious nature. The tone after matches the tone before. No effect from the fruit of the poppy either. I was looking forward to dreams of Xanadu.

Instead, we have the lucid observation that sympathy for a man lying (and lieing) in a bed of his own making is trite, at best. Well, trite is a specialty of the NYT, the WaPo and the LAT so color me unsurprised. The editorial at the WSJ was surprising and makes me wonder as to the depth of their sympathy for Mrs. Pearl.

A few hundred more of Jordan’s stature (and POV) looking for work and journalism might return to the status of an honorable trade.

Feb 14, 2005 - 10:54 am 8. Canucklehead:

A little more about the Palestine Hotel incident. Below is an excerpt taken from http://www.dinocrat.com that references Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald as an embedded journalist with the 4/64 Armor unit.

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/02/13/the-ugly-truth-behind-the-old-medias-template-of-eason-jordan-as-victim/

[snip]…By way of disclosure, I was embedded with the tank company that fired on the Palestine, and was within 100 yards of the tank that fired on April 8, 2003. Sgt. Shawn Gibson saw what he thought was an Iraqi forward observer in a tall building. We had been alerted that an Iraqi FO had eyes on our position an hour earlier. The tankers had been in combat for up to 30 hours by the time Gibson fired, and after a particularly heavy pre-dawn counterattack was repelled, continued to be plagued with mortar fire and RPGs ÔøΩ including fire from the east bank of the Tigris and from tall buildings. In a month of combat operations with A Co. 4/64 Armor, I witnessed numerous examples of restraint when the tankers put themselves in danger in order to avoid killing civilians. Any suggestion that American soldiers have purposefully killed journalists in Iraq is repugnant, ignores the facts and reflects a disturbing bias. The failure of a major media watchdog publicationÔøΩs editor to get this is also disturbing….[snip]

Feb 14, 2005 - 11:02 am 9. Kevin P:

Roger:

Welcome back. This mornongs post shows that the operation has not stopped you from getting right to the central point of the story. The ironic aspect of the EJ story is that he was doing the very thing that the MSM always attacks the blogsphere of doing. Spreading baseless rumours without the facts. He used the ridiculous philosophical argument of Journalists have died, therefore it is logical that the US military is targeting them. He has no other facts to back the accusation yet he repeated the slander numerous times. And he is supposed to represent the higher standards of journalism and the blogs are nothing but a rumour infested swarm of innuendo? The MSM has it backwards. The Blogs dug up the facts and reported them. The MSM is in duck and cover mode.

Feb 14, 2005 - 11:12 am 10. PeterUK:

Beastly Eason seems to have a nice line in startling disclosures,http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/events/honors/morris/EASON-Morris.html

What i can not understand is, if Eason Jordan was,understandably,protecting his Iraq sources by not revealing information,why did he need the sources?

Feb 14, 2005 - 11:20 am 11. Wallace:

Damn! I was on morphine for 4 straight days* the later part of December and as far as I remember had no such cogent thoughts.

*Cardiac surgery…not recreational!

Feb 14, 2005 - 11:21 am 12. jerry:

Many commentators have felt Jordan didn’t really deserve to lose his job over this. Well, so be it. He should have lost his job over the admission that he turned CNN into Saddam TV. Remember, they got Al Capone on tax evasion not murder. Justice deserved even for the wrong reason is still justice done.

Feb 14, 2005 - 11:24 am 13. Knucklehead:

Canucklehead! A kindred spirit north of the border. Howdy!

Does anyone know the breakdown of CNN viewers international vs. US? And what about revenue international vs. US? Would CNNi be able to survive w/o US revenue? (Would the BBC’s international news services manage to stay alive w/o the direct support of the British taxpayer?) Just curious.

Feb 14, 2005 - 11:55 am 14. Silicon valley Jim:

As far as fact-checking goes, it’s been my experience (as a copy editor) that actual real-live fact-checkers typically are a luxury of places like The New Yorker and The Atlantic. In the fast-paced world of daily print journalism, copy editors are typically the last line of defense, and the fact checking of non-feature pieces coming in on deadline … well, uhhhh.

I’ll defer to your experience here, but isn’t it true that some newspapers, e.g., the Wall Street Journal, do a much better job of getting facts straight than some others, e.g., the San Francisco Chronicle? If it is so, why? The financial news that the WSJ covers isn’t any more urgent than the other news that the Chronicle covers.

Feb 14, 2005 - 11:58 am 15. iceman:

slate on jordan and danny pearls widow and kurtz self censorship

http://slate.msn.com/id/2113208/

First, kill all the telling details! WaPo and CNN’s Howard Kurtz emails to explain why he revised his Saturday Eason Jordan piece to cut out the juiciest, most suggestive detail of the “gossip about Jordan’s personal life.” (See before and after.)

For the Record

I compressed that paragraph about Eason Jordan’s social life, without a word o advice from anyone, for one reason. I was trying to squeeze in several interviews I had done after the first edition into my story for later editions, and given dead-tree space limitations, was literally going line by line to save room. The first-edition story was published, but I thought it important to include more voices from the blogosphere for later editions.

a) He didn’t bury the lede. He removed the lede entirely due to “space limitations”! b) I take Kurtz at his word. But nobody can speak for their subconscious (otherwise it wouldn’t be subconscious). That’s why there are normally prophylactic rules against massive conflicts of interest. Maybe kausfiles could launch a lucrative spinoff, kurtzfiles, devoted entirely to WaPo’s media critic explaining to his readers the non-corrupt reasoning behind his seemingly pro-CNN reporting decisions. [You're already there--ed Soft launch! Next issue, "A Salute to Jonathan Klein!" Tribute ads accepted.] c) You don’t have to get actual ‘words of advice’ from someone to be influenced by them–to worry about how they will react. d) We don’t kill widows around here: “Going line by line to save room.” I used to do that! As Kurtz notes, it’s a print thing. You don’t have to do it in cyberspace. There’s plenty of room. Which raises an issue: If Kurtz is cutting highly relevant information in order to squeeze his piece into the printed, hand-delivered version of the Post, why not at least publish the complete version on the Web? Doesn’t the failure to take advantage of the Web’s extra space put dead tree papers in the normally-futile position of actually suppressing a superior competitor (the full Web versions of what reporters produce)?

Update: I disagree with Instapundit, who decorously argues:

targeting parts of people’s lives that don’t have to do with the story — like, say, Eason Jordan’s love life — seems inappropriate to me, and likely to lend support to the bloggers-as-lynch-mob caricature.

The problem is a) Eason Jordan’s love life did have to do with the story. According to even the self-bowdlerized Kurtz it’s why he lost his job–i.e. why he wasn’t allowed to apologize profusely for his Davos remarks and carry on, which as Instapundit notes is otherwise a mystery; b) Jordan got into trouble, according to David Gergen, because he was “deeply distraught” over the deaths of journalists in Iraq. Why would his emotions get the better of his rationality? Mightn’t it help answer the question if he’s been involved with the widow of a journalist who’s been killed covering the Middle East? … I defend gossiping about people’s love lives even when it’s not obviously relevant to a particular story. That’s a tougher case to make–Instapundit’s right about the human cost of losing a private “backstage.” But it’s not this case. … 12:26 P.M.

Feb 14, 2005 - 12:01 pm 16. Terrye:

It is about time you got back. No more laying around on the job now.

As for Eason Jordan, I am tried of hearing all these journalists say he was just upset about his people who had died in friendly fire incidents. It would seem to me that if that was all there was to it, they could release the tape and end the debate. For years journalists have made off the cuff remarks about people and if someone’s life or career was ruined, what the hell, the people have a right to know…Well now they know how it feels.

Feb 14, 2005 - 12:30 pm 17. notthisgirl:

Well, I guess now *I do* have a problem with Jordan and Pearl’s relationship ….

Feb 14, 2005 - 12:38 pm 18. Knucklehead:

Unless I’m missing something, whatever the gossip is re: EJ and The Widow Pearl is, it is only indirectly linked to the US Military Forces Murdering Journalists slander. According to the Bowdlerdized Kurtz, it seems that the gossip was one among several reasons that the CNN floor beneath EJ’s feet was unstable and acted, apparently, as the boulder atop the camel’s hump (one hump or two?) that made CNN toss him under the shifting sands. Other than that I can’t see how the infidelity rises to the level of a sinking ship.

Feb 14, 2005 - 12:48 pm 19. Rick Ballard:

Would CNNi be able to survive w/o US revenue?

Knucklehead,

Here is Time Warner’s March ‘04 10-K. CNN is the proverbial pimple on an elephants posterior wrt TW’s income stream. It would be interesting to see TW make a choice between CNN and NASCAR coverage. CNN’s cable package contracts are coming up for renewal soon (can’t find a good link). I still feel that Jordan’s dismissal/resignation has a bit to do with TW’s desire to rid themselves of some unwanted publicity.

For those of you desirous of reading a real journalists account of the Palestine Hotel incident Mudville Gazette provides a comprehensive view by someone who was actually in sight and hearing of the decision to fire being made. The account does not fit Jordan’s attempt to expand the narrative of the Bushitlermilitary targeting journos, so it’s doubtful that you’ll see much of it in the “press”.

Feb 14, 2005 - 12:51 pm 20. someone:

To me, the most interesting part of the aftermath has been the Wall Street Journal’s mind-bogglingly poor judgment on this. They want to stand up and be counted as MSM? Ok. But it’s too late to strangle the blogosphere in its crib, you know.

Feb 14, 2005 - 1:09 pm 21. Terrye:

The fact that Jordan has made these kind of remarks before, not only about US but about Israeli soldiers might have something to do with the decision also. Jordan has even accused the military of torturing reporters without producing evidence. The truth is places like Iraq are very dangerous for reporters and they need to be respected not despised and mistrusted by the military. The man just did not know when to shut up and he was a liability.

And you know what? Sending those soldiers over there places them in danger of losing their lives, they should not have to wonder if some hot shot jouranlist with an attitude is going to slander them as well.

It is not as if the military does not have a criminal justice system, if Jordan knows something he should come with the evidence, if not he should shut up.

Feb 14, 2005 - 1:14 pm 22. scalefree:

I dunno, Eason may have his faults, but at least he’s not a gay hooker.

Tim

Feb 14, 2005 - 1:50 pm 23. Knucklehead:

Rick,

Thanks for the link. You are correct (as always). Its not even detectable on the radar. They could subsidize any losses coming out of CNN indefinitely. Then again, TW sold off their interest in Comedy Central so maybe that indicates a trend and they’ll divest themselves of the Comedy News Channel, the “Most busted name in news.”

Feb 14, 2005 - 2:09 pm 24. Terrye:

scalefree:

That was lame. For one thing, who cares?

I never even heard of the guy. I guess he got a day pass to a white house briefing and now the lefties have decided to go homophobic on the issue.

Feb 14, 2005 - 2:11 pm 25. Bostonian:

For an eye-opening view of what journalists think of blogs, go over Jay Rosen’s bloglike establishment (http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/02/13/colr_jrd.html) and read the comments section.

One hardly knows where to start.

Feb 14, 2005 - 2:19 pm 26. charlotte:

scalefree,

Gannon may very well not be a gay hooker or even gay, but the usual White House press corps would be substantially improved were most of its members exposed for being the prostitutes and kinky ideologues they really are. Also, most Republicans and Dems here wouldn’t care if they’re gay, unlike some leftist reactionaries.

But I get your larger point. A WH reporter’s alleged sexual proclivities and name gaming do lessen the sins of a top news exec making horrific charges against our military in an international forum. We MSM critics certainly dropped the ball on that one.

Feb 14, 2005 - 2:39 pm 27. Rick Ballard:

Care is advisable when Commandante Marko$ sends one of hi$ Ko$$ack$ out for a little pogrom. Rise to their bait and they’ll run to the Commandante with tales of mistreatment. Better to step over the little piles left on the doorstep than step in them. Roger will hose down when he leaves sweet Morphia’s embrace.

I’m still rooting for a vision of Xanadu – open the drip a little, Roger, and tell us what you see.

Feb 14, 2005 - 2:53 pm 28. Jamie Irons:

Sorry, work has made me late to the whole Eason Jordan denouement…can someone provide me with a link (or links) to accounts of Kurtz’s, Mrs. Pearl’s, and Mr. Eason’s connections?

Or, as PeterUK might say, connexions?

Jamie Irons

Feb 14, 2005 - 3:49 pm 29. richard mcenroe:

Eason Jordan — for all his grand airs — is a very small man. Faced with the moral crisis of accommodating Saddam, he reacted like a hack: “Oh, no! We could lose access!” and cave. The convenience of the prepackaged Ba’athist feeds versus the challenge of telling the truth swamped him like a dinghy in high surf.

One has to wonder if that if it occurred to him to use that mindset was as a jsutification as he sent his reporters under the guns of those evil American soldiers he says he was sure were targeting them? “I can’t pull my people out of this mortal peril! We could lose access!”

Petty reasoning from a petty little man.

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:50 pm 30. BeckyJ:

Most of the MSM is circling the wagons on good ol’ Eason. I was listening to Fox & Friends this morning and they had a “report” on Jordan in which they left out the details of the Davos forum; details such as the reactions of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and David Gergen. The reporting covering the story made comments to the effect that “Internet innuendo” could bring down even the most powerful executives. I was speaking very sharply to the TV at that (not quite yelling, it was too early for that)!

Bah. I’m tired of all of the MSM. When push comes to shove they end up covering for each other with no qualms.

Feb 14, 2005 - 6:50 pm 31. Katherine:

Am late to the party, but idle surfing brought me onto the cutting edge of the Gannon controversy this weekend. Ace of Spades is keeping abreast of this fascinating outing of a reporter who used (gasp!) assumed name for his reporting and (another gasp) is NOT A LIBERAL!!! (keep scrolling).

http://ace.mu.nu/

The Kossacs are trying to make out something of this guyís interview with Joe Wilson, to prove that he is the one who outed Valerie Plume. So far, nothing indicates that he had an access to anything else but stories already published by major newspapers. But the leftist bloggers are salivated after a scalp of their own, and finally THEY GOT JEFF GANNON!!!!!! Woe is us! Whatever will we do now!

You donít know what I am talking about? Thatís OK. Should this develop into something of a one part per billion importance of Eason story there is no doubt that every MSM outlet will inform you about every unimagined and imagined detail in full.

Feb 14, 2005 - 6:52 pm 32. richard mcenroe:

In case anyone wonders what Katherine is referring to, here are the facts courtesy of Tom Maguire…

Feb 14, 2005 - 7:20 pm 33. triticale:

“Let us go then, you and me,

When the evening is spread out against the sea…”

Feb 14, 2005 - 7:28 pm 34. Ari Tai:

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Laparoscopic? We’re so very fortunate to be living in this era. 100 years ago we’d both have been statistics.

re: Mr. Jordan. Oh my. The Pearl details suggest the makings of a classical tragedy; those terrible things we do, wittingly, to ourselves and those we care most about. Perhaps he (and CNN) will reap what they’ve sown (in this life).

My (previous) thoughts:

Imagine that you’ve been briefed by your own security people that being anywhere close to a firefight with advancing U.S. troops will likely get you killed, especially if you happen to be near something that resembles a weapon with a sight (anti-tank missile, artillery range-finder, RPG, shoulder-mounted camera…). And given that the military has lost so many people to these look-and-fire weapons (2nd or 3rd cause of casualties in Iraq (?)) I certainly wouldn’t risk pointing anything at a tank or a soldier from more than 10 feet away (and if the soldiers are using night-vision goggles which sharpens outlines and diminishes detail, not even 10 feet .

Mr. Jordan clearly thinks soldiers under-fire should treat a proven deadly-threat with the same respect as a truck with a big red-cross/crescent on it. And that the press has some privileged position (better than, say, women and children). Times and circumstances change. He screwed up and his lack-of-forethought (or outright bias) is responsible for many of these deaths (esp. if he bought, employed, or even just encouraged, non-embedded video reporting). And I’d wager these (unvoiced) regrets are the reason for his (increasingly shrill) lashing out at others in an attempt to shift the blame, if only to help him sleep at night. Or perhaps worse, he cannot even admit to himself what he’s done – in the same way the left deludes itself when it fails to grok that the worst-ends results are often precisely due to their best-intentions (eg. the lefts’ unwillingness to accept that the amount of violent crime scales inversely with the ability of the law-abiding and the least-and-weakest of society to defend themselves).

To say nothing of condemning Saddam’s sons-in-law (and others) to death through his own sin-of-omission (and naked greed). Note that this is the biblical definition of greed (not the blessings of cut-throat competition lowering of prices enabling conspicuous consumption by even the poor, nor the companies sharing the resulting wealth with their shareholders and employees).

Mr. Jordan will get his reward. If not in this life, the next. If there are surviving children or relatives of the sons-in-law he allowed to be murdered they should sue him and CNN in the U.S. for whatever profits they made (times three) during the years these fools wittingly gave aid and comfort to the Baathists. Were it not for CNN (and others) propaganda (for Saddam, against sanctions, promoting Hamas’ and other “insurgents” in the region grievances as righteous) the Baathists might have fallen with “just” no-fly-zones, economic and diplomatic pressure, covert operations and the threat-of-direct military action. Imagine where we could have been if, instead, Mr. Jordan (and CNN) had been a force for good, disinfecting the UN scandal, shaming old Europe, and exposing the Baathist enablers (the French 1T$+ commercial oil entanglement, other countries’ weapons deals, etc.).

Shame on him and those like him. This is why morality (an unwavering internal compass) is so important for people in positions of public trust, much more important than written law. He must have started down this path long ago with small steps and equivocations. He and his company should suffer the indignity of the forgotten. Never to be mentioned again, erased from all memories.

Feb 14, 2005 - 7:45 pm 35. Terrye:

That whole Plame thing is so silly. Wilson lies his tail off so many times I can not even keep track of his stories and then he has a book to sell and a Vanity Fair article to pose for and lo and behold there really was yellow cake and why did his wife get him the job in the first place and now the lefty bloggers are going after this guy Gannon like anyone cares.

But hey, if Eason Jordan, exec at CNN wants to make charges of torture or murder against the US military that is acceptable.

Feb 14, 2005 - 8:01 pm 36. Brian:

You have to admit that if a lying whore wanted to blend in with his surroundings, the best place for it would be a roomful of journalists. [/rimshot]

But seriously folks…

Kos admitted that the only reason for going gonzo on the “gay hooker” angle was to get attention. He blames others for forcing him into it, of course, saying that this is how the game is played and society is to blame and so on.

This probably hurts him more than it hurts us.

I’m not actually sure what hard evidence they have that Gannon was a “gay hooker” in the first place. Last I checked, they had a rather louche self-portrait and some iffy domain names – something like “hello sailor dot com” or some such – registered by his internet company but never used. Pretty thin gruel for boiling a guy’s reputation in.

Meanwhile, the DU guys have spun this into an whole Advise-and-Consent-level brouhaha, saying that Scott McClellan has been spotted at gay bars and Gannon was blackmailing him or he was blackmailing Gannon and the president was in on it et cetera. You can make up the details as well as they can.

I think I’ll ignore this one until something happens.

Feb 15, 2005 - 5:18 am 37. jerry:

I thought being gay and/or a hooker were perfectly acceptable to our friends of the left. It’s a sign that you have rejected rightwing Christian bigotry. I guess that’s what economists mean by revealed preferences. The left is no more gay friendly then the right. Homosexuality is merely the cause of the day to be discarded when it is no longer needed.

Feb 15, 2005 - 6:06 am 38. Jabba the Tutt:

OK, we have Eason Jordan having a relationship with the widow of a slaughtered journalist. What does he do? He accuses the US Military of targeting and torturing journalists. As part of his backpedaling, he apparently admitted ‘both sides’ targeted journalists. I’m curious, did Eason Jordan watch Daniel Pearl’s beheading? That video and his close relationship with the widow, and what pisses Jordan off is the US friggin’ Military? This says volumes about the character of Mr Jordan. He’s a corporate weenie and careerist of the worst sort, willing to toss anyone overboard for his own advancement. This guy deserves cement boots, not a golden parachute.

Feb 16, 2005 - 6:51 am

Write a Comment

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