34 Comments

1. jack risko:

Roger: Glad you’re up and around, and I hope you get to 100% soon. For more slicing and dicing of the WSJ, you might enjoy this. Thanks, Jack Risko

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/02/14/problems-great-and-small-with-the-wall-street-journals-easongate-editorial/

Feb 14, 2005 - 3:08 pm 2. kynna:

This reaction is so disappointing! If anything bloggers are much more trustworthy than the MSM because they have a million fact-checkers.

Dan Rather was busted by blogs. Eason Jordan was busted by blogs. John Kerry was somewhat busted by blogs. But how many times have bloggers been busted by other bloggers? Too many to count.

A blogger gets busted, then a debate proceeds complete with facts and indepth information (rather than news blackouts, denials and arrogance), and then there is either a truce or a reversal. All before our very eyes. The reader learns more than he/she could ever learn through the filtered and biased MSM.

Sure, there’s room for abuse. Especially in the comments sections. But bloggers themselves are pretty trustworthy because the “trophy-hunters” are after them too.

Feb 14, 2005 - 3:14 pm 3. Mr. Davis:

Looks like a fellow named Bret Stephens on the WSJ editorial board has a conflict he’s trying to keep under the radar. Captain Ed has the full, sad story. I thought more of the Journal. But it’s a backscratchers world.

Feb 14, 2005 - 3:16 pm 4. mudmarine:

Roger, though you were out of action for just a few days, it is so good to have you back.

“Grown up decisions” seem to be in short supply these days, especially for those on the short side of the bench. Why the WSJ would join the chorus denigrating blogs is strange. Perhaps they are trying to convince us that we should leave all of the important matters’ up to the MSM. As you say, we’re just not ‘grown up’ enough to understand the nuances.

For me the supposed facts as far as known (without video/audio) in the Eason affair are so clearly damaging I find it difficult to see how anyone can come to his defense. I think there is more to this story…

Feb 14, 2005 - 3:21 pm 5. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Glad you’re back, Roger. The WSJ editorial is, indeed, disappointing. And note also that they didn’t say much about what, to me, is the most important part of the whole story: the absolute failure of most of the MSM to cover it at all. Hiding events by not mentioning them is much worse than slanting.

Feb 14, 2005 - 3:41 pm 6. Silicon valley Jim:

I, too, am disappointed by the editorial, but I’m not ready to write the WSJ off as being anti-blog on the basis of one editorial. It seems that Bret Stephens wrote the editorial and that, as Mr. Davis notes, he has a conflict of interest here. I don’t know how big the conflict actually is, but it’s there. In any event, it’s not clear that anybody else on the WSJ’s editorial-page staff would have written a piece like today’s editorial.

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:04 pm 7. Perry Branson:

The MSM is rightly threatened by the blogosphere; they have not had to deal with fact checking beyond the most rudimentary fact checking they did for themselves (a conflict of interest that they never would tolerate in others). IMHO, the blogosphere corrective applied to the MSM (and academia, where the light of the blogs is beginning to shine) is our best hope to save the Press and allow it to continue its proper function of protecting our freedoms. At the moment, too much of the press is inadvertently (and sometimes, all too advertently) on the opposition’s side in the current war (those who don’t recognize we are in a state of war are inadvertently on the other side; the overt apologists and propagandists like al Jazeera are more active enemies). This is ultimately an information war and if we lose the ability to shape the battlefield by our press promulgating misinformation, we are likely to lose.

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:18 pm 8. Bob_R:

Glad to see you back Roger. Save some bile for the bad guys.

I’d really like to know what Stephens wrote in the “Political Diary” on Jan. 28. If he’s been consistently in the Gergen – “Eason said something wrong, but corrected himself” – camp, I’d be willing to cut him more slack. Still no excuse for not demanding the release of the tape or ignoring the pattern of statements. But until we really know waht was said it’s hard to make judgements about those who were there.

The rest of the WSJ editorial staff seems to be deferring to Stephens – “He was there.” Seems to me they would be the ones insisting on the release of the tape to protect themselves from the possibility that their colleague dozed off in the middle of the conference. (Not that that’s ever happened to anyone I know.)

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:20 pm 9. Mary Daly:

Bret Stephens needs an editor and some adult supervision. He’s not getting either at the WSJ.

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:22 pm 10. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

It’s probably inevitable that the denizens of the MSM will, for the most part, sneer at bloggers. This has been the history of virtually every “disruptive innovation”–it has been discounted by the incumbents. Generally, the outcome for the incumbents has not been pretty.

See my post here for more thoughts on this:

http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_photoncourier_archive.html#109561242461819620

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:23 pm 11. Terrye:

I guess ink is thicker than water.

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:27 pm 12. John Lynch:

I’m somewhat disapointed by Eason’s resignation. I’m more amused? by the reaction in the regular media to his resignation. Something missing in this picture. The resignation, the reaction seem out of proportion to what was/is known.

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:33 pm 13. heather:

Some of this very odd and emotional reaction of journalists to bloggers is that the latter do not derive their status from their credentials. A successful blog, on the other hand, must reason from actual reality (grounded by the universal hyperlink).

As far as I know, Wretchard at Belmont Club lives maybe in Australia, maybe in Philippines. We don’t know what, if any, post grad degrees he/she may possess. His blog is a respected part of the ‘blogosphere’ because he is thoughtful and intelligent and informative.

We know that Roger L Simon has written books and screenplays, and has a credential from (?) Dartmouth. But what ACTUALLY matters is the character of this site, his unalloyed enthusiasm for news and information, and his unending effort to be honest and civilized with his visitors.

In fact, blogs depend much more on inherent credibility than do the MSM. The poor old New York Times has, on the other hand, drifted along on its reputation and not much else,for years.

As to the WSJ, this is just speculation, but I wonder if its weird reaction to the Eason story is because of its personal concern for Mrs. Pearl??

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:45 pm 14. richard mcenroe:

They’re sneering, we’re stomping their eggs in the nest. Who do you think wins that contest?

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:45 pm 15. ahem:

I have mixed feelings about the results of the Jordan affair because I suspect it might presage some unpleasant reactions over the next few months. We’re playing with fire here, unintended consequences. Some new outlets will view the new, more open information system as an opportunity to help them get back to basics, but others could be radicalized in ways we can’t anticipate. Anyway, I believe a little discretion is in order. Time to lower the temperature.

Feb 14, 2005 - 4:53 pm 16. Jeff B.:

Hold on, hold on, hold on. Wait a freakin’ minute here, folks. You too, Roger.

Look, I disagreed with the WSJ’s editorial today, just like the rest of you. But don’t you think it’s an EENSY BIT PREMATURE to be writing something like this?: “[T]he Wall Street Journal has been the most blog friendly major newspaper. [b]That ended today[/b] with their editorial on the Eason Jordan Affair.”

C’mon now…that’s more than a bit overheated. It ENDED today? As in, forevermore gone? Aren’t we drawing some rather swift conclusions?

Keep in mind that I agree with most of the objections people have to the Journal’s editorial, especially the fact that it neglected to mention that Jordan had made these points several times before. (In fact, I have yet to see a blogger make the point that occurred to me early on: that Eason Jordan’s only “mistake” was NOT in saying that the military had targeted journalists – he clearly believes this – but rather in saying it in front of an audience which, for the first time, wasn’t exclusively foreign and therefore friendly.) But I’m willing to chalk it up to a difference of opinion. This isn’t the New York Times. There’s no need to be declaring “THE AFFAIR IS OVER!”

I just think Roger (and some posting here as well) are in danger of “looking into the soul” of the editorial writer, assuming a motive, and presuming too much from there.

Feb 14, 2005 - 5:26 pm 17. someone:

I don’t think it influenced the WSJ decision, but I wonder how much MSM defensiveness has to do with what seems to me the flip-side of this story: the fact, laid out by Wretchard, that their organizations are using “journalists” embedded with — and propagandizing for — the terrorists. Not just now, in Iraq, but for many years in the West Bank.

Feb 14, 2005 - 5:46 pm 18. John Lynch:

Jeff B

Agreed. A bit to fast to apply a wide brush to WSJ, OpinionJournal, and the multiple editors of this particular piece.

But I still feel there is something wrong in this picture: Eason’s resignation came a bit soon, a bit precipitous, and the media reaction seems off to me. Maybe I’m just reading more into the gaps than I should, certainly more than is visible, but:

The CJR guy, LoveLady, is hyperventilating; Rosen’s Pressthink has a few commenters in full outrage; and the written coverage is mild at most.

Feb 14, 2005 - 5:52 pm 19. Patrick Tyson:

Time to lower the temperature.

Why? Hardball these days isn’t all that interesting or entertaining, and is hardly perilous.

On another website, I read Rick Ballard’s excerpt of Edmund Burke’s reference to Jean Jacques Rousseau (safely dead) in a rather famous letter (I was curious to see whether anyone would note that the title of the Wretchard essay came from Hair—no Hair, but Three Dog Night did enter in) and was reminded that lately there was confusion here regarding the authorship of School for Scandal, which was authored by another member of Parliament during those best and worst of times.

richard mcenroe used a rather famous movie line on yet another blog and maybe we’ll get there (I sense movement in that direction,) but “No Prisoners!” remains premature.

Feb 14, 2005 - 5:54 pm 20. Rick Ballard:

Does anyone know of other fora similiar to the WEF where “tomorrow’s leaders spouting yesterday’s cliches” can come together and spread new concepts in anti-American propaganda under the cover of “Chowderhead Rules”? Does “letting your hair down” invariably include malicious slander ala Jordan or do some of the gatherings have a fully inclusive range of attendance from center to far left that encourages a passing acquaintance with things that resemble facts?

What the hell is the purpose of an “off the record” meeting involving more than a hundred people from disparate employment backgrounds? What type of opinions are being shared which cause participants to fear attribution?

Feb 14, 2005 - 6:01 pm 21. John Lynch:

Rick

The World Economic Forum (Davos) was always a gathering of all types. The business leaders I knew that attended thought it somewhat a elbow-rubbing opportunity coupled with some corporate citizenship dues to be paid.

The NGOs, various clubs, foundations, and special interest groups thought it a fund-raising, awareness-building event.

I never thought there was anything especially anti-American about it, although since I knew of it, times have changed a bit.

Feb 14, 2005 - 6:15 pm 22. heather:

Another fascinating aspect: Eason is some 44 years old – and has been employed by CNN for 21 years (ref, dsoxblog.blogspot.com) meaning??

And the nasty reaction of the MSM is a measure of the blogosphere’s influence.

Feb 14, 2005 - 6:29 pm 23. chuck:

I always thought the WSJ came in two parts: the editorial page and the rest of the paper. I never read the editorials, but the rest of the paper is pretty good.

Feb 14, 2005 - 6:34 pm 24. richard mcenroe:

Could, by any chance, Eason’s attitude and opinions just possibly, a teesy weensy bit, have had anything to do with CNN’s backing of the Tailwind and No Gun Ri hoaxes?

Tailwind ó Bogus allegations the US used nerve gas in Nam.

No Gun Ri ó Bogus allegations that the US massacred South Korean refugees, from a “witness” who wasn’t even in Korea.

Feb 14, 2005 - 7:33 pm 25. Rick Ballard:

John,

It’s the “off the record” or non-attributable aspect (coupled with crowd size) that I’m asking about. I know that the WEF is a tin cup opportunity for the NGO’s to hit up corporations just as I know without looking very hard that “Save the Kyoto” will be featured as well as something to do with “Educating (indoctrinating, actually) the Impoverished”. Very, very old stuff. But Jordan’s remarks (which some are characterizing as “raising troubling issues” – more hogwash) were an assertion of murder that if proven to have the tiniest basis in fact would be a tremendous story. Jordan controlled assets that could have been used to unearth not just the truth but every aspect of all sides of each “targeted” death.

The plain fact is that Jordan is a damned liar and knows it. He can couch his resignation in “protect the company” language but he just wants an end to a story that will prove him to be as much a fraud in the world’s eyes as he is in his own. The blogs didn’t do Jordan in and I haven’t read anything on blogs that justifies the WSJ editorial.

Eason Jordan will be looking at the cause of his downfall every time he shaves for the rest of his life.

Feb 14, 2005 - 7:41 pm 26. richard mcenroe:

BTW, Roger, have you considered starting a second blog for your gall bladder, Roger’s Gall? You could post all the stuff there you’re too polite to utter here. Or have you parted brass rags entirely with the peccant organ?

Feb 14, 2005 - 7:45 pm 27. Terrye:

I don’t know but it seems to me that a lot of journalists are getting really nervous and nasty.

I mean cripes, Jordan said what he said, if he did not mean it, he should not have said it.

How hard is that for professional journalists to understand?

Feb 14, 2005 - 7:50 pm 28. richard mcenroe:

Rick Ballard, Terrye ó I’m sort of sorry Jordan bailed out before anybody could seriously consider what other kind of content-for-access deals he cooked up for CNN around the world, besides Saddam and Castro. I have a suspicion something like that is why CNN hustled him offstage so fast. It will be interesting to see where he winds up; that will give us a clue as to what kind of favor he was really in when they bounced him.

Feb 14, 2005 - 9:12 pm 29. Rick Ballard:

Richard,

You may be right, I certainly don’t know. A little of Occam’s Razor does have to enter in, though. I still haven’t found the article I read on CNN cable rights contracts expiring this year but I know that CNN was getting paid for what FNC has been giving away. CNN’s advertising income may not be able to support the level of reporting that they are currently doing. They have a lot more depth than FNC – even if you throw in SkyNews and a couple of others. If advertising income has become very important, then major advertisers may be pointing out that CNN’s “position”, “view”, whatever (just don’t call it slant or bias) is not shared with a majority of Americans. Ratings appear to confirm that rather solidly.

The market for a tilted edudoctrination channel is pretty well covered by PBS. Birkenstock and Big Bob’s Bongs just can’t carry a 24 hour news channel. It really could be that CNN felt a need to bust their liplock on dictators butts, I just haven’t seen any evidence of that happening. Of course, I watch CNN about 3 minutes a year so I’m not right up to the minute on any changes.

Feb 14, 2005 - 10:50 pm 30. Fausta:

The “grown-up decisions” bit reminded me of transactional analysis.

Funny how the MSM looks back, time after time.

Feb 15, 2005 - 5:27 am 31. Percy Dovetonsils:

Yes, it’s my worrywart nature speaking, but I agree with ahem’s mixed feelings. First – and please correct me if I’m wrong – the Eason story moved a hell of a lot faster than the faked TANG documents story. The velocity of these stories is accelerating, and I hope it doesn’t lead blogs to morphing from analytical resources into something like TV news teams – rushing to and through a story, with the context being lost.

Second, I don’t know if everyone saw that our favorite rube, R.McClelland, posted a note on Oliver Willis’ blog suggesting that people dig up embarrassing background on Glenn Reynolds. I get a bad feeling that bloggers are the next targets of “opposition research.”

(Any lawyers out there? Would you argue that bloggers could be considered “public figures,” and thus are much more easily libeled?)

That said, I wish they’d release the Davos tape, then tie Eason around CNN’s neck like an anchor – much like I think the UofColorado should not only keep Ward Churchill, but be compelled to have him co-sign all fundraising letters. In other words, let’s be perfectly transparent about the types of people who work at these institutions, and then let the public decide how to respond.

Feb 15, 2005 - 6:41 am 32. Kyda Sylvester:

Hey, Roger, welcome back (where have I been??). Delighted that everything went so well–you seem in fine fettle.

We since have learned that Bret Stephens penned this particular editorial apparently mounting a defense of his own slipshod reporting. We have learned that he has a previously undisclosed connection to Davos and the WEF. So far my impression of Mr. Stephens is that he’s just another self-important snotnose. I have a very big problem with Paul Gigot, however, and a lesser one with James Taranto.

The Journal’s Reader Responses for the editorial make interesting reading. The majority of its readers are not amused.

Feb 15, 2005 - 9:36 am 33. charlotte:

I have a very big problem with Paul Gigot, however/ Kyda Sylvester

Finally, somebody brought up Paul Gigot. I haven’t read what he’s written lately (has he gone all Gergen on us?), but was completely taken aback by his commentary on Fox News Sunday this past weekend. As expected, Liasson defended Jordan, but the supposed conservative panelist also was soft on his “misstatements” and sounded more concerned that CNN didn’t defend their guy! What a company man.

I was floored, however, when Juan Williams of all people disagreed with Gigot and agreed with the decision to let Jordan go for the integrity of the CNN organization. Chris Matthews disappointed by not weighing in either way. Only the wonderful Brit Hume emphasized that the videotape has not been released for some reason. One could see him thinking, oh, the irony of the Watergate inspired press not clamoring for taped evidence.

Still, the day may come when Brit or Roger is given a stealth copy of Jordan’s remarks during a parking garage meeting with Deep Quote…

Feb 15, 2005 - 12:44 pm 34. charlotte:

For above: Chris Wallace didn’t weigh in. Matthews always does and on the wrong side. And I can’t type and think at the same time.

Feb 15, 2005 - 2:01 pm

Write a Comment

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