When I read a story about a newspaper threatening a blogger who has been functioning as a media watchdog of that newspaper, my interest is naturally going to be piqued.
Not that I’m worried. I don’t think the folks at the L.A. Times would be this stupid. They probably don’t even know about this controversy — but if they did, they would certainly be smart enough to realize what the lawyers at the Tulsa World don’t: conduct like this quickly makes a newspaper a laughingstock.
(Hat tip: Kevin Murphy.)
Question: which Eason Jordan controversy was more damaging to CNN’s reputation? The most recent one, in which Jordan allegedly accused the military of targeting journalists? Or the earlier one, in which Jordan admitted keeping his network silent about Saddam’s atrocities, in order to maintain a CNN bureau in Baghdad?
From the standpoint of those who are concerned about truth in media, I think the answer is easy: the earlier one.
Jordan’s most recent accusations — if he really made them and didn’t instantly back down — show him to be an unstable person willing to entertain ridiculous conspiracy theories about our government and military. If he really made these accusations, and didn’t back down, then his stewardship of CNN might have influenced the network to portray the news in a more anti-American light.
There’s a lot of supposition hidden in that last sentence.
But with the earlier scandal, we know for a fact that the network distorted the truth that it reported to its viewers. It couldn’t be clearer. Jordan admitted as much in an op-ed in the New York Times.
So why is this latest scandal worse? Why is it the one that caused his resignation?? What am I missing here???
The always poisonous and frequently less-than-honest Robert Scheer contends in his latest column:
Belatedly declassified excerpts from still-secret sections of the 9/11 commission report, which focus on the failure of the Federal Aviation Administration to heed multiple warnings that Al Qaeda terrorists were planning to hijack planes as suicide weapons, make clear that this tragedy [9-11] could have been avoided.
But according to CNN:
The FAA’s security branch generated 105 so-called daily summaries between April 1 and September 10, 2001, the report said. Fifty-two of those summaries mentioned bin Laden or al Qaeda, and five discussed hijacking “as a capability al Qaeda was training for or possessed.”
Two summaries cited suicide operations, “but not connected to a threat in aviation,” the report said.
I am finding myself in the familiar position of being unable to reconcile the known facts with the assertions made in Scheer’s column.
Thanks to QandO.