Patterico's Pontifications

2/15/2005

Still More Eason Jordan Thoughts

Filed under: General,Media Bias — Patterico @ 8:51 pm



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.

No supposition.

So why is this latest scandal worse? Why is it the one that caused his resignation?? What am I missing here???

10 Responses to “Still More Eason Jordan Thoughts”

  1. Yeah, good point. The 2nd story showed that he might exercise bad/unethical journalistic judgement, but the first one confirmed it.

    ras (b76930)

  2.       I’m fairly sure Eason Jordan did say the U.S. military was targeting journalists, because he said the same of the Israeli military in 2002 and the U.S. military in 2004.

          Frankly, I think he’s mentally disturbed.

    THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED — AND WILL BE!

    Stephen M. St. Onge (5d0d4d)

  3.       I’m fairly sure Eason Jordan did say the U.S. military was targeting journalists, because he said the same of the Israeli military in 2002 and the U.S. military in 2004.

          Frankly, I think he’s mentally disturbed.

    THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED — AND WILL BE!

    Stephen M. St. Onge (5d0d4d)

  4. As some other blogger pointed out, the earlier scandal implicated all of CNN. If he had resigned/been asked to resign/been fired then, CNN would be admitting error. They played up their legitimate interest in protecting personnel and basically said these things are a judgement call. Firing Eason then would be admitting that they reached the wrong decision.

    In the later scandal, CNN can still appear to have done nothing wrong- it’s just the poor (lone) judgement of one of their execs in a non-newsgathering situation. Firing him (or whatever) after this scandal doesn’t directly tarnish CNN’s reputation. No wrongdoing on CNN’s part is admitted.

    Like many others though, I don’t think his Davos remarks were the main reason he left. Jeez, look at CNN’s ratings.

    Brian O'Connell (858f0c)

  5. The reason the earlier story didn’t get much traction is, in my opinion, because the NY Times printed the op-ed and nobody else in the media commented on it.

    If it ain’t on NBC news or in the NY Times it didn’t happen.
    I would bet that close to half of the US has absolutely no idea that Jordan admitted to lying for a fascist dictator.

    Veeshir (61554d)

  6. In both instances (and others), Eason Jordan gave aid and comfort to the enemy. As an American working for an American corporation at a time when America is at war, its my opinion that his acts are treasonous, and it doesn’t get any more serious than that.

    But to answer your question, if the blogoshere had been functioning at its present level at the time of the first scandal, I don’t believe there would have been a second scandal. So the second scandal has clearly been more damaging to CNN’s reputation because its been noted by far more people, and resulted in action being taken by CNN.

    Add to that the fact that far more people are now also aware of the first scandal because of the second scandal, and I think you’ll agree the second scandal has been considerably more damaging.

    RedJacket (c466f4)

  7. The earlier comments hit the nail on the head. The questions

    “Which is ethically worse, from the point of view of a classically-liberal person?”

    and

    “Which made employee Eason more vulnerable to internal corporate pressure to resign?”

    seem to have very little to do with one another.

    AMac (b6037f)

  8. Is it possible that what is actually on the tape from Davos is worse than we are assuming? And CNN felt that the pressure to make it public would continue to grow while he remained employed?

    And perhaps they were hoping that the story would fade away once Eason was out because the blogosphere would move along to another story and not push for the release of the video.

    JRF (ff505b)

  9. April 2003 was worse — but it was also first offense, special circumstances, etc. And the BlogStorm Trrrroooopers hadn’t been too successful at collecting trophies, just Trent Lott. After the Swifties got a little notice, and blogs bagged Raines (thanks Sully), and Rather, the mechanism of “gotcha” is getting better.

    I support MORE witchhunts. UN’s Kofi (rapegate?) or Moonves at CBS (sued by Howard)? Or both? Heck, maybe MSM will want to get one a them thar libr’l liars, afore theys all gone.

    Tom Grey - Liberty Dad (2c19f0)

  10. Wild presumption: in the first case outing sources could not occur. In the second case outing sources could occur. There were probably no sources in either case, just Jordan being Michael Moore sans mass support. I agree with Stephen M. St. Onge.

    J. Peden (ffccb8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0976 secs.