Yup - Eason Jordon, CCN's Chief News Excecutive, the same man who admitted corruption of CNN news http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C16FD3C5F0C728DDDAD0894DB404482 by Saddam for access, now accuses US troops of targeting and killing journalists. Here's the relevant report from the World Economic Forum - where the Bushies opted not to go. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq? http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/01/do_us_troops_ta.html Davos, Switzerland from the WEF 2005 This fiery topic became a real nightmare today for the Chief News Executive of CNN at what was an initially very mild discussion at the World Economic Forum titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?". At a discussion moderated by David R. Gergen, the Director for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, the concept of truth, fairness, and balance in the news was weighed against corporate profit interest, the need for ratings, and how the media can affect democracy. The panel included Richard Sambrook, the worldwide director of BBC radio, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Abdullah Abdullah, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan, and Eason Jordan, Chief News Executive of CNN. The audience was a mix of journalists, WEF attendees (many from Arab countries), and a US Senator from Connecticut, Chris Dodd. During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, ***Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted.*** He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-US crowd) and cause great strain on others. Due to the nature of the forum, I was able to directly challenge Eason, asking if he had any objective and clear evidence to backup these claims, because if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. David Gergen was also clearly disturbed and shocked by the allegation that the U.S. would target journalists, foreign or U.S. He had always seen the U.S. military as the providers of safety and rescue for all reporters. Eason seemed to backpedal quickly, but his initial statements were backed by other members of the audience (one in particular who represented a worldwide journalist group). The ensuing debate was (for lack of better words) a real "sh--storm". What intensified the problem was the fact that the session was a public forum being taped on camera, in front of an international crowd. The other looming shadow on what was going on was the presence of a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator in the middle of some very serious accusations about the U.S. military. To be fair (and balanced), Eason did backpedal and make a number of statements claiming that he really did not know if what he said was true, and that he did not himself believe it. But when pressed by others, he seemed to waver back and forth between what might have been his beliefs and the realization that he had created a kind of public mess. His statements, his reaction, and the reaction of all in attendance left me perplexed and confused. Many in the crowd, especially those from Arab nations, applauded what he said and called him a "very brave man" for speaking up against the U.S. in a public way amongst a crowd ready to hear anti-US sentiments. I am quite sure that somewhere in the Middle East, right now, his remarks are being printed up in Arab language newspapers as proof that the U.S. is an evil and corrupt nation. That is a real nightmare, because the Arab world is taking something said by a credible leader of the media (CNN!) as the gospel, or koranic truth. What is worse is that I am not really sure what Eason really meant to communicate to us, but I do know that he was quite passionate about it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wanna bet it will be 15 reporters soon? (That's how McCarthy got started.) Or, that (finally), CNN will excerise discipline? To his credit, congressman Barney Frank (D) wants an explanation, says the Wall Street Journal. -Orson
account above confirmed by former CNN reporter! The account above confirmed by former CNN reporter! http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2005/02/blogstorm_desce.html So-why does CNN itself coverup? -Orson
Thanks, Abner A blogger will soon have video of the above accusation in few days, if the WEF media people come through. http://sisypheanmusings.blogspot.com/2005/02/eason-jordon-wef-video_110754253214888238.html On the double standards and hypocrisy of the media, Hugh hewitt observes: "The elite media instantly saddles up to ride to the condemnation of a speech given by [General James Mattis] a warrior much beloved and respected by his troops--a genuine hero and charismatic war-winner who believes in closing with and killing the enemy before they kill his troops and more civilians, and for whose ideology of fascism he has complete contempt. "But let the speech be given by a MSM big, and let the subject be a slander on the entire American military, and the result is total MSM silence. "This is why there is near complete contempt for the MSM among center-right people._ Think about it._ Every major paper has an anti-Mattis story. Not one has even mentioned Jordan." www.hughhewitt.com -Orson
Video soon, but the media dam has broken... EASON JORDAN, QUOTE UNQUOTE: Howard Kurtz http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6490-2005Feb7.html?sub=AR has a story on the Eason Jordan scandal in today's Washington Post. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who attended the World Economic Forum panel at which Jordan spoke, recalled yesterday that Jordan said he knew of 12 journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq. At first, said Frank, "it sounded like he was saying it was official military policy to take out journalists." But Jordan later "modified" his remarks to say some U.S. soldiers did this "maybe knowing they were killing journalists, out of anger. . . . He did say he was talking about cases of deliberate killing," Frank said. Read the whole thing, as there are some disagreements. Ed Morrissey http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003775.php thinks that Kurtz is trying too hard to give Jordan the benefit of the doubt. And Mickey Kaus, http://slate.msn.com/id/2113208/ who has a lengthy analysis of Kurtz's piece, thinks so too, explicating several subtle pro-Jordan digs. Another news story http://www.nysun.com/article/8866 that's far less kind to Jordan, from the New York Sun: ?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."
