Eason Jordan update

Eason Jordan update

: A BBC exec who as at the Davos panel where Jordan spoke tells Jay Rosen that Jordan was misinterpreted. He says what I took away from Jordan’s own responses: He’s saying that journalists were shot by snipers so they were not “collateral damage” — the phrase that started the discussion — but were targeted, though he’s not saying they were targeted as journalists. It’s still all rather muddled and it could stand a reporter doing a good story to clear this up. That, after all, is supposed to be what reporters do.

  • Mrs. Davis

    What it could really stand is having CNN air the tape. Had Gen. Mattis made his comments at Davos, I think CNN would have shown the tape by now. So why the blackout?

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    CNN did not tape the event; Davos did, fyi

  • alcibiades

    OTOH, Barney Frank took away from it what other bloggers have told us, according to Michelle Malkin, who just interviewed him.
    Whereas Richard Sambrook from the BBC falls very neatly into Gerard van der Leun’s theory of the unwritten blacklist. And of course he would be sympathetic to Eason Jordan, given his politics, that is to say his anti-Americanism.

  • http://www.Rconversation.com Rebecca MacKinnon

    Turns out the WEF will not release a transcript and I get the sense they haven’t really decided what to do with their tape (once they unpack it). See my latest communication with the WEF’s Mark Adams

  • Mrs. Davis

    Yup, the M$M is going to try to stonewall and it looks like they have a pretty good shot at it.

  • http://www.liberalavenger.com The Liberal Avenger

    Given that precisely what he said originally is still unknown, and what he has been saying since is very unambigiously that he was talking about targeting=not-collateral-damage as opposed to targeting=US-military-trying-to-kill-journalists, isn’t giving him the benefit of the doubt the proper thing to do?
    Nobody with any authority is seriously leveling charges against the US military that they have been intentionally killing journalists. Why should have have begun to do so suddenly?

  • alcibiades

    Nobody with any authority is seriously leveling charges against the US military that they have been intentionally killing journalists. Why should have have begun to do so suddenly?
    That’s precisely the problem. No one is leveling these charges because they are not true, to the best of our knowledge. Neverthless *if* what we have heard so far is correct, Eason Jordan appears to believe it anyway in some recess of his mind when he is not censoring himself from saying what he believes.
    *If* such proves to be the case, then it appears to be problematical having him in such a position of authority at CNN.

  • jangal

    Michelle Malkin has also posted responses from Senator Dodd and David Gergen, and like Barney Frank – they ALL confirm what was reported as Eason Jordan’s accusations. Note that Sen. Dodd’s response actually uses the word “outrageous” to describe Jordan’s remarks.

  • http://the4tees.blogspot.com/ Tim

    The term “targeted by snipers” is crap. As usual, media members have no idea what a “sniper” is (their definition being “anyone who fires random shots and actually hits someone” as opposed to “trained marksman selectively engaging targets”).
    If Jordan Eason or the BBC exec are accusing U.S. military snipers of engaging journalists, then they are accusing the military of deliberately targeting journalists. If they are ACTUALLY saying that journalists were hit by stray gunshots fired during the course of a firefight, then that is, once again, “collateral damage.” Since Mr. Eason is choosing to nitpick the definition of “collateral damage,” then the military and those who understand how and who they “target,” have every right to to the same with the term “sniper.”

  • http://www.liberalavenger.com The Liberal Avenger

    *If* such proves to be the case, then it appears to be problematical having him in such a position of authority at CNN.
    But he hasn’t used his position of great authority at CNN to broadcast this idea – instead he may or may not have said it behind closed doors at Davos.
    Non-starter.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Behind closed doors, huh?
    Right.
    As in, to some of the most influential people in the world, some of whom pant to be told this kind of crap.
    And I suppose one ought to wonder what this world view means to CNN reporting. Presuming it’s any different from the world view that complicity in covering up Saddaam’s crimes was a good idea and solid journalism.

  • tim wg

    Given that precisely what he said originally is still unknown, and what he has been saying since is very unambigiously. . . .
    Bull. Eason Jordan is guilty of spreading lies about the U.S. military.
    Since he obviously works for the news media, if they don’t get rid of him, CNN’s reputation will be lost just like CBS.
    Who would have thought the Mainstream Media will implode so quickly?
    LONG LIVE FOX NEWS.

  • Angus Jung

    “Non-starter.”
    Graveyard-whistler.