What do you have to do to get targeted in this town?
Eason Jordan is the Chief News Executive of CNN. I learned his name back in April 2003, when he wrote an OpEd in the Times. In that piece, Jordan admitted that in order to maintain a presence in Iraq, he had to negotiate frequently with the Iraqi government, and that CNN had not reported many awful things their reporters and cameramen had witnessed. It was a disarmingly confessional piece, and I admired its honesty, even as it seemed obvious that the behavior revealed in it likely constituted serious ethical violations. The OpEd was widely linked and discussed on the web, as was Mr. Jordan's romance with murdered reporter Daniel Pearl's widow (which as nothing to do with the story, but they did made a striking couple).

As of yesterday, Mr. Jordan's embroiled in another scandal, this time it appears entirely of his own making. Following is excerpted from the unofficial "official" weblog of World Economic Forum (think Davos):

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.

This story was all over the blogs starting yesterday afternoon. To this point, it's been hardly reported in the MSM, and there's been no noise from CNN backing up the wild claims of its news chief. If it shakes out that Mr. Jordan said these things, without having any evidence or substantiation, in the forum that he did, then this story should be far from over. I hope that professional courtesies and affinities do not muddle too badly the reporting of this story in the MSM. And I hope that, despite Mr. Jordan's backpeddling (see the full WEF blog post, linked in the title), he loses his job. Maybe he and Howell Raines can have tea and discuss accountability in the upper echelons of elite media. Viva la rehabilitation!

UPDATE: Here's an email that apparently was sent to some bloggers who are all over this story. It comes from CNN, and you can see it in context here at the Powerline blog.

Many blogs have taken Mr. Jordan’s remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists. Mr. Jordan simply pointed out the facts: While the majority of journalists killed in Iraq have been slain at the hands of insurgents, the Pentagon has also noted that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. The Pentagon has apologized for those actions.

Mr. Jordan was responding to an assertion by Cong. Frank that all 63 journalist victims had been the result of "collateral damage."

According to eyewitness accounts, that's not at all that happenned. Apparently, the forum was taped, so a transcript and/or video feed will probably clear up whether CNN is covering its chief's ass or whether this truly is a misunderstanding. Very simply, did Mr. Jordan or did he not claim that the U.S. was deliberately targeting journalists? I want to know. I hope we all find out.

If you're interested in reading about this story, the (right-wing) pajama brigade is out in force. Here's a good place to start.

2/3/05 ANOTHER UPDATE (dissembling, or explaining) : This comes from a blog I don't know much about. It's supposedly a quote from Eason Jordan himself:

To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill
journalists in Iraq. I said so during the forum panel discussion. But, nonetheless, the U.S. military has killed several journalists in Iraq in cases of mistaken identity. The reason the word "targeted" came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of "collateral damage." Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the "collateral damage" statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists -- not all -- killed in Iraq were indeed targeted. When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is appropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine. But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of "collateral damage." That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time. Further, I have worked closely with the U.S. military for months in an effort to achieve a mutual goal: keeping journalists in Iraq safe and alive.

Sounds like more language parsing, especially based on Mr. Jordan's previous examples of unsubstantiated, largely unreported (and unsubstantiated by any reporting, no less) assertions. Based on the original eyewitness accounts, it seemed like he was saying that journalists were specifically targeted and killed because they were journalists. I suppose he's saying those witnesses got it wrong. According to his account, he was saying that the deceased and injured weren't targeted because they were journalists, but rather that someone aimed a weapon at them and pulled the trigger, and only in that sense were they were targeted. But they weren't targeted for being journalists at all, just perhaps for being on a battlefield and finding themselves confused for combatants...that's the explanation for their unfortunate targeting.

That's unconvincing to me, if clever, and a narrow redefinition of the term targeted. I can appreciate such an explanation in the context of a legal proceeding (especially if it's my lawyer wife explaining it to me, naked), but less so in this public forum, where this incident is playing out. If Mr. Jordan is the victim of trying to make too subtle a point to too stupid a people, perhaps he belongs with John Kerry (according at least to many of John Kerry's supporters) on the trash heap of history. See the above CQ link, or this if you want to compare the record of recent history to the record of the past couple of days.

To be fair to Mr. Jordan, he seems like he might be saying that his statements were an emotional reaction to the deaths of his colleagues. That must be hard to deal with, as must be keeping secret Saddam's atrocities. No matter how hard it must be to lose people you're responsible for, it's not an excuse for the poor judgement that the very important and visible Mr. Jordan appears to have displayed here. If he made unsubstantiated claims of incredible misconduct in our military, then: based on what he said recently, what he's said in the past, who he is, what he does and and where he said it, he must go. Maybe he and Howell Raines can get a cable talkshow together. I'd watch it for the schadenfreude factor alone.
- posted by Anonymous @ Wednesday, February 02, 2005