Eason Down the Road

Howard Kurtz has finally -- finally, goddammit!! -- covered the Eason Jordan scandal. If you don't know what the "Eason Jordan scandal" is, you are either a stonewalling tribalist, a willing executor of the nefarious "Unwritten Blacklist", a possible-sedition enabler, or a victim thereof. Thankfully, while you slept, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, and the patriots at (surprise!) EasonGate continue to keep the Republic safe from hyperbolic accusations made (and then quickly retracted) by powerful news executives at possibly off-the-record discussions in Switzerland. (Pre-emptive disclosure -- I think Jordan is a booby-head, I look forward to his next four weeks of public squirming, and I cherish the freedoms that allow people to convince each other that journalists are shying away from EasonGate because it would hurt "their chances for other lucrative job offers, for advancement, and for invitations to all the right parties in New York, Washington, and the Hamptons.")

In more trivial news, President Bush unveiled a $2.57 trillion federal budget yesterday, and Israeli and Palestinian leaders declared a cease-fire.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Matt, you are one cynical son of a bitch.

  • ||

    cynicism is under-valued.

  • ||

    Well, it's media types who are getting most cranked about Jordon. But I thought he'd left CNN by the time he copped to sitting on it while our invasion was underway. How was he able to keep a salary after that?

  • ||

    And don't deny the FUN of this, even for those not in the bizniss: When Kaus bitchslaps, blood is drawn!

  • ||

    Charges that the U.S. military are deliberately murdering journalists is not new.

    The left-wing hate^H^H^H^H^ progressive media watch dog group FAIR made similar charges in 2003 and 2004. As of Feb. 08, 2005 08:00 EST, I cannot find any reference to the current Jordan affair on FAIR's web site, which is pretty pathetic for a so-called "media watchdog" group.


    http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html

    MEDIA ADVISORY:
    Is Killing Part of Pentagon Press Policy?

    April 10, 2003

    The Pentagon has held up its practice of "embedding" journalists with military units as proof of a new media-friendly policy. On April 8, however, U.S. military forces launched what appeared to be deliberate attacks on independent journalists covering the war, killing three and injuring four others....



    And this:


    http://www.fair.org/media-beat/040311.html

    Media Beat
    March 11, 2004

    They Shoot Journalists, Don�t They?
    By Norman Solomon

    To encourage restraint in war coverage, governments don�t need to shoot journalists -- though sometimes that�s helpful....




    Compare the reactions of the media to Jordan's charges to April 1995.

    The Left and the Main Stream Media had no problem with "linking" anybody who accused government agents of murder to terrorists. Virginia Postrel (hmmmmm, Virginia Postrel, aarrrghh, droool....what was I saying, oh yes)... Virginia Postrel wrote about the attempts to shame Clinton's opponents into silence after the Oklahoma City bombing in the July 1995 issue of Reason.

    Bill Clinton repeatedly told us that 'we can't love our country and hate our government' (May 1995 and December 1995).

    Even un-FAIR, which has no problem of repeatedly accusing government troops of murder, considered the NRA's language "inflamatory."


    http://www.fair.org/articles/gun-control.html

    February 2000

    Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment
    by Jeff Cohen

    ...Given the inflammatory utterances from NRA leaders, toned down after the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed by ardent member Timothy McVeigh, the NRA has not fared all that badly in the media. One board member wrote that masked federal agents are "scarier than the Nazis" and should be "targets." Another declared: "The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to threaten the government."

    Only after Oklahoma City did national media notice official NRA rhetoric about the "storm-trooper tactics" of firearms agents, a.k.a. "jack-booted government thugs," who have the green light to "murder law-abiding citizens."...



    After the media outrcry of the NRA fundraising letter, former president George H.W. Bush resigned from the NRA (which, I understand, he only joined in 1988 to receive their endorsement, and was not endorsed by them in 1992). It will be interesting to see if there is any similar bad publicity for CNN.

  • ||

    "Two other panelists backed Jordan's account. David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, said he "sort of gasped" when Jordan spoke of journalists being "deliberately killed," but that Jordan "realized, as soon as he said it, he'd gone too far" and "walked it back." Jordan then expressed "a very deep concern about whether our soldiers on the ground level are using as much care as they should" when journalists are involved, said Gergen, who moderated the discussion." [...] "He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists..."

    That cold-hearted, evil-doin', traitorous monster! How dare he...umm...say something that was over the top, then realize that he was wrong, then retreat and correct himself!

    Reading that "EasonGate" site just makes me realize how utterly relevant the old Styx diddy, "Too Much Time On My Hands", remains today. What the hell is wrong with people? Is this the best thing you have to spend your time doing? Jordan's a dumbass, but...is he worth all that?

  • ||

    Well, since the Washington Post left out Jordan's original statements while presenting the "context" of denials, retractions and moderations, everything must be ok.

    "Nothing to see here, move along."

  • ||

    Why is this story so important to bloggers? Who cares what some CNN reporter/executive said? It's not like anyone actually watches CNN (according to Fox).

  • Jay Rosen||

    You forgot to mention the call for Congressional hearings.

  • ||

    One problem I have with the story is that the foreign press, at least in English, has utterly failed to pick up the story. If there had been part of a plot by the librul MSM to damage our image abroad, it seems to have failed miserably.

  • ||

    "Well, since the Washington Post left out Jordan's original statements while presenting the "context" of denials, retractions and moderations, everything must be ok.

    "Nothing to see here, move along."

    Who ever said "nothing to see here"? All I said was that this is being blown out of proportion by twits who have nothing better to do with their time than turn several words from some CNN nitwit into a "SCANDAL!" I'm certainly not defending this guy---this is more a commentary on the state of the media and the blogosphere---where something so inane and meaningless can be blown into a "SCANDAL!" because it makes a good blog entry.

  • ||

    for someone who consistenly makes fun of those twits who have nothing better to do you sure do post a lot and actually go to and read the sites who's creators you mock by stating they have nothing better to do. just sayin.

  • ||

    Commenting on less trivial news. This is a great day, I've long felt Abbas was the guy to start moving past this conflict (the Pal Sadat). I just thought he would do it when he was first elected PM. I should've figured that great Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat wouldn't let peace happen in his lifetime. Glad that Abbas is able get some traction and good job by Sharon.

    Of course, something like this has happened about a dozen times in my lifetime, so I'm not going to get my hopes up yet. Any good news from that part of the world is terrific.

  • Matt Welch||

    Jay -- Funny; I was this close from writing: "What next -- calls for Congressional hearings?"

  • ||

    What's ammusing is the notion that the US military would take an *active* role in killing journalists. Why go to such an effort, when the opposition forces will do it for you? All the military would have to do is take *passive* action, and not go out of its way to protect journalists. The skirmishes take care of everything for you.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement