Who Can Really Say?

The Bandwagon Stops Here

Eason Jordan has resigned as President of CNN. Do I know when to jump on a bandwagon, or what?

In Jordan's own words:

"After 23 years at CNN, I have decided to resign in an effort to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq," Jordan said in a letter to colleagues.

"I have devoted my professional life to helping make CNN the most trusted and respected news outlet in the world, and I would never do anything to compromise my work or that of the thousands of talented people it is my honor to work alongside.

"While my CNN colleagues and my friends in the U.S. military know me well enough to know I have never stated, believed, or suspected that U.S. military forces intended to kill people they knew to be journalists, my comments on this subject in a World Economic Forum panel discussion were not as clear as they should have been."

So what's the lesson? That if you're Eason Jordan and you believe the US military intentionally targets journalists you should keep your mouth shut in large groups because someone will find out what you think? Or is it that if you believe the US military does not intentionally target journalists, that you shouldn't pander to a crowd that is more than willing to believe the very point because it makes you look like you believe it too?

The story ends, if this indeed is the end, without much of an ending at all. I assume Jordan liked his job and wanted to keep it, but if that's so he sure did a poor job of fighting for it. Most every account of what was said that day starts with how startled the room became once Jordan spoke on the topic. Jordan acknowledged (see above) that his comments "weren't as clear as they should have been", but the conversation continued for some 10 to 15 minutes, and even as those in attendance saw him backtrack from his initial statements, they left the room not at all sure of where he stood, which is why the entire matter came out in the first place. Jordan never engaged the questions and debate about his comments, but issued statements and emails only. He never actively sought to obtain either a transcript or the videotape of the conference to offer in his defense.

All of which makes it difficut to conclude that Jordan or CNN were unfairly treated. And we're left to assume that were the tape available we'd find that the initial reaction to Jordan's comments and the desire to seek answers to important questions raised by those comments was quite reasonable indeed.

Instapundit has loads of links reacting to the news. There's a good summary of the whole story here, and a series of posts from ex-CNN journalist, friend of Jordan's, and conference attendee Rebecca MacKinnon here (scroll to the bottom and read up to see her thoughts as the story developed). MacKinnon was careful to note that she took no joy in the entire affair, but concludes today:

The resignation requires one final comment.

I think Eason Jordan resigned because he knew that if the Davos tape came out it would make the situation worse, not better.

Translation: One can only backpedal so fast. Three days ago on the ninth, MacKinnon also had this to say:

What makes me sick is how a lot of people are going to benefit from this whole thing personally, and in some cases financially. On the right, Hugh Hewitt gets tons of book publicity in what is turning out to be a textbook case of the "blog swarm" phenomenon his book describes. On the left, Danny has an opportunity to plug his film. Lots of bloggers are making names for themselves. Yes, there are very legitimate issues on all sides that need to be discussed. I'm not trying to deny or belittle that fact. But most of these issues are not black-and-white. Unfortunately shades of grey aren't as interesting or useful for most people's purposes.

I remain disappointed in the many journalists who have spent lots of time on the ground in Iraq, and who have failed to do anything to shed light on the substance and facts of this issue - one way or the other. I am disappointed in their editors for not assigning them stories on this issue.

I'm especially disappointed with CNN for the way they're running away from the story, hoping it will go away. It won't. CNN has done itself more harm than good over the last several years by being horribly afraid to stand up for any particular set of principles. It tries very hard to please everybody and offend nobody - but ends up offending everybody and pleasing nobody. No wonder internal morale is low and ratings are bad.

Which brings us back full circle to the beginning. If the President of a major news network has a basis for stating in a public forum that US troops kill journalists on purpose, why isn't his network reporting on it? And if he didn't have a basis for saying it, then why did he say it? And if he didn't say it, then why is he giving up so easily?

UPDATE: Linked to the Beltway Traffic Jam.

Posted by Peter at February 12, 2005 08:32 AM