Posted on 02/08/2005 1:46:36 AM PST by msnimje
1) Barney Frank won't cover for the head of the DNC's best friend, CNN.
2) Al "Heads Will Roll" Jazeera won't cover for the head of their best friend, CNN.
3) A Harvard professor contradicts Jordan's anti-American soldier assertions, and
4) A democrat senator is "outraged" by Jordan's slander of our soldiers.
Is it possible that Arafat is ice skating? ;)
I'm not quite clear on the relationship of the Worldforum.org blog to the official World Economic Forum in Davos, but Worldforum seems to be a great source (if the not the breaking source) on this story.
A post from this morning reads:
"We now understand that the WEF is mulling over the release of the videotape of the session with Jordan, and that there is a small debate brewing regarding the "on" or "off" the record nature of the session. I have also heard from the WEF's Head of Media, Mark Adams, just a few hours ago. Mark was kind enough to reply to an e-mail I sent him recently. Mark explained to me that the session was held under 'Chatham House Rules', which means that the general tenor of the debate can be reported but specific quotes are not attributable, which was done to encourage a full and frank exchange of views. Others have received a similar communication from Mark. I suppose this means that the public will not get to view a copy of the videotape, unless something changes. Unfortunately, this will likely only fuel speculation, feed rumors, and spawn numerous theories. The video would eliminate one part of this debate, and now what we will have is a pitched battle of memory, recollection, and context."
Easongate: The End of MSM As We Know It?
Posted by Rony on February 8, 2005 at 04:47 AM
This article has the same glaring omission found in Howard Kurtz' piece in the WaPo today.
There is a tape of the conference. After promising to release the tape, the forum is now balking.
Neither of these articles calls for the tape to be made public. Kurtz' omission is easily explained---he's compromised by his job with CNN. I don't know why the Sun left out what I think is THE central issue of this story as news.
Didn't C-SPAN have coverage of what went on in Davos? Would they have Jordan on tape? And isn't C-SPAN's tape public domain?
The NY Sun consistently breaks important stories that are ignored by the rest of the media.
"was repeatedly mocked by his interrogators as "Al-Jazeera boy."
Oh what a horrible thing to do to a prisoner. It must be against the Geneva to refer to a prisoner that way.
It appears that CNN has surpassed Al jazerra and BBC as the the Blame and hate America crowd. They have become cheerleaders for terrorists, dictators and despots.
I believe that all forms of interrogation should be replaced with the simple but affective Ted Kennedy style.
Put them in a car, push the car off a bridge, and wait 14 hours.
One more reason to support the troops.
That point deserves it's own article. Post it, blog style!
From the home page of Forumblog:
The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world. The Forum provides a collaborative framework for the world's leaders to address global issues, engaging particularly its corporate members in global citizenship.
^^^^^
The reports I have heard and read strongly record that the "global citizenship" of these corporate members is very left-leaning, even though the perpetual protestors have targeted the WEF for years.
What is said at Davos has been very closely held (a la Las Vegas) since its inception. I have very little hope that any video or transcript of Jordan's remarks will ever become available.
What frosts me is that the venue where he made his remarks was a room full of REPORTERS. Now why are they there, on expense accounts, if not to REPORT!
Its about time. This has bounced around the blogosphere for a while.
This forum was only taped by the Davos organizers. C-Span wasn't there (or at least they weren't taping it).
The conference told a blogger they would send him the tape. Then, when the story became a firestorm, they suddenly "discovered" that the forum was off the record. But journalists who attended the forum said it occurred in one of the two conference rooms which had been designated ON the record by Davos organizers. CNN obviously used its pull to squelch the tape.
Unfortunately, with no pressure from the MSM, this story will be allowed to die unless the tape is released.
If calling someone names is now "torture" then I have several of my childhood classmates I would like to sue. I got called names for years. You know what it taught me? You can disregard the jackasses as exactly that.
The liberal MSM continues to dig it's own grave. Dig faster boys...dig faster.
Powerline
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009492.php
Kurtz Breaks Silence on Jordan
Media critic Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post finally broke his paper's long silence on the Eason Jordan matter this morning, coming down squarely on Jordan's side in an apparent effort to help Jordan keep his job. Kurtz's story is sub-headlined "CNN new chief clarifies his comments on Iraq;" Jordan gave Kurtz an interview in which he repeated the spin that CNN has been putting on the story from the beginning: that is, that Jordan made the point that journalists have not been "targeted," but have sometimes been killed on purpose under the mistaken impression that they were terrorists.
Kurtz provides a partial accounting of the eyewitness accounts, omitting Rebecca MacKinnon, providing a friendly quote from David Gergen, and adding an interview with a BBC representative who was present.
The most interesting aspect of the article is that Kurtz evidently asked Jordan about his allegation last November that:
[A]t least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces,
Jordan explained the "torture" reference to Kurtz:
In the interview last night, Jordan said he and a group of other news executives have discussed with a top Pentagon official allegations by Iraqi employees of NBC, Reuters and al-Jazeera "who claimed to have been detained and tortured by the U.S. military. They all came out with horrific statements about what had been done to them."
Statements which Jordan believes to be true. Kurtz apparently didn't ask Jordan about his November statement that "at least 10 journalists have been killed by the U.S. military; in context, he doesn't seem to be referring to inadvertent deaths.
Kurtz does, however, add this tantalizing observation:
At the World Economic Forum, participants say, the only specific case cited by Jordan was the April 2003 incident in which U.S. forces fired a tank round at Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, killing a cameraman employed by Reuters and another for the Spanish network Telecinco. Military spokesmen said the troops were responding to sniper fire from the hotel, which was known to house about 100 foreign journalists, and defended the shelling as "a proportionate and justifiably measured response."
But Jordan supplied a list of the other incidents, such as a tank firing on and killing Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana as he was filming outside Abu Ghraib prison in 2003. U.S. officials said the troops mistook Dana's camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
So Jordan supplied a list, presumably of twelve or more incidents, of which we now know of two. Let's see the list. And let's see the tape of the Davos session. For now, at least, CNN undoubtedly hopes that this story has ground to a halt with the "limited, modified hang-out" facilitated by Kurtz.
UPSDATE by BIG TRUNK: For an account of the Jordan scandal without the Kurtz spin, see Roderick Boyd's New York Sun article: "A CNN executive says G.I.s in Iraq target journalists."
Why, oh WHY isn't this all over the news? This is appalling.
EASONGATE: BARNEY FRANK TALKS
By Michelle Malkin · February 07, 2005 11:22 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001447.htm
Just got off the phone with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who spoke with me about Easongate. Rep. Frank was on the panel at Davos.
Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately "expressed deep skepticism." Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, "explaining that he wasn't saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined."
Rep. Frank said he didn't pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was "somewhat disturbed" and "somewhat exercised" and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan's assertions were "disturbing if true." I have a call in to Sen. Dodd's office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.
I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.
After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.
Rep. Frank has not yet heard back from Jordan.
***
Jay Rosen interviewed BBC director Richard Sambrook, who was also on the panel, and has significantly different recollections of what Jordan said.
Captain Ed, intrepid Eason-watcher, reacts to the Sambrook statement with proper skepticism and once again puts Jordan/CNN's stake in proper perspective.
***
Bill Roggio of Easongate.com will be on the radio at 1:20pm EST today to discuss the latest developments.
And Jim Geraghty asks: Is this about right and left? Or right or wrong?
Maybe there are left-of-center writers and bloggers who are writing about Eason Jordan and I just haven't encountered them. Send me links if you see them. But if Jordan smeared the troops by repeated an unsubstantiated rumor in front of the Davos crowd, this shouldn't just outrage conservatives.
Which is why, despite our grave disagreements on many policy issues, I respect Rep. Frank for wanting to get the truth out of Eason Jordan.
Update: Jim Geraghty at TKS reports that there may be problems getting a copy of the Davos videotape. Meanwhile, the MSM, including CNN's Judy Woodruff, according to Hugh Hewitt and Jon Lauck, remain in the dark.
And Washington Post/CNN media critic Howard Kurtz has just concluded his live online chat without breathing a word about Easongate.
Eeeen-teresting.
Roger Simon has more thoughts on MSM stonewalling.
Update II: David Gergen speaks. See above.
Update III: More from panelist and BBC director Richard Sambrook. I asked him via e-mail if he had any response to this comment from Jim Geraghty:
[BBC director Richard] Sambrook states, "[Jordan] clarified his comment a number of times to ensure people did not misunderstand him."
But then why would Arab members of the audience come up and congratulate him for having the courage to speak the truth? Why were, according to these accounts, Franks, Dodd and Gergen so disturbed? Or are these details from other accounts inaccurate? Are Abovitz, MacKinnon, and Frank remembering things that didn't happen? How about the secondhand sources of Jay Nordlinger?
Sambrook responded:
I can't answer for how other people took his comments. His initial comment may have been ambiguous (although even then I didn't think he meant that US troops had intended to kill journalists) but his clarifications as the session progressed should have left no-one in doubt about his meaning. Could it be that some people would prefer to think ill of him?
There are people in the media community who would criticise the US military on this issue. I'm not one of them and to my knowledge Eason has in the past dismissed suggestions of ill-intent on the part of the US military.
From Hugh Hewitt's blog...
Unbelievable. The Davos people refuse to provide the tape.
http://sisypheanmusings.blogspot.com/2005/02/help-why-wef-video-is-important-to-me.html
There are those who would use the B word (bias).
I'd not use that word...but then I am dumber than a small pile of rocks.
In this case I would use the C-word: Cover-up
(motivated by the B-word, of course)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.