Posted on 02/08/2005 12:17:21 PM PST by Pikamax
Kurtz Does CNN's Damage Control: If you were worrying that WaPo's conflicted Howie Kurtz would bend over backwards to be tough on his own CNN bosses, you can stop now. Kurtz's article ... well, let's just say that if a p.r. agent or damage control spinner produced a piece designed to try and save CNN exec Eason Jordan's job, it would be the piece Kurtz wrote in the Post today. Why? Here are some of the blatant and subtle pro-Jordan tricks:
1) Witness Protection: Kurtz has Barney Frank recalling Jordan--after he "modified" his shocking remarks--still saying shocking things at Davos about U.S. forces "maybe knowing they were killing journalists, out of anger." Kurtz then has Jordan denying this, admitting he "wasn't as clear as I should have been" but saying he "never once in my life thought anyone from the U.S. military tried to kill a journalsit" and "[n]ever meant to suggest that." It's Frank vs. Jordan! Then Kurtz says portentously--opening a new paragraph-- "Two other panelists backed Jordan's account."
But one of those panelists, moderator David Gergen, doesn't agree with Jordan. Gergen says Jordan went "too far" and then "walked it back." (Jordan doesn't admit to backtracking, only lack of clarity.) Gergen's account of what happened next dovetails, instead, with Frank's, according to Michelle Malkin (who also interviewed Gergen):
Gergen said he asked Jordan point blank whether he believed the policy of the U.S. military was to sanction the targeting of journalists. Gergen said Jordan answered no, but then proceeded to speculate about a few incidents involving journalists killed in the Middle East--a discussion which Gergen decided to close down because "the military and the government weren't there to defend themselves."
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
Why doesn't CNN just fire the man? What do they have tied up in Jordan? My 15-year-old daughter could just just as good a job at running CNN. As for Howie Kurtz, how is one supposed to criticize one's employer objectively?
You were expecting integrity from Kurtz, or anyone else at CNN?
I'm sorry to read this about Kurtz. I actually like the guy and think he's generally fair. Obviously in this case, though, he let his employment by CNN get the better of his journalistic impartiality.
Guess CNN wants to be next to fall in the toilet with CBS.
Hostile takeover of CNN? when a new ceo comes through he can do whatever he wants you know. How much liberal propaganda will the market allow or bear?
This could easily be resolved with a transcript or tape recording.
Might be fun to do a list of the most overrated people in public life. Senator Byrd leaps to mind, David Gergen, Bill Moyers....
...and, of course, Howard Kurtz.
Dan
Which is why the tape won't be released.
Here's a thought, is Jordan trying to get fired before it becomes known that he had a few Oil vouchers from Saddam ?
Congressman Billybob
Of course, just because CNN doesn't want the tape released doesn't mean it won't be....
The same Gergen?
David Gergen Calls Timing of Berger Story 'Suspicious' (Morning Show News Wrap/Democratic Response)
ABC News ^ | 7/20/04 | Ted Davis and Nick Schifrin
Posted on 07/20/2004 10:30:23 AM EDT by gopwinsin04
All three morning news shows gave prominent attention to the news that former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is under investigation for alledegdly stealing classified information from the National Archives.
Pierre Thomas handled Berger duties for 'Good Morning America,' Pete Williams for the 'Today Show, and Bill Plante's piece on CBS Early Show actually focused on the 9/11 Comission's report in general, not on the Berger news.
David Gergen a former Clinton Democratic advisor vouched for Berger on NBC's Today program calling him a 'hero' in the war on terror, a man of 'utter integrity' and saying that is was 'suspicious' that this would leak just before the release of the 9/11 Commission report.
'It is not even clear to Berger that an investigation is still under way, Gergen said, 'and no charges have been brought against him.'
When NBC's Katie Couric followed up and asked Gergen if he was suggesting that this story might be coming out now as a 'distraction' from the 9/11 report, Gergen said, 'It has those overtones, Let's let more facts come out.'
Gergen said that he doesn't think the Gergen story 'refelects on Senator Kerry.' He did say however, that 'what would hurt the Kerry campaign would be if Sandy had to withdraw' from his role as an advisor to the Kerry campaign.
It seems that Howie is more about protecting his job than his credibility.
And five minutes after Zell Miller's speech at the RNC, Gergen was out there calling Miller a racist and bringing up decades old criticism.
This is simply more of the same and explains why no one their opinion makers seriously.
I mean really, Judy Woof-woof, Wolf Blitzed.......we all mock them.
The Washington Post is certainly aware that their employee, Kurtz, also hosts a show on CNN. If they believed that Kurtz was the logical person to cover the story -- it is, after all, his beat -- then why didn't they insert an editorial disclaimer at least alerting readers to the potential conflict of interest? That they did not is a clear indication that "full disclosure" is not in their interest.
At this stage, it seems to me we can only conclude that, not only is CNN intent on burying this story, the Post is complicit -- an accomplice after the fact.
So far as I'm concerned, if the MSM is that intent on covering up a story, it means there is a story (see Swift Boat Vets for Truth). For our part, then, we should be just as intent on keeping it alive.
Which do you think pays him more, WP or CNN?
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.