Gut Rumbles

February 11, 2005

the most trusted name in news

I tried to ignore this bullshit, because CNN has lied to America for years. But after Rathergate, this case of journalistic clap just would NOT go away, even after clandestine penecillin doses. So, eason jordan resigned. I LOVE the way he did it, too:

Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy

What the fuck does that allegedly mean? Can you imagine CNN allowing a Republican politician to get away with that kind of mealy-mouthed excuse for being caught in an outright LIE that was damaging to the country's foreign policy during a time of WAR? They'd be all over his ass like flies on cowshit.

Stop. Listen carefully. Hear that? That's the sound of silence from the most trusted name in news over this flapdoodle. If any "tarnishing" occurred here, CNN did it to itself.

This tempest could have been quelled very quickly in ANY of three ways, if CNN really gave a shit about the truth. First, they could have stuck with Jordan's story and provided proof that he was CORRECT in his allegations. Okay, that idea is ridiculous because Jordan was talking out of his ass.

Second, Jordan could have released transcripts of the interview and ADMITTED that he was talking out of his ass, but that people didn't understand what he really MEANT and tried to talk his way out of it. That plan might have worked, because we have enough stupid Americans in this country to believe ANYTHING, no matter HOW insane it is, as long as they hear it often enough. (Don't believe me? Just try "Social Security Trust Fund.")

Third, they could have fired his ass right away and said "we don't put up with this kind of shit at CNN!!!"

CNN did none of the above. Instead, they stonewalled the problem, hoped that it would go away, and finally allowed Jordan to exit gracefully with that "I'm going down selflessly, to protect the most trusted name in news" bullshit. Yeah. He doesn't want the network "unfairly" tarnished.

No, if we call a senior executive of a major news network a got-dam liar and he is unable or UNWILLING to dispute those charges, that's about as unfair as it gets, isn't it? The next thing you know, we'll be expecting Peter Jennings to be an unbiased reporter.

What a crock of shit and bless the blogosphere for exposing it.


Now you done did it.

Next thing you know some leftie will be demanding you post about Jeff Gannon. Silly liberals, don't they know that asome guy like Rather or Jordan running off at the mouth is far more important than somebody having access to the President?

Posted by: Fred on February 11, 2005 11:39 PM

Whats with the Cats for pumpman at Grouchyoldcripple?
Is he trying to tell us something about you?

Posted by: Jeremy on February 12, 2005 12:27 AM

Oh sly Fred, would he know how useless gassey he blow, comparing Gannon to the Lewinski ho? Yea, that be real access to the President fo sho, if OBL be aware, bang they all go. Quite a boring show, silly Fred.

Posted by: Ga-ne-sha on February 12, 2005 05:14 AM

The members of the Main Stream Media were so proud of themselves for bringing down Nixon.

However, when the heat is applied to them they scurry into the shadows like cockroaches trying to cover-up their infractions .

Suddenly, their "heroic" efforts with Deep Throat and the rest of that era don't seem so heroic after all.

Posted by: bleedingbrain on February 12, 2005 05:37 AM

Another traitorous, seditious, TSM piece of shit bites the dust. Just another reason why the TSM continues it's slide into irrelevancy....after all, who watches CNN anymore? Blogosphere 2, TSM 0. This, and Rathergate, are just the start of the real "Information Revolution". Gawd, I love the smell of fully deep fried smells like......Victory!

Posted by: Vulgorilla on February 12, 2005 09:36 AM

It sounds like CNN was tarnished fairly!

Posted by: Cappy on February 12, 2005 10:04 AM

What lie did he tell? I understand from what I read and hear that he made an observation, gave an opinion. The rightwingnuts took offense and called into question his statments and then raised an army of net whores to get his ass fired. I know Eason Jordan. He is a good man. Fair and honest always.
His explanation, "``I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists," sounds right, sounds like Eason, and is good enough for me. Why would CNN want to fire him? Not for this. That is certain.

Posted by: Mark on February 12, 2005 10:23 AM


BS! He has said/implied it before in other forums. Fair and honest my ass.

Posted by: kartattack on February 12, 2005 10:34 AM

I was going to reply to Mark.
I had a good, rational response outlined in my mind.
Then I realized who (or what) would be the recipient.
Why bother, I have things to do. NASCAR is on TV.

Posted by: Dan Pursel on February 12, 2005 02:04 PM

Mark, you are so far behind the curve there is no curve. It's flattened out and receeding from you at the rate of infinity. You will always be this way, completely moronic. [My sincere apologies to the morons.]

Posted by: Ga-ne-sha on February 12, 2005 03:26 PM

Okay, maybe I'm a moron but I repeat, "what lie did he tell?"

Posted by: Mark on February 13, 2005 07:52 AM

Here, Mark. Go read this.

Posted by: StinKerr on February 13, 2005 11:52 AM

Eason's faux noble act of resigning from CNN so as to prevent it from being 'unfairly tarnished'... makes me ill.

On the contrary, it is fair that CNN be tarnished by its harboring and worse, lauding, of such a one as Eason. In fact, CNN & Eason are one and the same entity in terms of purveyors of perfidy and discarders of the merest adherence to journalistic ethics; a completely symbiotic relationship.

'Unfairly tarnished', indeed! In any case, that boat had long since left the dock.

Al Jazeera is looking for a buyer. I look for Ted Turner & Eason to head over that-a-way...

Posted by: Lark on February 13, 2005 01:18 PM

I read it. My question is still unanswered. "What lie did he tell?" Is it enough just to dislike a guy to call him a liar? That seems dishonorable to me. Did he lie or didn't he?

Posted by: Mark on February 13, 2005 03:54 PM

I was there. This is what I saw happen.

Posted by: Loic on February 13, 2005 04:40 PM

Mark, if you think the part about U.S. soldiers deliberately targeting journalists isn't a lie, the things people here have been saying about you are compliments.

Posted by: McGehee on February 13, 2005 06:30 PM

I haven't looked at La Shawn's take, but this might address the "what lie did he tell?" buffoonery.

Posted by: McGehee on February 13, 2005 06:40 PM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.