Gut Rumbles

February 14, 2005

lynch mob

Well... I DO know how to tie the proper knot...

I believe a lot of the reaction I've seen in both MSM and blogs miss the real importance of the Eason Jordan affair. Bloggers burnt Trent Lott, Harold Raines, Dan Rather and now Eason Jordan. That's no lynch mob out there doing that. It's people watching the watchdogs--- the MSM--- and with very little effort they find a lot of crap and now have a way to let other people know about it. The watchdogs aren't looking really good in this fight so far. Too much crap is there to be discovered, and they don't handle crap-discovery very well, probably because they are so acustomed to NEVER having anyone question them.

I believe that those days are fading fast. Blogging isn't going to go away--- it's going to get BIGGER, and that fact bodes ill for people who don't like to be fact-checked. Blogging won't change the world, but I'll bet it makes MSM nervous. Bloggers can damn sure change some BOSSES in MSM.

I believe that the more eyes we have watching, the safer the store. Journalism is no different. That's not a lynch mob out there exposing egregious mistakes in reporting. It's a bunch of individual citizens who want to keep the watchdog honest.

And I think it's a damn good thing.


Um, I think you mean Eason Jordan.

It was Jayson Blair at the New York Times.

Posted by: Ralph Gizzip on February 14, 2005 09:29 PM

I can't tell if this is a parody of idiocy or the real thing.
Your use of 'MSM' is an affectation to sign your inside- the- loop credentials is laughable. Getting Eason Jordan's name wrong is a red flag signaling your lack of credibility. First you accused Jordan of lying. There is no evidence that he lied about anything. He made what turned out to be an unpopular observation and gave his opinion about a serious and unfortunate situation where a dozen journalists in Iraq were killed in often dubious circumstance--like the US shelling of the Rashid Hotel, the floor and the rooms used by journalists. He made these comments in a closed, off-the-record session of a private meeting.
Regardless of whether or not you believe American military personnel might deliberately, or recklessly target working journalists, surely you must see why a man whose job it is to hire, supervise, and support working journalists might be concerned about their safety. I know Eason Jordon and I would trust him to do well by me always. I don't know that I would always agree with his opinions, but I know him to be an honorable man. He didn't deserve this and he doesn't deserve the abuse he's getting from you and your commenters.

Posted by: Mark on February 14, 2005 09:35 PM

Right On, Rob!
The Blogs are a gift from God. Finally we've got a source who's first priority is TRUTH.

Posted by: Jim Long on February 14, 2005 09:36 PM

Hey Mark, the New York Times is looking for people like you . The pay is great and you've got what it takes.

Posted by: Jim Long on February 14, 2005 09:39 PM

Eason Jordan has a knack for indefensible remarks, including a 2003 New York Times op-ed in which he admitted that CNN had remained silent about Saddam's atrocities in order to maintain its access in Baghdad. That really was a firing offense in my view. But CNN stood by
Jordan back then -- in part, I suspect, because his confession implicated the whole news organization. Now CNN is throwing him
overboard for this much slighter transgression, despite faithful service.
through his entire adult career.

Posted by: Mark on February 14, 2005 09:45 PM

Ralph fact-checked me and I corrected the post. I fucked up. (Thank you, Ralph, you picky bastid!)

I believe that Mark has personal issues, but they don't affect me. I just say Jordan behaved more like Michael Jackson than a courageous reporter when the shit hit the fan.

Why stonewall the way he did? That makes no sense to me unless the knee-jerk reaction from MSM when caught with their pants down is to scream, "HIDE IT!!!" I don't like that policy.

Let's just wait and see what the scene is five years from now.

Posted by: Acidman on February 14, 2005 09:47 PM

Why don't you "hide it" in Jeff Gannon. Now there is one fat faggot fake journalist who deserves your scorn. How's that for an issue?

Posted by: Mark on February 14, 2005 09:55 PM

Hey Mark, you whiny-assed liberal, why does it matter that Jeff Gannon, a gay hooker with a $20,000 I.R.S. debt, got a rare as hen's teeth press pass and ended up lobbing softball questions to the White House press spokesman.

Big deal. He was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House.

Posted by: Jeph on February 14, 2005 10:09 PM

I love it. You post about Howell Raines, Dan Rather and Eason Jordan, and the moonbats come swooping in to throw in your face this Jeff Gannon nobody.

31 years after bringing down a president, they're reduced to scrounging through the garbage cans of somebody none of us would have heard of if only Rush Limbaugh hadn't caught that one press conference and talked about that one question.

I just love it.

Posted by: McGehee on February 14, 2005 11:05 PM

Marks second post seemed very familiar to me, so I did some back tracking of what I have read today. It seems his words are not his own. They have been lifted from an editorial by The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board named "The Jordan Kerfuffle". You can find it here. (see towards the bottom of the page)
I read about the WSJ editorial on Michelle Malkin's blog this morning.
These words may be Marks true feelings but he did not put much effort into stating his own thoughts. Lazy writers syndrome maybe???? . Perhaps his intellect is just as lazy??????


Posted by: Tom on February 15, 2005 12:28 AM

Mark: Eason Jordan made a statement of intended truth, the substance of which was confirmed by David Gergen who was the moderator of the conference. And by others.

The statement others heard Jordan make was that American troops had targeted and killed 10-12 American journalists.

Jordan gave then and has never given since any evidence to back this claim, which is therefore a lie, since he admits he has no such evidence.

It is the kind of lie in which an authority states something to be true without having anything at all to back it up with.

Jordan cannot excuse himself from having lied by claiming later that he had no basis at all to know if it was true. He instead in effect admits he was lying.

So the first question is why he did not immediately correct his statement while at the conference. Claiming the conference was "off-record" does not allow him to lie.

But the conference was not even "off-record". The term does not apply to a conference of a bunch of people, some of whom did not think they were sworn to secrecy merely because it was pronounced to be "off-record" by someone's fiat.

Nothing off-record exists unless everyone makes this explicit deal. You don't simply get to impose it as a condition of being at the conference. Or even if it is a condition, it is not a blanket which covers all possible topics.

But, again, several well-known people, including Gergen and Barney Frank, did not think the proceedings were off-record. Why would anyone want to cover up and not further talk about what sounded either like a damning fact or a bald lie by a senior official at CNN?

This was a conference involving many people who deal with just such issues. What are they supposed to do with Jordan's claim? Take it to their grave? Go on a wild goose chase? Conclude that Jordan was lying? No, they aired it out as they were perfectly free to do. Apparently they were quite astounded by the claim they heard Jordan to make.

No one demanding evidence for the substance of what Jordan apparently claimed as truth would have been unduly upset if Jordan had instead simply said very soon after he made his false assertion: "Yes, I don't know what got into me, what I said was false. I have no real evidence that American troops have targeted and killed American journalists. I apologize for having misrepresented what is the truth as far as I know it."

But Jordan did not do anything until people in the blogosphere had raised a storm over the question what he said and meant, after someone who had been at the conference and had even worked for Jordan at one time reported it. I think it was a lady named Kinney who also has her own blog and discussed what she heard Jordan say there.

You can see the whole progression of things at Jeff Jarvis' site. [Jarvis voted for Kerry]. The whole episode is very revealing regarding the way the MSM works and operated in this case.

Even as of now, the tape or video has not been released, which might show even more of what Jordan said and its context, and some responses.

But let's say a recording does not exist. Then why was Jordan released from CNN, or why did he resign? Either he knew he really screwed up, or the CNN honchos thought so.

It was among these people that the decision was made, not the bloggers who forced it by simply asking for the exact statement [which, again, Jordan has not even tried to put out from memory].

A storm of baseless speculation cannot force someone to resign or honchos to fire him, though this kind of thing might make it not possible to confirm someone nominated to a post.

Jordan's problems go way back and have been enabled by a failure of the MSM to deal with realtiy.

Now the internet allows a public scrutiny never existing before. Much more of this kind of thing is going to occur because the problems of the MSM are systemic and endemic. It simply does not know how to seek truth in a rational, scientific, logical way, the evidence for which we see every day.

It is this fact which discredits the MSM and causes people to lose their jobs.

Posted by: Ga-ne-sha on February 15, 2005 12:48 AM

Ganesha says,
"It is the kind of lie in which an authority states something to be true without having anything at all to back it up with."

THIS is a definition of a lie? Woe! mental midget.
I guess this means all opinions are lies. Intuitiion is deceit. Jesus, love and WMDs are lies.

We're in trouble now.

Tom is quite right. I did lift the post about the 2003 NYT affair from an unattributed source. My bad. The point though, that corporate CNN stood by him then is important. Because CNN has changed and they no doubt found Jordan an expensive pain-in-the-ass. He makes them spend money on news they no doubt would rather spend on new blonde bimbos like Paula Zahn.

[Flash] News is a business. Dollars drive policy a lot harder than politics. (Except at Fox which makes dollars exploiting their corporate political mind set.)

Posted by: Mark on February 15, 2005 07:53 AM

What a fucking shit storm! I love you Rob, and the horse you rode in on. Really, I think this is much to do about little. If Eason had a nut in his ball sack he'd stand up and defend himself. If he won't, why entertain anthing a third party says in defense? I don't understand liberals and never will, but I know some who are sincere. "It's not that our friends on the left are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so!" R. Reagan.

Posted by: Ed on February 15, 2005 08:29 AM

Listen to the gay baiting from the liberals. Their tolerance is obviously contingent upon political affiliation.

Posted by: Brett on February 15, 2005 08:38 AM

Mark, my Jolly Giant: you can fall back upon the "anything is possible, therefore anything I say is only an opinion, and therefore not possibly a lie" argument or definition of what is or is not a lie.

As I said, however, I consider a form of lie one in which a purported expert makes a statement of intended truth for which s/he has exactly no evidence for.

When you ask an expert, or at least one whose job and personal experience exactly relates to what you want to know, a question, and s/he simply pulls something out of his or her ass to say to you as though it is truth, merely because it might be possible as truth, do you call it an opinion just because, yes, it might be possibly true?

Even if you then travel a bridge which might be structurally weak and you end up crashing to the bottom of a chasm because it's "possibly" safe?

I call it, and the like, an intended lie. You can call it what you want, and you have.

A simple unsolicited pronouncement, if not covered with a proviso as to its totally wild claim on the basis of mere possibility stands the same, at least in my book of Mental Midgetdom.

Surprisingly, I can think up any possibility myself without having to listen to someone else letting me know that, yes Virginia, anything is possible. Was Jordan merely trying to apprise the esteemed members of the Davos Conference of this startling fact?

There is no use arguing over definitions of words. It would be nice to see exactly what Jordan said in order to analyze it. But Jordan himself chose to not even reconstruct it from memory, which would have given him a good chance of not losing his job and appearing to go down in his own flames. But he did not, thus appearing to confirm that what he said was of a fairly indefensible nature, whether you want to call it a "lie" or not.

Yours, in Midget's supplication and in recognition of your Holly Jolly Giant Brain superiority......

I am The Diminishingly Small, Poor Gay Gunga Din.

Posted by: Ga-ne-sha on February 15, 2005 12:12 PM

Jesus shit A-man, teach this nitwit how to write a simple declarative sentence. I can't figure out what the fuck he's saying--and he takes so long to say it. And what the fuck is Ganesha anyway? What kind of dickweed made up name is that?

Posted by: Noby on February 15, 2005 07:00 PM

Don't hurt my feelings or humiliate me, NOBY. You might "create" a terrorist. BTW, was I addressing you?

Ok, I get it, you are Mark the Giant Liberal.

Now repeat back to me, Mark, in simple declarative sentences, what I said above. I'll bet you can't do it.

Posted by: Ga-ne-sha on February 15, 2005 07:39 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.