CNN’s Skeleton and Eason Jordan’s Davos Gossip
I?m waiting for CNN to release the actual audio or a full-written transcript of Eason Jordan?s remarks in Davos, Switzerland. That will clarify and ?to pinch CNN?s word?properly ?contextualize? Jordan?s alleged anti-US slur. We do know this: Jordan?s statement –whether chitchat or slander– was made before an international audience that included a score of Third World elites. These are the ruling class fat cats who have a big say back home about who gets to do what. They are the movers and shakers who have power to influence industrial concessions and ?here?s the kicker in this analysis– with a wink and a nod can grant a news organization access to people and places. These elites are themselves potential news sources, bigshots who can add hardhitting soundbites.
Hugh Hewitt has a long post rich with links to discussion about Jordan’s gossip in Davos. The newsdissector.org site has an interesting slant. The CaptainsQuarters blog run by Ed Morrissey adds some historical depth. This post from powerline has an email passed on from Jordan which –as I read it– confuses rather than clarifies. (But go read it– that’s the fair thing to do.)
There are many reasons for CNN to make a full, complete disclosure, and they go beyond mere clarity of expression. I think this is the biggest: If Jordan did say he believes the US military ?targeted? journalists (implying physical targeting) then we need to hear his evidence?premeditated murder is more than political scandal, it?s crime. This would be a bigger crime than Abu Ghraib.
There?s a second reason: CNN has a corporate skeleton rattling in its closet, and the skeleton involves Jordan. It also involves a deal with a local ruling class?in this case, Saddam Hussein and his pals.
This is no allegation. Jordan wrote an essay for the NY Times admitting his network regularly withheld information about Saddam’s evil regime– because that’s what it took to keep the bureau open. (Here?s a link to the abstract of Jordans’ The News We Kept to Ourselves which ran in the NY Times on April 11, 2003. The abstract doesn’t do justice to the depravity of Jordan’s op-ed.)
I suspect we do not have all the facts on the CNN-Saddam deal, and in my view another major news organization should have investigated CNN?s admission. (If one did and I missed it, email me with a link.) Perhaps one of Baghdad?s new newspapers will take on that challenge, which would be deliciously ironic. But first let me make a few points some readers may find surprisingly sympathetic to CNN: News gathering in dangerous places often means negotiating with devils to get interviews, to travel, to simply get inside a prison society like Saddam?s. I do not mean making deals to deceive, but reaching careful, a priori understandings about the restrictions tyrants place on free journalists, such as where the reporter is allowed to go, whom he goes with, when he can file, etcetera. (Editors and reporters can ?and do?decide to reject such restrictions, God bless’em.) Why accept a travel restriction? Often a narrow window ?a narrowly framed report? can shed useful light in these hellholes. In an ideal world editors would append a note informing the reader of the specific restrictions the correspondent faced. But we don?t live in an ideal world, and an ?editor?s note? like that could get a correspondent jailed or killed if it irks the local tyrant. Editors have to weigh consequences, and a reporter killed in the line of duty is a severe consequence. Savvy readers, and tv viewers, learn to pick up on clues dropped by experienced correspondents.
As far I can tell, the CNN Baghdad situation wasn?t based on these real-world caveats. The network?s deal with the devil lasted a dozen years. The deal brought the network a commercial advantage over more tough-minded competitors. Moreover, CNN?s depiction of Saddam?s regime often differed, oh, a hundred degrees from the critical reporting of the NY Times? John Burns. (Saddam jailed Burns at least twice?underlining my point about the risk correspondents face.) Sure, CNN portrayed Saddam as a strong man ? but by the way, Iraqi children were dying. Though Saddam had invaded Kuwait and had a meanish streak, in CNN?s Iraq children died because of UN sanctions enforced by the US military. CNN played a ?he?s bad, but?? game. I?ll wager the journalistic excuse was ?balance??a balance Saddam and Baghdad Bob certainly appreciated. CNN?s ?balance? was of course anything but balance ?over the long haul I believe the network put a finger on the scale that gave Saddam undeserved moral and political weight. We now know the reason Iraqi children were dying: Saddam had corrupted the UN?s Oil For Food program and was skimming money that was supposed to buy medicine and food.
UPDATE” I came across this post from Michael Totten’s website which mentions Jordan’s NY Times’ essay but establishes a darker context. Here’s a quote from that post: “In October 2002, CNN?s news chief Eason Jordan told Franklin Foer of The New Republic that his network gave “a full picture” of Saddam?s regime.” He challenged Foer to find instances of CNN neglecting stories about Saddam’s horrors…In April 2003, Jordan admitted in a New York Times op-ed that CNN had learned some “awful things” about the Saddam?s regime that they were afraid to print for fear of losing access to live camera feeds.”
UPDATE 2: A commenter sends this link to a complete post of Jordan’s NY Times essay. Read it, think about it. Eason Jordan’s CNN submitted to intimidation. (Thanks for the link.)
UPDATE 3: The Jordan story has now exploded, thanks to the investigative efforts of Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt has pushed this story hard, and well he should. See powerline’s comments, too. Give Jordan one benefit– he’s upset at the death of journalists. We all are. I an also upset by the deaths of Iraqi civilians and coalition soldiers. But Jordan’s “passionate display” at Davos also had a big time business angle– the appeal to Third World elites I mention in my original post.
UPDATE 4: The Davos videotape does exist. The director of media for the Davos conference is in contact with the sisypheanmusings website. The tape is being duplicated and the site says a copy will be forwarded by next week. I can’t wait for this real-world clarification.
Distressing news indeed. I’m trying to collect as many links and updates as I can about these developments. The post is called The Eason Jordan Repository.
Comment by LB — 2/3/2005 @ 7:55 pm
You can find Jordan’s whole NYT op-ed here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/890515/posts
Comment by Mike Lech — 2/4/2005 @ 12:31 am
Here’s a handy pack of articles relevant to Eason Jordan: “CNN’s Access of Evil” by Franklin Foer, April 14, 2003, Opinion Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003336 “The awful news CNN had to keep to itself” by Eason Jordan, April 12, 2003, International Herald Tribune, first published as “The News We Kept to Ourselves,” April 11, 2003, New York Times http://www.iht.com/articles/92949.html “Bob Garfields’s Interview with Eason Jordan” [Relevant to Foer’s “CNN’s Access of Evil” above] October 25, 2002, WNYC Radio http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts/transcripts_102502_jordan.html “Air War - How Saddam Manipulates the U.S. Media” by Franklin Foer, Posted Oct. 16, 2002, Issue: Oct. 28, 2002, The New Republic http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22broad+swath+of+the+TV%22 And for further perspective: “John Burns: ‘There Is Corruption in Our Business’” [Interview] Sept. 15, 2003, Editor & Publisher http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1979014 Burns: “…. CNN’s Eason Jordan’s op-ed piece in The New York Times missed that point completely. The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us. Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of one percent of the people of Iraq. So why not tell the story of the other people of Iraq? It doesn’t preclude you from telling about terror. Of murder on a mass scale just because you won’t talk about how your driver’s brother was murdered.”
Comment by ForNow — 2/4/2005 @ 1:22 am
Here’s a handy pack of articles relevant to Eason Jordan: “CNN’s Access of Evil” by Franklin Foer, April 14, 2003, Opinion Journal http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003336 “The awful news CNN had to keep to itself” by Eason Jordan, April 12, 2003, International Herald Tribune, first published as “The News We Kept to Ourselves,” April 11, 2003, New York Times http://www.iht.com/articles/92949.html “Bob Garfields’s Interview with Eason Jordan” [Relevant to Foer’s “CNN’s Access of Evil” above] October 25, 2002, WNYC Radio http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts/transcripts_102502_jordan.html “Air War - How Saddam Manipulates the U.S. Media” by Franklin Foer, Posted Oct. 16, 2002, Issue: Oct. 28, 2002, The New Republic http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22broad+swath+of+the+TV%22 And for further perspective: “John Burns: ‘There Is Corruption in Our Business’” [Interview] Sept. 15, 2003, Editor & Publisher http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1979014 Burns: “…. CNN’s Eason Jordan’s op-ed piece in The New York Times missed that point completely. The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us. Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of one percent of the people of Iraq. So why not tell the story of the other people of Iraq? It doesn’t preclude you from telling about terror. Of murder on a mass scale just because you won’t talk about how your driver’s brother was murdered.”
Comment by ForNow — 2/4/2005 @ 9:40 am
check out the good PR that Saddam got, in addition to silence about horrors, when he bought Eason Jordan. Thanks, Jack Risko http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/02/04/what-saddam-bought-when-he-bought-eason-jordan/
Comment by jack risko — 2/4/2005 @ 10:05 am
I remember reading Jordan’s NYT essay and wondering how in the world CNN expected to regain the trust of the news watching public. Apparently they felt that there was no trust lost and Eason Jordan remains in his position, CNN relied on short attention spans and forgetfulness. However, if I’m forced to watch CNN - especially the news from other countries around the world, I automatically assume they are either shading the truth or outright lying unless the story is corroborated elsewhere. Sadly for CNN, in this latest mess, there is no way I can give Jordan the benefit of the doubt. CNN is going to have to prove that what he said, when seen or heard in context, is significantly different from the hearsay reports we are receiving. Since they are dragging their feet over this, it looks as though the hearsay is substantially true. It also looks as though CNN is hoping that we’ll lose interest and they can let this slide as they did the original essay by Jordan.
Comment by Teresa — 2/4/2005 @ 10:20 am
In Gulf War I, staying on the air in Baghdad MADE CNN. The vast majority of the war was fought from the air and downtown Baghdad was where the action was. Eason Jordan and CNN sacrificed their reputation to remain there for this war. In a twist of irony, this time the truth was carried by embedded journalists while people in Baghdad had the amusing tales from “Baghdad Bob”, the Iraqi Information Minister. In this case, it was the “jouranlist” who fought the last war. It’s very telling that Eason Jordan lied FOR Saddam Hussein and is now lying AGAINST the United States.
Comment by Paul — 2/4/2005 @ 10:37 am
A small point, but, I’m not in the least inclined to give Eason credit for being ‘upset’ at the death of journalists. As you correctly point out, we’re all upset at the death of innocents. But journalists are his people.
Comment by JonofAtlanta — 2/4/2005 @ 12:52 pm
I wonder how worried Ed Murrow was about losing access to live camera feeds from Berlin during World War II. Do you think he would have made any embarrassing deals with Hitler for the privilege?
Comment by kcom — 2/4/2005 @ 4:28 pm
Ah - I see your update says that they are going to duplicate the tape and will have it done by… next week. I rest my case - they ARE trying to drag it out, hoping that people will lose interest, or better yet a bigger story knocks it out of the way. I guess they still haven’t figured out how blogs work yet… It amazes me that people with such a low comprehension factor are able to run news networks.
Comment by Teresa — 2/4/2005 @ 5:45 pm
I wonder how worried Ed Murrow was about losing access to live camera feeds from Berlin during World War II. Do you think he would have made any embarrassing deals with Hitler for the privilege? A man named Walter Duranty made just such a deal with Joseph Stalin in the 1930’s. He continued in employment with The New York Times for many years, misrepresenting what was going on in the Soviet Union and helping them. Ultimately he won the Pulitzer Prize. This is nothing new. What is new is that we don’t have to wait decades to find out now that we have the blogosphere.
Comment by Richard Heddleson — 2/5/2005 @ 9:53 am
I disagree with you on just about everything.
Comment by free squirting female ejaculation — 2/24/2005 @ 9:10 pm
Thank you! Chinese Apes.
Comment by Yellow Monkey — 3/1/2005 @ 3:43 am
Paxil
Comment by Paxil — 4/19/2005 @ 9:30 pm
Your blog was great! The time spent reading it was well spent! There should be more people like you that write interesting blogs! You’ve done a great job so I tell you to keep up the good job! acne
Comment by acne — 5/7/2005 @ 4:05 pm
[…] But the unmitigated evil Saddam inflicted on his own people was not as well known throughout the world even though there were Western reporters living in Iraq. They made a deal with the devil however, considering it more important to keep a broadcast outfit in Baghdad than in telling the truth about the fearful state that Iraq had become. […]
Pingback by The Wide Awake Cafe » A Quintessence of Evil — 12/31/2006 @ 2:36 pm