home

Vultures Surround Eason

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:46:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The right-wing blogosphere is falling all over itself hoping to bring down CNN's chief news executive, Eason Jordan. The left is ignoring it...with the exception of Jeanne D'Arc at Body and Soul who an excellent account today. Her piece is worth reading. The rest is hype and bunk.

This is just stunning. You don't have to buy any theories about the military deliberately targetting journalists to recognize that there's been a clear pattern throughout this war of indifference to the deaths of reporters, mixed in with a good deal of harrassment. In a truly democratic country, with any interest in freedom of the press, that would call for investigations and a serious look at what could be done to make sure reporters aren't killed by soldiers who are stressed or who haven't been given information they need.

In the country we live in, it invites the vultures to circle around our moribund press.

The right-wingers think they smell blood. Newsflash: Eason is not Trent Lott. Give it up already.

< Churchill Speech Tonight Back On at CU | Russ Feingold Answers Bloggers Questions >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Vultures Surround Eason | 47 comments (47 topical)
    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#1)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:01:28 PM EST
    Well, if Jeanne and you are certain there's no problem, then you ought to be calling for the tape to be released so the rightwingers can be properly shamed. Right? Either the tape shows Jordan saying something completely different than the righties claim he said, or he says what they claim he said and you think it's just dandy. In either case, getting the tape out would be a winner for you. Right?

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:03:53 PM EST
    What do you say to Richard's comment TL? Do you want to see the tape or not? I seem to recall a hue and cry about how we needed to see every last picture and video from Abu Ghraib - certainly we have an equal right to know here. Or do you have different rules for inconvenient information?

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:09:52 PM EST
    CNN feeds red meat to these guys in an attempt to avoid being overwhelmed by FOX, and they are surprised this happens???

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#4)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    RA and JR: Let's suppose you get your hands on the tape and Eason says everything you've heard. So what?

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:57:01 PM EST
    Now I wouldn't p*ss on Eason Jordan if he were on fire as I have never forgiven him or CNN from covering up for Saddam in return for news coverage. But this is just a legitimate witch hunt to me. :-) -C

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:59:12 PM EST
    Ahh, the right's outrage manufacturing machine is working at full capacity I see. I've said it before and I'll say it again--it amazes me how willing people on the fringes are to justify disgusting behavior for fear of losing some political ground.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:30:23 PM EST
    et al - Look. This is on tape, but for some reason the folks at Davos don't want to release the tape. That's nonsense, and CNN has the oomp to get it done. It is simple. He said it, or he didn't say it. Plus the tape will give context. Based on the reluctance - this story has been around for at least a week - of CNN and the MSM, I would say that Eason is going to be caught out big time and CNN will have to fire him or lose what small amount of creditibility they have left. But hey. Prove Me Wrong. Of course CNN can do nothing, and lose anyway. Sorry Sons of Ted. No hiding.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:31:19 PM EST
    Nothing new!

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:39:07 PM EST
    BTW - Is telling fibs? (Follow the link fro, Radioblogger.) "Senator Chris Dodd as well as Barney Frank, another Democrat, Senator Dodd, reported yesterday he's outraged by the comments that were made by Eason Jordan at the time." (Both were there.)

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:41:18 PM EST
    Wow. The link is to Hugh Hewitt with further linkage to Radioblogger. Eyeballs and fingers don't work well sometimes.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:48:14 PM EST
    Body & Soul writes: "[Jordan] failed to insert the disclaimer that of course the deaths were accidental -- a mistake he later rectified." How do we know that "the deaths were accidental"? Pure supposition.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:58:39 PM EST
    Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank are right wing extremists? Wow. Why not just ask CNN to release the tape and let us decide for ourselves?

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#14)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:59:36 PM EST
    Quaker: Then he needs to come up with evidence. Failing that--and the only evidence that it happened is that the complete and utter lack of evidence that it happened shows a coverup--he goes. As Rather should have. Journalists aren't supposed to make bleep up, you know. Even if you like it.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    These are very,very serious charges. I think that most of us would require some evidence before we made them. Even if you belive these things without evidence it's not the kind of thing that a responsible person would say at a meeting of World Economic Forum of supposedly well known journalists and others. Even if you are head of a news division at CNN.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#16)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:00:23 PM EST
    Failing that--and the only evidence that it happened is that the complete and utter lack of evidence that it happened shows a coverup--he goes. Absurd. Jordan wasn't presenting a news story. He was engaged in a discussion forum. He has a notion that doesn't square with the prejudices of the right-wing blogosphere so he should be fired? That's delusional.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#17)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:27:30 PM EST
    Quaker. He was presenting a scurrilous lie about US troops to some of the most influential people in the world. That disqualifies him from being the head of a news organization, particularly one which is trying to be trusted. This is what he either believes, which, in the absence of evidence, indicates he is irrational, or it is what he says but does not believe. Lying to people on matters of this sort disqualifies him from being the head of a news organization. Either one disqualifies him from the company of any human being with a scrap of integrity. And since CNN is at least pretending to try for credibility, it disqualifies him because his continued position of power within CNN makes it clear that they are not to be trusted. Prejudices? You mean stuff like, show us the evidence is a prejudice? Of course you do.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#18)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 10:04:22 PM EST
    Prejudices? You mean stuff like, show us the evidence is a prejudice? Of course you do. You need a refresher in mind-reading, Aubrey. The prejudices I'm talking about are thes ones you listed a little farther up regarding what disqualifies him for his job. Last I heard, the man is entitled to hold and express any opinion he wishes. He's even allowed to talk about those opinions with important foreigners. The righty bloggers have their pants in a wad that he dared to say something negative about the actions of the U.S. military. For this, they're calling for his head. Well, I've got the same suggestion here that I have regarding Professor Churchill. Before we decide to fire this guy, please tell us which other opinions we need to be on the lookout for. I mean, isn't it fair to tell us what opinions so offend the orthodoxy that they "disqualify us from the company of any human being with a scrap of integrity." Or is that just something you make up as you go along?

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#19)
    by bad Jim on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 11:29:00 PM EST
    Jordan was speaking of a dozen or so reporters who were killed by coalition troops. If all of their deaths were accidental, there are troops over there who are shooting anything that moves.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:00:23 AM EST
    He was presenting a scurrilous lie about US troops to some of the most influential people in the world. Standing in front of the UN and presenting scurrilous lies about WMDs in Iraq to some of the most influential people in the world is of course perfectly OK.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:37:51 AM EST
    Mithras: link something said by a rightwing jouurnalist in the last month, please.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#22)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:24:25 AM EST
    So much nonsense to address, so little time. Okay, Quaker. He stays on as head of CNN news and nobody pays attention to CNN news anymore except the twisted true believers. Does CNN and its parent company have to take the hit? Jordan has a right guaranteed by the First Amendment that Congress won't punish him for his speech. Says nothing about an employer. Since every intelligence agency in the world believed in WMD, it was not a lie. A lie is like activists do; when they know better. You'll remember the anti-war types who were afraid/hoped/warned that there would be massive US casualties from WMD? Being a journalist in a combat zone is dangerous. One moron got shot because he pointed a large video camera at a tank. A website you'd think beneath you showed the same type of camera from the front, along with a selection of antitank weapons. The difference was not immediately apparent, and the distance was about four feet. Point something at a soldier in the middle of a firefight? Time for Darwin to kick in. So, anyway, Jordan said "targeted" which is not the same as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So we need evidence, something lawyers are ambiguous about. In this case, the evidence wouldn't help, so your only concern is if the tape comes out and we actually have evidence of what Jordan said. BSing without evidence about the circumstances of the journos' deaths is just good tactics.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:26:12 AM EST
    et al - Why doesn't CNN demand the tape be released? They certainly have the power to get the job done. If they don't, then they have no creditability. What are they hiding? If they do, all the questions and charges are answered. Seems pretty simple. And then we have this from ReadGreg: He forgot to say that the deaths were accidental, but later corrected that mistake. Do we have any information what "later" means? And where, what and when was the correction made? And if the correction was made, then that means he said it. "I didn't make the mistake before I corrected it." That's almost Senatorial, or a least MA Senatorial.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:24:02 AM EST
    You know, there have been a lot of reporter deaths in the war. It is dangerous and these things happen. The people who send their reporters into this danger are human. They react. Some military officers are like that as well when they speak of the fun of shooting at the enemy or talk about our God being bigger than their God. Does't seem to cost these guys their jobs. Oh yeah, on WMD. There were none. Yes other intelligence services believed the Sadam probably had the weapons. However, their are degrees of certainty. Bush rushed to war because he did not want the inspectors to prove that Sadam had disposed of his weapons. WMD was always an excuse to go to war with Iraq in order to spread democracy and to show potential enemies not to mess with the U.S.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:04:04 AM EST
    J Mohr - And your point is? Eason is accused of making some very bad comments about our military. All indications are that he did. Let's play the tape and see what he said. And let's see when and where he made the "correction." Am I being too simple? Or, do you believe he made the statements and are now defending his comments on an "equivalent" basis? And "doesn't cost these guys their jobs?" Both the examples you cite are finished career wise. Surely you know that. Eason has the baggage of, as Cliff noted, not reporting the bad things Saddam was doing for 10 years just to keep a presence in Iraq for years. Now this. People at his level are expected to excercise good judgement. After all, Time Warner is owned by the stock holders. CNN's creditability is about 99% of their assests.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:35:54 AM EST
    If Eason is so evil, why does the Arab hating Jack Cafferty show up for work every morning? Maybe he's just a whore like the rest of us. Big deal. Release the tape. It'll come out sooner or later anyway.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:42:44 AM EST
    Quaker.... He has a notion that doesn't square with the prejudices of the right-wing blogosphere so he should be fired? A notion??? Kinda like the notion Dan Rather had? The righty bloggers have their pants in a wad that he dared to say something negative about the actions of the U.S. military. Something negative??? He accused them of intentionally targeting reporters!!!! That's a little more than something negative. Of course most of you lefties automatically think the worse of our own military and think we have been targeting civilians all along, so I can see why this is no biggie to people like you.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:51:47 AM EST
    Posted by Wile E. coyote at February 9, 2005 03:37 AM Mithras: link something said by a rightwing jouurnalist in the last month, please. Journalists spread lies about Social Security Plus, pick any commentary on Ward Chirchill. They constantly misrepresent his statements from 9-11. It's so much easider to knock down a straw man of your own invention, isn't it, wrongwingnuts? Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at February 9, 2005 06:26 AM "I didn't make the mistake before I corrected it." That's almost Senatorial, or a least MA Senatorial. But it is definitely pResidential. And very Fristian, as well as being considerably DeLayish.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:14:13 AM EST
    Tom.. Thanks for that great link to the "very left" media matters. I'm sure none of that stuff posted is in any way biased....LOL. Oh, and by the way, guys like Limbaugh & Hannity are not (and have never claimed to be) news journalists. They are commentators. There is a HUGE difference.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:30:23 AM EST
    Eason is accused of making some very bad comments about our military. All indications are that he did. Let's play the tape and see what he said. And let's see when and where he made the "correction
    I didn't even read the comments. Apparently he thinks that journalists have particularly been targets of friendly fire during the war and suspects that all cases may not be accidental. So what? What's the point of a tape? Did he manufacture evidence? Did he cover his theory in a news story. Last time I checked, there was a decidedly right wing bias and questionable political connections in the mainstream media. If the head of CNN news has a liberal bias in your opinion, don't watch him. I don't watch Bill O'Reilly, but I don't demand that his boss be fired for every stupid thing he says.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:34:36 AM EST
    Another point: Is this an unusual number of media folks killed by friendly fire? Does anyone have stats? If the increase is a percentage, not particularly representing reporters, what does this say about the training of our troops? How many civilians and soldiers have been victims and what amount is acceptable and what isn't? Is embedding the reporters inherently more dangerous? I think all of the above are valid questions, not some kind of treason, that should be asked and answered before one more of our kids has to go through the trauma of killing a fellow American or an innocent bystander.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#32)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:59:50 AM EST
    B.B. A notion??? Kinda like the notion Dan Rather had? C'mon, B.B. I'm sure even you can tell the difference between a person speaking his opinion and a news story presented on a major network. Can't you?

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#33)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 09:06:49 AM EST
    I'd been slacking, B.B., if I didn't comment on this as well: He accused them of intentionally targeting reporters!!!! That's a little more than something negative. A little more than something negative? OK, what is it? And whatever it is, why does it warrant his removal from his job? In the discussion on Ward Churchill, the excuse is "He's paid with taxpayer money! Shut him up!" Allright. Eason's not paid with taxpayer money. What's your excuse for demanding he be shut up for speaking his opinion? Let's recap: If you're a professor at a public university, you can't express unpopular opinions. If you're an executive with a major news organization, you can't express unpopular opinions. Anybody else we need to add to the list, B.B.?

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 09:30:35 AM EST
    Quaker.. A little more than something negative? OK, what is it? If you can't differentiate between "something negative" and an out & out accusation that our troops are purposely targeting newsmen, well, I can’t help you here. a person speaking his opinion and a news story presented on a major network This person is the head of a major news organization and his 'opinion' as you put it, is very detremental to the US military. What's your excuse for demanding he be shut up for speaking his opinion? I never demanded that, but I do demand an explination from him. Some proof...some facts maybe? If you're a professor at a public university, you can't express unpopular opinions. Sure you can... as long as you are prepared for the consequences. If you're an executive with a major news organization, you can't express unpopular opinions. Sure you can... as long as you are prepared for the consequences.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 09:32:44 AM EST
    Poker Player: Actually neither of the persons that I was referring to haa lost his job. Nor do I know that it will end their careers. There is a difference though in capping the upper mobility of the individual versus removing someone from their position. Each individual was in a position with direct control over government activities and the comments displayed attitudes related to their ability to carry out those governmental activities. I would also like to hear the tape with Eason. I note that the vultures are circling before the evidence is in. I also note that the right did not really object to the other two examples that I presented. I believe that Eason's comments reflected a personal frustration with the death of fellow reporters. I scarcely see where it would disqualify him from running the news department. He is not on the government payroll. Frankly, I abhor the tendencies on the right and the left to take one comment (usually unscripted) as the basis to tar and feather an individual. I think that it is better to determine whether there has been a series of such comments as well as the context of the remarks.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    Posted by B.B. at February 9, 2005 09:14 AM Tom.. Thanks for that great link to the "very left" media matters. I'm sure none of that stuff posted is in any way biased....LOL. You're welcome. I can say pretty much the same thing for Faux News, too. Which do you think most people would consider to be a source of news? Oh, and by the way, guys like Limbaugh & Hannity are not (and have never claimed to be) news journalists. They are commentators. There is a HUGE difference. But I wasn't referring to El Chupa Cabra or Spammity. Wolfie Blitzer and some of the media whores over at the Conservative News Network have repeatedly made that claim during their news broadcasts. The name of the program is Wolf Blitzer reports, is it not? As opposed to Wolf Blitzer makes up some kimchee to feed the mindless hordes. Which would be a little more accurate title IMHO...

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#37)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    and his 'opinion' as you put it, is very detremental to the US military. Codswallop. In what way does his opinion work to the detriment of our military? I'm not even going to ask for proof--make something up, but try to make it plausible. I never demanded that, but I do demand an explination from him. Some proof...some facts maybe? For the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume that the proof is there. He said exactly what you think he said. So what? If you haven't said he should be fired or made to shut up, what is your point? Sure you can... as long as you are prepared for the consequences. And the "consequences" should be what? Those consequences are the point of this discussion.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    Quaker... In what way does his opinion work to the detriment of our military? This guy is CNN's chief news exec. He's not some Hollywood schmoe just voicing an opinion. He accused the military of intentionally targeting journalists. Because of his position (as a chief exec) he is assumed to have privileged (inside)info so statements like this will draw attention. Inquireing minds want to know If you haven't said he should be fired or made to shut up, what is your point? My point is, he should fess up as to what he meant. Does he have proof of this? Was it said in jest ... in confidence to someone... or was it something he's angry about and is prepared to back up with facts. I'm not calling for his head...yet.. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but he needs to clarify what he said (meant). And the "consequences" should be what? If he is blowing smoke...(has no proof) then the people at CNN need to figure out the correct course of action. I for one don't really care what they do to him .. CNN sucks anyway. CBS never fired Danny boy so I just don't watch them anymore. It's all about credibility. At this point CNN has none.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#39)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:11:01 PM EST
    You're dodging, B.B. I asked: "In what way does his opinion work to the detriment of our military?" You answered by telling me what his position is and what knowledge some unknown person or person presumes he has. Do you have an answer to the question or are you taking a pass? You dodged again on this: "If you haven't said he should be fired or made to shut up, what is your point?" You answered by telling me what your point isn't. I already proposed we assume the evidence shows what you expect. Will you "call for his head" then? If so, why? (I suspect your answer will have something to your answer to question #1, should you ever decide to share it with us.) And finally this: "And the "consequences" should be what?" You answered that you don't care what the consequences are because you don't watch CNN. Then what, exactly, is your interest in this topic? Are you just out to tar a liberal?

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    for all you viet nam vets in the house, fragging, yes our military does kill its own in some situations, some were accidential some were probably murder that does not seem beyond the impossible. bad Jim at February 9, 2005 12:29 AM ...If all of their deaths were accidental, there are troops over there who are shooting anything that moves. you may already know this, but in a fire fight, thats pretty much what happens, the bushes move you test it with a three round burst. only if that last statement was literal.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    (:tom:) Plus, pick any commentary on Ward Chirchill. They constantly misrepresent his statements from 9-11. It's so much easider to knock down a straw man of your own invention, isn't it, wrongwingnuts? Commentary is not Journalism. There is a difference. You need to read your other post.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#42)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 03:40:34 PM EST
    Re: Eason Jordan - I agree with TL: move along, there's nothing to see here.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 03:48:19 PM EST
    The tape we HAVE seen is the one of the tank shelling of the journalist hotel during the invasion. Not a single sound of gunfire to support the LIES on the ground that this was 'returning fire.' I have a close friend who was an Army information officer, who was threatened again and again by troops who thought that he was documenting their warcrimes. This is not a new story, but the brazen manner in which journalists were targeted and killed in this illegal invasion is disgusting. When the lies spin out of control, those reporting the truth become the remaining bastion of morality. An illegal invasion with massive on-the-ground coverups puts everyone there in grave danger -- which is why, among other reasons, it is TREASON. Bushliarco told nothing but lies about what has gone on in Iraq. But try and report on Abu Ghraib, or any of the other scandals, and the thugs who arranged this rolling disaster have another 'oops' shooting on their conscience (such as it is). This unfortunately combines well with the issue of friendly fire MURDER resulting from the ordered use of amphetamines and downers by military pilots and others.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:37:17 PM EST
    Barney Frankly admits it's so.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#45)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 08:51:00 PM EST
    Paul, you just can't keep things straight, can you. The point about the hotel was a guy with some kind of vision device--possibly binoculars--who was suspected of spotting and adjusting fire. Turned out to be a journalist pointing a vision device at a tank in a fight. Darwin time.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 05:34:48 AM EST
    For what it's worth, Brett Stevens has an article out today link here that discusses what Eason actually said and the exchange between Eason and Barney Frank. Mr. Stevens was at the conference and heard it first hand.

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 08:18:49 AM EST
    Quaker... Do you have an answer to the question or are you taking a pass? I answered your question 3 times! Here goes #4 - He said the military is intentionally targeting news people... If you don't see that as detrimental to the military... I can't explain it any better. we assume the evidence shows what you expect. Will you "call for his head" then? If so, why? Because he lied about something he knew was false and reported it as news... ( AKA - Dan Rather) Then what, exactly, is your interest in this topic? Are you just out to tar a liberal? My interest in this (as in most other stories here on TL) is how quickly you lefties chastise our military (or police or the government..etc...etc.) before all the FACTS are in....and how quickly you'll jump to defend morons like this Churchill ass who claims the 9/11 victims had it coming. I'm just truly amazed!

    Re: Vultures Surround Eason (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    et al - again - My problem with this is that Jordan has a history of this type of stuff. First there was the "Tailwind" story that accused our troops of using nerve gas in Vietnam. That turned out to be untrue, and cost Peter Arnett, and the producers their jobs. Eason escaped that. Then we find out that CNN, under his watch, had withheld information on the torture, etc., that was going on in Saddam's regime, for just, basically "money." He wanted to keep a CNN presence in Iraq because that translated into ratings. Now this. "Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) heard Jordan make the comments last month. In an interview with the New York Sun earlier this week, Frank recalled Jordan saying that "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy." Listen up, people. That is Barney Frank. It is not Sean Hannity and/or Russ Limbaugh. You should be able to catch a clue on just that, alone. And to cap it off: "I presume Eason Jordan's job may be on the line over this," added the Connecticut Democrat, who was in the audience when Jordan spoke. "The best answer for him is to get that information out so you and others can watch it and draw your own conclusions about it." On Tuesday, Dodd's office released a statement saying he "was outraged by [Jordan's] comments," adding that he is "tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel." And that isn't Michael Savage. That's US Democratic Senator Dodd. Now, keep on defending. In the meantime CNN is joining CBS in writing: "How To Destroy a Great News Oganization and Learn to Love FNC."

    Vultures Surround Eason | 47 comments (47 topical)