Monday, February 14, 2005
The Posturing Begins
The Eason Jordan story is now a cause for much posturing as the MSM fights for life. From the NY Times:
Not bad for the Times, but the piece goes on to describe that Easongate is very different than Rathergate because Rather did something very wrong in the rules of journalism while Jordan simply lipped off. A vague hint at the McCarthyism charge made in more rabid quarters.
The Wall Street Journal voices much the same opinion. Powerline has a good analysis of the Journal editorial.
I can't believe people still don't get this. I haven't read anything in a blog anywhere accusing Jordan of breaking the rules of journalism. He has stood accused of slander against the United States Military -- simple as that. The blog swarm resulted because of the semi-monopolistic nature of the MSM, and because we felt like people in positions of such importance should not be slandering the military. I don't think anyone called for his job because he did it poorly, ala Rather. I don't think anyone would have called for his job had his statements not been slanderous in nature.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. His statements were more than merely voicing an opinion. They were slanderous. Everyone is right in pointing out that he committed no journalistic gaffe. What he did was much worse.
With the resignation Friday of a top news executive from CNN, bloggers have laid claim to a prominent media career for the second time in five months.
Not bad for the Times, but the piece goes on to describe that Easongate is very different than Rathergate because Rather did something very wrong in the rules of journalism while Jordan simply lipped off. A vague hint at the McCarthyism charge made in more rabid quarters.
The Wall Street Journal voices much the same opinion. Powerline has a good analysis of the Journal editorial.
I can't believe people still don't get this. I haven't read anything in a blog anywhere accusing Jordan of breaking the rules of journalism. He has stood accused of slander against the United States Military -- simple as that. The blog swarm resulted because of the semi-monopolistic nature of the MSM, and because we felt like people in positions of such importance should not be slandering the military. I don't think anyone called for his job because he did it poorly, ala Rather. I don't think anyone would have called for his job had his statements not been slanderous in nature.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. His statements were more than merely voicing an opinion. They were slanderous. Everyone is right in pointing out that he committed no journalistic gaffe. What he did was much worse.
