Whether he said the words that got him in trouble or not, CNN’s Chief News Excutive Eason Jordan has quit, a victim of delayed response to a snowballing media and blog controversy — and of his own inexplicable stonewalling:
NEW YORK — CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amidst a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq.
Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being “unfairly tarnished” by the controversy.
During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum last month, Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted.
He quickly backed off the remarks, explaining that he meant to distinguish between journalists killed because they were in the wrong place where a bomb fell, for example, and those killed because they were shot at by American forces who mistook them for the enemy.
“I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise,” Jordan said in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.
But the damage had been done, compounded by the fact that no transcript of his actual remarks has turned up. There was an online petition calling on CNN to find a transcript, and fire Jordan if he said the military had intentionally killed journalists.
Jordan’s fall from grace — and from his high position in the media world — may be studied some day for the truly bumbling steps in his handling of this affair that left him looking less a CNN bigwig than a Nixon administration official working on Watergate damage control and trying to prevent the Oval Office tapes from getting into the hands of Congress:
- The remarks came out and were allowed to hang out there and fester.
- He failed to call a news conference and deal directly with reporters on the issue and kill the press with contrition. Even if he made the comments he could have been apologetic enough EARLY ON halt bleeding to CNN’s corporate — and his own — image.
- The failure to demand release of a known tape of his comments only fanned heated allegations that he and CNN didn’t want the tape to come out because they feared what it would contain.
Writes Glenn Reynolds:”I think we know what the video would have shown, now. It wasn’t a case of the video not turning up, but of it not being released. I think that Jordan could have quickly defused this by just saying “I screwed up,” but — as with Trent Lott — he waited days while hiding behind a lame and unpersuasive explanation.”
Meanwhile, all of this could not come at a worse time for CNN when it is locked in a frenzied battle to try and regain viewers lost to Fox News, which conservatives consider “fair and balanced” as opposed to what they consider a liberal slant at CNN.
Jay Rosen has Jordan’s full statement, which raises the question: how could someone in the news biz be so blind as to the impact of a PERCEPTION that he made an inflammatory statement (whether he made it or not)? Why wasn’t that tape released to clear it up ASAP or, if it was negative,why wasn’t there an attempt to issue an aplogy to move on? PREDICTION: There will still be demands that the tape be released.
SIGNIFANCE: All this underlines the mega-second infomovement due to blogs, talk radio (left and right), and the cable news networks.
And – significantly — it also underlines the slow-as-a-turtle role of the mainstream broadcast news departments these days. They were not even players in this story.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER VOICES ON THIS ISSUE. Here’s a roundup:
—Jeff Jarvis:
I honestly don’t get it. If he had been upfront about what he said from the start; if he had demanded that Davos release the tape and transcript; if he had admitted to putting his foot in his mouth and apologized and said he was wrong; if he’d done that, he’d still have a job. For a lesson, see: Dan Rather. But he released obfuscating statements and didn’t level with the public he’s supposed to serve and now he’s slinking away like a criminal when he should be apologizing for saying something stupid. Pride goeth with the fall.
—John Hawkins:”First, bloggers dragged down Trent Lott. After that, Dan Rather was the next big name to go down under the relentless fury of the blogosphere’s assault. Well, now we can add another name to that list, because Eason Jordan has been overwhelmed by the swarm…”
—Jay Rosen:”I told Howard Kurtz I was surprised and didn’t know of any firing offense. Of course I haven’t seen the tape.”
—Jason Van Steenwyk:
Eason Jordan is really quitting to avoid putting CNN in a position where they had to cover the story. Really, it’s not so much what he said that tarnishes CNN or anyone else. Anyone can say something stupid, and anyone can mispeak himself. What disgraces CNN, and what really disgraces Big Media, including the Washington Post, including the New York Times, including AP, is their refusal to seriously cover the controversy in the first place.
What was his easy way out? Simple. Release the tapes, and say, “you know, I shot my mouth off without thinking. I was being excessively glib at what I thought was a closed meeting, but if I’d had any brains I would have backed off immediately. It was just a dumb thing to say.” Or, if he really thought these allegations were credible, he could have explained why he thought they were credible. nstead he resigns. And I’ll bet he feels real sorry for himself too. As some of my friends from Detroit would say: “What-evah!”
—Michelle Malkin has a variety of points plus some great updates. A few of her points:”How brave of him to hand in his resignation on Friday night….So he resigned to prevent CNN from being “unfairly tarnished.” Rich. …What about the videotape? Will he ask the World Economic Forum to release the tape to help clear the air and remove the unfair tarnish?…Will this story finally make CNN Headline News? At 7:20pm, Anderson Cooper has “breaking news.” Nope, not Eason Jordan’s resignation. It’s about a guy being rescued from the L.A. Basin.”
—James Joyner:”The pajama clad blogosphere strikes again.”
—Media Drop:
Am I surprised that he has resigned at this point from CNN? Yes, I definitely am. Do I expect Jordan to turn up elsewhere in the news industry? Absolutely.
However, I think this is another moment when triumphalism, especially by bloggers, might get a little overboard. I’ve already seen “scoreboards” on two different website comment sections, and one would presume that there are more. Let’s all continue to realize that this isn’t just a way to “take down” people that some people may disagree with. The last thing bloggers want to be known as is for being good at writing hit pieces.
I have to believe this sudden resignation means Mr. Jordan’s superiors had a chance to review the World Economic Forum video and realized (especially after Rathergate) that their position was untenable, and that further stonewalling could be disastrous. I’d still like to see the video.
—Centerfield:”Jordan immediately tried to distance himself from the remarks, claiming he was taken out of context and was misunderstood.”
—La Shawn Barber has a TON of links and other material. She writes:
Readers speculate that there’s more to this story, too. CNN decided to cut its losses for a reason. Another reader notes that Jordan announced his resignation after the news cycle, but there’s no such thing in the blogosphere. Bloggers were the momentum behind this story, and don’t ever let anybody convince you they (we) weren’t.
—Polipundit:”Another One Bites the Dust.”
—Digby:
Hooray for the new media! If you say the military should murder journalists it’s kewl. If you say the military has murdered journalists (and apologized) you’ll be run out of town on a rail. Got that? Oh, and if you are a Democrat you can just STFU and give mistress Coulter what she needs. I’m reminded that everyone was warned about all this long ago. Susan Sontag didn’t listen. Ward Churchill didn’t listen. Eason Jordan didn’t listen.
—Ed Driscoll:”Chalk up another win for the Blogosphere–there’s no way this story would have gained any traction without it. And as Hugh Hewitt described it earlier this week, it’s official–CNN really is “The Most Busted Name In News”.
—Just One Minute:”Whoa. We are going to be insufferable now, baby. (Weren’t we?)”
—The Political Teen:”The moral of the story is: If you give out fake, asinine stories get ready to be roasted by the blogosphere. Did this guy not learn by ‘Rathergate’?”
—Oliver Willis headline:”Righties Got Their Scalp” After running Jordan’s resignation statement, he writes:”Now, back to the phony White House plant reporter. Ahem.”
—Kevin Aylward:
I think the record reflects that the last quoted paragraph does not jibe with the notes of those who attended the World Economic Forum panel. Perhaps the WEF gave him notice that it intended to release the tape? Jordan ignored the Lott/Reins/Rather rule of dealing with blog swarms: It’s the stonewalling and coverups that do you in…Regardless… Now is the time for the World Economic Forum to release the tape!!!
I think Eason Jordan resigned because he knew that if the Davos tape came out it would make the situation worse, not better.
I know there are a number of people involved with the World Economic Forum who think the WEF needs to completely re-think its media/blogging and on/off record policies. It was a great thing that the WEF started a blog this year, inviting conference participants to post their impressions and thoughts. I encouraged them to do this. Unfortunately, the WEF’s operating norms are not compatible with the age of the blog. Jordan’s demise is the frightening result. I am amazed that anybody in this day and age still expects a gathering of more than 10 people to remain off the record.
—Arthur Chrenkoff:”If Eason Jordan is really resigning (Update: he just did) over his recent comments that US troops are deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq, he will become a victim of his own friendly fire and the only media professional to bite the bullet, so to speak, on the issue. What surprises me about the whole affair is that Jordan has not even made a new and shocking claim but merely repeated an accusation which had been frequently raised over the past year and a half by other professional groups, including:”
—Cerdipity:”Why would he do this when he knows it to not be true? It’s simple really–he’s been playing to the European ‘elites’ and Arab leadership. Playing the same game with them that he played with Saddam…When the going gets tough, the tough get going…freshening up their resumes, and out the door, I guess.”
—The Glittering Eye raises some intriguing questions:”Why didn’t Mr. Jordan just acknowledge his mistake? Why didn’t Big Journalism run with this story?…Is there some larger purpose served by this story and the Jason Gannon story, which the left side of the blogosphere is crowing about? Or is it all just counting coup?”
—Dale Franks:”The blogosphere is not a cause of this new ability to disseminate information, it is symptom of it. There are simply too many ways for information to make it into the public domain now. Cozy decisions by the Old Boys Network to keep things under wraps have become much less effective. The channels can’t be dammed anymore.”
—PrestoPundit has a lot of links and writes:”When the blogosphere has lock-on, journalists tremble.”
—Cori Dauber:
Maybe what Eason Jordan said was a firing offense and maybe it wasn’t, but this, it seems to me, is now a test for the media. They barely covered the controversy and when they did for the most part they made sure their readers got no sense of why anyone would have been upset. Now they have no choice but to cover Jordan’s resignation. Will they explain why he felt compelled to resign?
The right-wing blogs seem to be the Supreme Court of the blogging community at large. Why should this be so? Why are no other rational voices important?
There was never a fair hearing anywhere in the blogworld or in the mainstream media over this case. There was only conjecture and a big agenda, which was to round up enough right-wing activists in the monkey-machine to petition CNN in the hopes they’d fire a man who was branded as a devil for daring to speak out for journalists’ protection in a conference most believed was, for the most part, a private panel discussion….
CNN failed to realize, recognize, and appreciate the power of blogs who are in lock-step league with those in the “new media” who are trying to destroy the long-accepted scope and meaning of a journalist’s freedom of speech. If that’s “new media”, count me out.
—Robin Burk:”Is this good news? Yes, insofar as a powerful man has been finally held to account for what the WSJ called ‘defamatory innuendo’….But perhaps this isn’t entirely good news. For one thing, Jordan hasn’t really admitted his pattern of allegations and, without the Davos videotape, many will probably believe his claim that he was misunderstood. I worry that the result is an escalating cycle of partisan mobblogging and counterattacks.”
Well, Eason Jordan has quit his job at CNN, and after observing the near-monomania of the conservative commentariat on the subject of this man — day after day after day after day — I think it’s clearer than ever that the same charge can be leveled against the right.
Right-wingers simply hate liberals, and people they believe are liberals (the entire mainstream media, for example), more than they hate bin Laden and Zawahiri and Zarqawi. We are the real enemy…Note: Yes, we on the left had some fun for a couple of days with the pseudonymous superpatriotic rent boy Jeff Gannon. But one or two lefty blogs went all Gannon, all the time. The rest of us cheered, but quickly moved on.
In the wider world, throw in Trent Lott, Ward Churchill, and Jeff Gannon — and probably some others I’ve forgotten about — and you start to wonder: is this really the blogosphere’s biggest contribution to public discourse? Collecting scalps?
Sure, these guys bear varying amounts of culpability and deserve varying amounts of criticism, but if you take a look at the standard history of the blogosphere it becomes clear that its best known incidents on both left and right — Lottgate! Rathergate! Easongate! — all revolve around public figures being viciously hounded out of their jobs. Positive accomplishments, conversely, are pretty thin on the ground.
I guess we all have our own ideas of what the blogosphere is good for. But when the history books are finally written, I hope that cranking up the politics of personal destruction yet another notch isn’t what we end up being most famous for.
—Corriente:”OK, another winger wank-fest has come to its sad, and inevitable conclusion, and CNN executive Eason Jordan has resigned. (“First, they came for Dan Rather….”)….It’s OK to hound an executive who can’t field softball questions out of his job—unless that executive is the winger chief executive of the United States.”
—Richard Reeb:
There are a few conservative folks who are a little squeamish about bloggers going after liberals who regularly defame everyone from the President to the American military (see Brett Stephens at the Wall Street Journal Friday), but it is surely wrong to let defamation pass unanswered or unrefuted and the wrongdoer unpunished. Remember just how fast the power or career ends of a conservative or just a non-liberal person when Old Media decide to hammer them for some politically unacceptable and non-defamatory remark or two.
UPDATE II: Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz’s resignation report contains criticism of blogs’ role as essentially negative, such as:
Even as he said he had misspoken at an international conference in suggesting that coalition troops had “targeted” a dozen journalists and insisted he never believed that, Jordan was being pounded hourly by bloggers, liberals as well as conservatives, who provided the rocket fuel for a story that otherwise might have fizzled….
Blogs operated by National Review Online, radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt and commentator Michelle Malkin were among those that began slamming Jordan last week after a Davos attendee posted an online account, but the establishment press was slow to pick up on the controversy….
Gergen said last night that Jordan’s resignation was “really sad” since he had quickly backed off his original comments. “This is too high a price to pay for someone who has given so much of himself over 20 years. And he’s brought down over a single mistake because people beat up on him in the blogosphere? They went after him because he is a symbol of a network seen as too liberal by some. They saw blood in the water.”
Reminder: Be Sure To Visit The Outside The Beltway Traffic Jam.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.