Remember that old saying " Yes, but who watches the watchers?".

Guess what, It's us!

I imagine there are hundreds of "Journalists" who are waking up this morning utterly shocked to find out that its considered a bad thing to malign the military with slander. What is bowling them over is not so much that its now considered a bad thing, but that they are being held to account for things that they have said amoungst each other at parties and behind the scenes at every "news" outlet for years.

Fine comments Vodka. Jim Bowman's media column in the New Criterion for years has unmasked the media.

Learning the plumbing trade would take an undergraduate much longer than a week to master.

Oh, Jimmy Stewart's where he's always been: busily at his keyboard, posting on his blog. It's Walter Burns that just resigned, not Hildy Johnson.

Youch! Smackdown time!

What, Eason Jordan resigned? He actually conceded defeat?

Must... not... gloat...

Ahh, who am I kidding. Blogger power! Stick it to The Man! Awright!! ;-)

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Watch the Dean of the Columbia Journalism School let an antisemite rave without calling him on it.

Re: Andrew Ferguson's comment that,
"this perpetuates the fiction that journalism is a profession like lawyering rather than a trade like plumbing."

Actually, this is an insult to plumbers everywhere. I'll wager I can teach a plumber to be a good journalist far quicker than I could teach a journalist to be a good plumber.

Two, thoughts, Will:

1 -- CJR Daily has been promoted to MSM ? Wait til members of the MSM hear that; most of them are still prying our arrows out of their flesh. (Better yet, wait til I tell the boss; he still thinks we're "that blog in the basement.")
2 -- You better NOT do away. "Dealing with it" is what I do for a living. Without you, I'm out of a job.

Best regards,
Steve

IF Eason Jordan cared about his reporters, he would either

1. Have covered this story bigtime in the States (assuming he actually had any of that, wossname, evidence stuff).

2. Pulled his people out of the line of fire.

Instead, he talked about it a lot over cocktails. Guess that passes for caring at CJR.

Mr. Lovelady:

If you can't tell the difference between "going away" and "doing away", perhaps you ought not to fling around phrases like "salivating morons".

Just a thought.

Cordially, De Doc

Wow, what a fine slap upside the head with a clue bat. In gratitude, here's a toast. You don't mind that it's with a single malt rather than vodka, do you?

Stevie boy and the hacks at CJR might want to team up with Danno and Eason to "break that story" about our troops targeting the poor journos. That's right, step up to the plate and scoop CNN and the New York Times. You know, shove it right in the blogosphere's salivating face.

Waiting patiently here.

It's striking how many news reports of Jordan's crash credit bloggers. Dismissing us as Lilliputians, salivating morons, ankle-biters, etc. is just more of the escapism into an alternate reality that has become the MSM's specialty. In the real reality, the Internet has changed the rules of journalism, and as Jordan just proved, those who don't adapt, won't survive.

Yeah, the TRUE reality show, with something you can care about, other than how many worms you can eat.
They've fed so much mindless drivel to the masses, they believe it themselves.

Clear thinking and free speach, thats whats bringing them down.
They are their OWN worse enemys...

gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat gloat... I think I will gloat a bit about the fact that people who actually believe in the truth brought down another jerk who was only interested in inflicting his opinions on others.

Mr Lovelady-

If you are still around, perhaps you'd be so kind as to answer a couple of questions.

1) Why did you refer to those of us who believe that news reports should always be based solely on fact, and that both journalists and news executives have a responsibility to impart to their viewers nothing other than the truth, as "salivating morons"?

2) In a New York Times piece written by Eason Jordan in 2003, Mr. Jordan admitted that CNN had decided not to broadcast stories unflattering to the Iraqi government during the time Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein. Following this admission, a number of CNN junkies, myself included, stopped watching the network on the basis that it could no longer be trusted. The incident at Davos only underscored the lack of credibility present at the highest echelons of CNN. Do you consider that people who value honesty and integrity over loyalty to a name brand like CNN are akin to a lynch mob? If so, how?

I do hope you are still reading and will take the time to answer these questions. Thanks.

TKS reports:

William Boykin, on the discussion board of Jay Rosen's blog: "Eason Jordan has just been tire-necklaced by a bloodthirsty group of utopian, bible-thumping knuckledraggers that believe themselves to be bloggers but are really just a streetgang. Time Warner/CNN is spineless if not completely corrupted by its shareholders' thirst for petro-dollars. It is now clear that all pretenses to journalistic 'objectivity' benefit the torturing, gulag-building blood-cult known Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's Republican Party."

So, does this mean Barney Frank is now part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

Charlie:
Thanks for your civil questions. (That's rare in this medium.)
In order of your points:
1 -- We are not talking about "news reports" aired by CNN here. We are talking about interpretations of one man's offhand comments at a supposedly off-the-record session where people were encouraged to think out loud.
Have you seen any "news reports" on CNN asserting the worst of what Eason Jordan is alleged to have said ? I haven't.
2 --In the 2003 New York Times op-ed piece written by Jordan in 2003, he did not " admit that CNN had decided not to broadcast stories unflattering to the Iraqi government during the time Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein."
He did admit that he had withheld individual stories on specific atrocities precisely for fear that airing them would be the equivalent of a death sentence for his people in Saddam's Iraq. And he expressed relief that finally these stories could and would come out.
Which, when you think about it, is one with his concerns at Davos about the crossfire in Iraq, which has taken the lives of 36 reporters, 11 by friendly fire, if you accept the research of the Committee to Protect Journalists.
As for "honesty and integrity," there is nothing of either to be found on most attacks on Jordan.
Bloodlust, yes. Honesty and integrity, I'm still looking for those.
And yes, I consider it a lynch mob. Even more so after reading today's posts. (Do a search for the word "gloat" in this thread alone.)
Your questions are entirely legitimate; I hope this addresses them.
All best,
Steve Lovelady

The media needs a good lynching, and the blogosphere should be eagerly passing out torches.

These are people that the American public put a good deal of trust in, and that trust has been betrayed, taken advantage of, and generally pissed all over by an arrogant group of elitists that consider themselves beyond reproach or challenge.

There will be no shortage of martyrism and victimhood in the media as this sort of thing becomes more commonplace. Of course, telling the truth would be easier but that doesn't fit the adgenda now does it?

It hurts to lose power. The media had better get used to it as "the little guy" delivers yet another crotch kick to the establishment.

Cry me a river, lovelace. We'll drown the next lying liberal media scumbag in it.

I wonder if Mr. Lovelady believes that any of us have killed or tried to kill journalists on purpose? If so, why?
I would be interrested to see who among us was tasked with the journalist murdering. Was it Army, Marine, Air Force or Navy?
Was this assignment published as a FRAGO or a full OPORD?
Is it a PCS or TDY assignment for the people assigned?
Just a few questions...

Mike M

I couldn't find a better example than you have supplied if I tried.
Is someone PAYING you to illustrate my points about salivating lynch mobs ?
If so, they're getting their money's worth.

Major John --
"I wonder if Mr. Lovelady believes that any of us have killed or tried to kill journalists on purpose? "
Of course not.
(Neither, apparently, did Eason Jordan. That's the whole point.)
I wonder, in turn, if you believe that 11 journalists have died from friendly fire in Iraq ? The Committee to Protect Reporters, a non-partisan, non-profit organization with its own research staff, believes it. And has documented it.
Or, for that matter, if you believe that there has been a war in history where that did not happen ?
If so, I suggest a return trip to the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., for a refresher course.

Steve Lovelady considers bloggers a lynch mob?

Hell, that is what I have thought of the main stream media for years. The only difference is that they are swinging from the rope now. Hurts, don't it, Stevie boy?

Oh, and dying from friendly fire is a far fricken cry from being purposefully targeted.

You sound just like Jordan.

Funny though, you are an educated and trained journalist and you sound just like one of us - a blogger with an opinion.

So what makes journalists so special again?

Steve: "...you believe that there has been a war in history where[friendly fire loss of journalist] did not happen?
If so, I suggest a return trip to the Army War College ..."

Problem is Steve, Eason allegedly stated it was 'unfriendly' fire by his own country's troops that targeted journalists, in front of an international forum. A BIG difference.

Of course he cannot be vindicated of this outrageous report he smeared of his own country, made by other reckless salivating morons in attendance at the Davos forum, because he cannot convince this forum to release the tape that will clear him, exposing these damned morons for what they are.

Now that's just wrong!

Dear Mr Lovelady,

First, I applaud you, as Managing Editor of CJR, in your willingness to participate in this blog dialogue, which does indeed all too often sink to name-calling and cheap shots.

You write:

"We are not talking about "news reports" aired by CNN here. We are talking about interpretations of one man's offhand comments at a supposedly off-the-record session where people were encouraged to think out loud."

Now I'm going to assume that you wrote that with due care and consideration, and that it wasn't you just thinking out loud. Fair enough?

Interpretations?
Oh, you mean biased conclusions drawn to fit a preconceived (right wing?) agenda? Or multiple on-the-record reports from eye witnesses, including two DEMOCRAT senators?

One man's?
Oh, you mean some random 'man on the street' guy? Or a key news executive of CNN, a global news organization?

Offhand comments?
Oh, you mean that Mr Jordan's words were just thrown out there, without a care, and were inconsequential? Or were they a very serious charge against the USA, and in line apparently with Mr Jordan's follow-up statements in Davos, and certainly with his earlier on-the-record comments about the USA abusing journalists?

Supposedly off-the-record session?
Oh, you mean some chat over a few beers in the local bar? Or a carefully planned meeting moderated by David Gergen, and including a top BBC executive, a top CNN executive, and two US senators, at the World Economic Conference?

...where people were encouraged to think out loud?
Oh, you mean that Mr Gergen was encouraging the participants to speculate based on their prejudiced agendas? Or that he would have expected, especially from a journalist of Mr Jordan's stature, facts to be the basis of the discussion; and was, by all reports, dismayed at the accusations levelled by Mr Jordan? As were Senators Frank and Dodd?

I note that "CJR's mission is to promote better journalism." Does that include deliberate distortion of reality by careful selection of words?

I couldn't find a better example than [that which] you have supplied if I tried. Is someone PAYING you to illustrate how to slant a story by cunning choice of vocabulary and phrasing? If so, they're getting their money's worth.

Let's see now: given a choice, would I rather sit down and have a beer and a chat with Senator Franks, Senator Dodd, and Mr Gergen: or with you and Mr Jordan?

I make no apology for ambushing you with my first paragraph. For it was a sincere statement. As are these: the world has changed; no longer may you write with impunity clever but misleading words, especially in the blogosphere.

Yours civily,

Jay King

Chatham House Rule is not "off the record". It's "anonymous". There's a huge difference.
Under Chatham House Rule, every statement made can be recorded and repeated, as long as the speaker is not identified.

Choosing to characterize that as "off the record" raises some questions about your credibility, Mr. Lovelady.

I neglected to include the link for Chatham House Rule.

Instead of using the word "credibility", I probably should have said "understanding of events".

Steve Lovelady wrote

"We are not talking about 'news reports' aired by CNN here. We are talking about interpretations of one man's offhand comments at a supposedly off-the-record session where people were encouraged to think out loud.
Have you seen any "news reports" on CNN asserting the worst of what Eason Jordan is alleged to have said ? I haven't."

If what Jordan alleged at Davos (strongly and repeatedly, according to some witnesses) is true, then I think CNN has a very big news story on its hands. Like you, however, I've seen nothing about it on CNN.

If Jordan were sitting on a story this big, then he's a fool. If, on the other hand, he's simply trying to push an anti-U.S. military viewpoint without evidence, then he's a fool. Either way, he's a fool. Do you think CNN should have a fool in Jordan's position?

By the way, it's absurd to assert that Jordan's comments were merely "thinking out loud". The fact that he had made essentially similar comments at a conference in Portugal in November tells us that Jordan has been thinking this issue through for the better part of three months, which hardly qualifies his Davos comments as "offhand".

With all due respect I am absolutely stunned that Mr. Lovelady, a former Philadelphia Inquirer editor and current editor of Columbia Journalism Review would make the kind of comments he's making here.

Sir, let's suppose you were still an editor at the Inquirer and you were faced with this possible story:

A blogger from the New York Times writes that Donald Rumsfeld has made a statement at an international event that "we have to torture terrorists to get information" The statement is made at what is supposed to be an off-the-record event.

But now it's out there.

What would you do? Would you task any of your reporters to check out the story or not?

Now let's go one step further, same scenario. There's no transcript or tape of Rumsfeld available, but numerous credible witnesses, including a Republican U.S. Senator and a conservative Republican congressman have verified the story, on the record, at Daily Kos and Atrios' blogs.

Would you get your reporters on the story now?

Next you find out that there is a TAPE available of Rumsfeld's remarks. But the event organizer won't release it and the DoD is issuing backpedaling statements about Rumsfeld's comments.

Now what? Would the Inquirer demand that the event sponsors release the tape? Would you insist that the DoD release all information about the remarks?

But let's say you did NONE of these things and passed on the story.

Then Rumsfeld resigns, without your paper ever running a story during the heat of the controversy.

Do you think that CJR would write that your paper did a great job on the story?

Do you think the editor of CJR would complain that Daily Kos and Atrios were a "lynch mob" read by "salivating morons" because they broke the story?

Do you think CJR would lament that Rumsfeld was taken down by a bunch of "Lilliputians"?

Or would you be worried that your paper, and all the others who sat on the story, would be ripped by CJR for being so incompetant as to get beat by a bunch of bloggers?

It'll be really interesting to see how CJR covers this latest failure by major media to report a story on one of its own.

But I think the outline for it is already prepped. Just like Corey Pein's absurd essay last month on Rathergate, it isn't hard to guess how CJR will cover the Eason story. Bloggers are bad, they're not pros, a great journalist is ruined over nothing, etc. etc...

If you ever wonder why respect for journalists keeps collapsing, you've got a great example in the Eason Jordan story. I'll be fascinated to see what you do with it.

Most of the blogs I have read are run by serious, professional people who have stated incessantly their desire to get to the bottom of the facts. They call for the release of the tape. They pursue first hand accounts to further the context of the comments Jordan made.

Yet somehow Mr. Lovelady calls them a "mob" filled with "bloodlust"? But that leaves me quite confused. If the facts aren't known then Mr. Lovelady is likely to be proven wrong when all the facts become known. Thus, his first instinct should be to uncover all the unknown facts before he assumes whether what Mr. Jordan said is defensible. Otherwise, he's just accusing a group of people, at least some of whom are well-meaning and responsible, of behavior tantamount to a crime.

If all the facts are known to Mr. Lovelady and Mr. Jordan was wronged by a mob just as alleged, then surely Mr. Lovelady would produce the evidence to that effect and completely vindicate Mr. Jordan. And Mr. Jordan would be owed quite a few apologies. But that has not happened and instead Mr. Lovelady attacks those who draw inferences from the actions of those who at the heart of the controversy.

If ever there was a case of acting like a mob, I would guess Mr. Lovelady would fit into the one that is casting about to attack blogging as a medium and bloggers as both individuals and groups. Without any facts that his own allegations are true, Mr. Lovelady managed to dafame all those who are genuinely seeking the truth about an event. And it is a truth he himself does not know, as evidenced by his lack of producing anything other than opinion about the character and quality of Mr. Jordan's comments.

What Rony Abowitz, Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd recounted can fairly be called evidence. What Mr. Lovelady offers is hearsay at best; it holds no weight whatsoever. Until the facts are known, Mr. Lovelady, you betray only your own prejudices--just as you claim of others.

It doesn't appear that this Lovelady chap is very culturally literate...

The Lilliputians did not consume Gulliver.

I had a dream last night: a mob of angry bloggers, waving pitchforks and torches, were hounding Eason Jordan towards a windmill on a lonely country road...

And Jordan was crying: "ARRR!! TRUTH *BAAD*!!

Of course, I woke up laughing...
;-P

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Eason lied. CNN fired him to avoid making the tapes of Davos public. He was protecting no on other than maybe Ted Turner.

And once again the lynch mob of salivating morons exposes a 'real journalist' as a turkey. I'm starting to see a pattern here.

Mmmm, turkey. Is it Thanksgiving again?

It seems that Mr. Lovelady presents his case poorly. Maybe he should practice blogging for a while, just to tighten up his presentation.

Lovelady wrote

1 -- We are not talking about "news reports" aired by CNN here. We are talking about interpretations of one man's offhand comments at a supposedly off-the-record session where people were encouraged to think out loud.

Reaction: The only reason we are not talking about news reports is that the videotape of this event was not released.

That this SHOULD have been news is indicated by the reaction of a liberal congressman and a liberal senator. If Eason's "off-hand" "off the record" comments had any factual basis, this SHOULD have been news because it was factual and revealed a flaw in our military that needed to be aired and corrected. Is an "off-hand" "off-the-record" setting a license for telling false hoods? What is the point of the world's leaders getting together in Davos and telling each other lies off the record?

Lovelady writes - He did admit that he had withheld individual stories on specific atrocities precisely for fear that airing them would be the equivalent of a death sentence for his people in Saddam's Iraq. And he expressed relief that finally these stories could and would come out.

Again, CNN's listeners and the American public has a right to know the truth (remember the first ammendment - that's what it it for). The behavior of Sadam's regime was important data that should have been known and factored by the public as the decision to invade Iraq was being debated. There must have been some way to state the truth, even if it meant giving up the perks that Sadam was providing CNN.

Lovelady writes: ....concerns at Davos about the crossfire in Iraq, which has taken the lives of 36 reporters, 11 by friendly fire, if you accept the research of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

And if you accept the research of the Committee to Protect Journalists, then you have to accept their judgement that 10 of the 11 friendly fire victims were clearly accidental. Why doesn't CNN re- investigate all 11 of these and report on them openly? And has CNN investigated the incidents where it is apparent that journalists knew that terrorist attacks were going to take place? That would be news as well.

Lastly, you say that those who disagree with you about Eason have bloodlust, but you and your profession are not without emotion. That is the underlying theme of Eason's statements, that he voiced (over tea at the most genteel meeting of the world's leaders) hatred of the US military and admiration for the forces of Baa'thism and Islamofascism. Bloodlust enough so that simple adherence to truth was abandoned. You can't have it both ways. Either the US military has targeted journalists which would be big news and CNN has not reported it. Or Eason Jordan expressed hatred for the US military via a baseless smear while rubbing elbows with people who can spread the smear world wide and exploit it.

The silence is deafening. I'm not finding the MSM covering this at all. Why? Our local rag, the Minneapolis Star and Sickle has nothing in it, not one word that I could find about the head of a major news organization "quitting" his leadership position.
I would expect a major attempt by the MSM to discredit and demean the blogosphere. They have to do something and we know it won't be the right thing!
All that's happening now is denial.

This convinces me more than ever that Eason Jordan is guilty of one thing,
Yup, Mr. Jordan is guilty of telling a big lie in a roomful of foreigners in a foreign land, most of which are hostile to his own country, and who can be depended upon to captitalize on it for their own anti-American ends. That used to be called "treason."

As a journalist myself, I would never attend a forum where the comments were "off the record." No editor would let me slide with that excuse.

A journalist whining that his comments were "off the record" is hypocrisy at best.

I have commented on this at Rathergate.com. Mr. Lovelady, the moral continues to elude the mainstream press, regardless of the numerous heads rolling -- don't make things up if you want to keep your job.

Look guys, the CJR is now in the business of protecting, rather than criticizing the MSM. The "arrows" shot by the CJR are nerf arrows, compared to what the MSM has suffered at the hands of the blogosphere. Mr. Lovelady's clever (but unsuccessful) attempt above to shift the focus will be the template followed.

The idiotic article by Cory Pein, equating "errors" in the blogospher's reporting on the RatherGate matter with the deliberate lies and distortions of CBS is futher evidence of the protective role that CJR has assumed.

After all, Columbia's role as the center of the Universe for training future journalists is on the line once people realize that journalism is not a profession.

"Salivating morons .... lynch mob .... " Very nice, albeit unsophisticated.

It's all Mencken's fault, really. He developed the American newspaper insult column from its heavy-handed 19th-century style into a real art-form. His columns weren't news, but they were entertaining, and even, occasionally, insightful and wise.

But Mencken was a genuine wit. The current overly-defensive MSN types aren't. And that does make a difference.

Lovelady seems determined to ignore the fact that Jordan made the same accusation last November, in another forum that was NOT off the record.

Saying it twice (at least) suggests to me that it was NOT an "off-the-cuff" remark. It suggests to me that Jordan truly believes it.

Now, let's get to the question everyone's been asking: If Jordan believes this, why hasn't CNN run any stories about it?

Funny how the MSM is the same no matter what side of the "pond".
Jordan and his "US troops target journalists";

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2005/02/bbcs_deep_thoug.html#comments
"BBC's deep thoughts"

"What prompted the BBC to remove its February 10 edition of “Daily Thoughts?”

Aparently the assertion that the IDF forces its conscripts to shoot children.

"In the real reality, the Internet has changed the rules of journalism, and as Jordan just proved, those who don't adapt, won't survive."

I thought insisting on facts, objectivity and honesty used to BE the rules of journalism? When did that change, Mr. Lovelady? Instead today we have Jayson Blair and Dan Rather's "radioactive" memos. Why should we, as the news-reading and -watching public, not challenge this?

> He did admit that he had withheld individual stories on specific atrocities precisely for fear that airing them would be the equivalent of a death sentence for his people in Saddam's Iraq.

In other words, Saddam had a veto, so the stories that did come out were acceptable to Saddam. Unless you're going to argue that Saddam approved unflattering stories, that description supports the allegation that CNN didn't do unflattering stories. And, if you do make the argument, that description supports the allegation that CNN withheld SOME unflattering stories. Since the whole point of withholding is that we can't know which ones....

> And he expressed relief that finally these stories could and would come out.

Which reminds me, have they? If not, why not?

Why haven't we seen CNN's "Stories we couldn't tell before" feature series?

This comment by JorgXMcKie over at Polipundit is just too amusing.

“Sheeez. Let’s see.
1) Big media exec(BME) makes some kind of remarks at big meeting of intl poobahs. 2) attendee of poobah meeting blogs his memory of remarks as inflammatory and mentions US Congressman challenging big media exec. 3) Other blogs take up the charge, wanting to know if BME actually slandered the military and/or if BME had any evidence or proof to back up charges.

4) Inflammatory charges determined to have been videotaped. Blogs suggest showing of tape to determine truth.

5) BME pays no attention. 6) Blog swarm ensues. 7) BME finally comes out of hole [part-way] and claims doesn’t see shadow. Claims: a) didn’t make inflammatory remarks; or b) retracted inflammatory remarks; or c) was taken out of context; or d) was misunderstood; or e) didn’t mean inflammatory remarks; or f)all of the above. Tape Of Truth not released. No explanation.

8) MSM waits for “tempest-in-a-teacup story” to go away. 9) blog swarm continues. Demands for release of Tape of Truth continue. 10) BME and MSM continue to ignore possible story of decade, if true. 11) blog swarm, instead of abating, continues to grow, approaching Category 5. Possibility of diminution with release of Tape Of Truth which would surely (??) vindicate BME.

12) MSM grudgingly, in most instances, barely takes up story. REALLY BIG MSM ignores story entirely with exception of Kurtz boot-licking, (oops) fawning, (oops) cautious explanatory piece.

13) Blog swarm approaches Category 6. MSM advised to run down to Home Depot to buy plywood for windows, etc.

14 (hypothesis) BME bosses get to see Tape Of Truth. Portable CPR machines put to heavy use. Light Dawns.

15) BME resigns “for good of corporarion.”

16) Sliming of Blogs begins for falsely driving out Misunderstood Man Of Distinguished Career for blindly partisan reasons. Questions arise at DailyKos, MyDD, and DU why no blog swarm on practically unknown journalist Gannon.

Yep. Story line seems about right.”

Memo to MSM: It's called pushback. DEAL WITH IT.

I just have a quick question. Why the use of the term "friendly fire"? Friendly fire is fire coming from your own side. Since these journalists presumably weren't taking sides, weren't embedded, and took it upon themselves to wander around unescorted in the middle of a battlefield how can it be called friendly fire? I don't remember Ernie Pyle wandering around between the Nazi and American lines trying to interview both sides. If you want to cover the war that way you do so at your own risk. In that case, all fire is hostile.

I wonder if Mr. Lovelady believes that any of us have killed or tried to kill journalists on purpose? If so, why?

Depends.

I have no doubt that some soldiers fired with the intent to kill a person with a dark object on his shoulder aimed at them.

That's because most of the people doing that in Iraq are aiming RPGs, not cameras, and RPGs are right up there with IEDs as far as killing/injuring troops is concerned.

But I do not believe for an instant that the troops fired knowing the person they were firing at was a journalist, instead of a jihadi with an RPG.

As near as I can tell, Eason Jordan does. It'd be nice if he'd release the videotape or a transcript so this could be clarified, but he hasn't.

Someone who thinks our troops are deliberately killing people they know are journalists, but does not report on it, and asserts that this is happening without presenting evidence, is unfit to run CNN.

Mr. Lovelady,

Is it not better to point out that rather than care and haunting being the cause of Mr. Jordan's demise it was context? Mr. Jordan's comments made in the context of a cocktail party might even be banal. At an economic forum with a worldwide draw his comments were another matter all together.

Mr Lovelady, I'd sure love to hear your answers to Frank Rachelle, Birkel, etc. Or don't you have any?

It's a painful fact that in war large numbers of people are killed by friendly fire. Jordan chose, not for the first time, the word "target" which conveyed a specific meaning, a meaning not lost on those assembled.

I followed this story closely in the blogosphere (the only place where one could follow it). If there was a consensus, it was not "throw the bum out", but rather "show us the videotape". The "bum" ended up throwing himself out and we never did get the see the tape. This result speaks for itself.

The Columbia School of Journalism and it's review are part of the problem when they should be part of the solution. Perhaps they are worried that people are beginning to figure out that spending tens of thousands of dollars to "train" journalists is ludicrous.

Frank Rachelle (2:38 am post), thanks much for making this case so clear for Mr Lovelady. I hope he had a socratic moment and realized what a one-sided dope he's been on this issue.

Cheers!

Well of course he's innocent of these charges, and is only guilty of caring too much for his people. The current events obviously show his innocence.

And like all innocents, he acts guilty and makes no move to provide the factual accounting of what happened. I mean, if I were being charged with slander, and knew it was on a videotape, and I were innocent, I certainly wouldn't try to get that videotape shown, or a transcript released. It might prove me innocent, and then where would I be.

SO we must assume he's innocent, because if he were guilty he'd obviously have tried his best to get the tape and/or transcript released as soon as possible to show his guilt to the world.

NOW, find and replace guilt and innocence in the above; which makes more sense?

Now try to figure out how someone could miss something this obvious, and how that person could be "managing editor" of anything. Thats the only part I'm having problems understanding.

Frank Rachelle, that was a great post. I doubt if Steve Lovelady will answer your questions and concerns.

Mr. Lovelady,

Put up or shut up.

If you can prove that Eason Jordan is correct, do it. This should be in every MSM outlet. Prove that the military murdered 12 journalists.

Be sure you do NOT write about the 50 plus journalists who have been killed by the Islamofascists. You love them, they can't be wrong. Beheadings are good headlines. Blame them on the USA. Only USA is ever wrong.

Don't write about the slaughter in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia after the MSM got us to surrender in Indochina. Don't talk about the UN and Rwanda.That would confuse people. Don't talk about Kofi, France and Germany and the $10 billion in bribes from Saddam.

If you and Eason Jordan are the best that "the best" can produce, Columbia Journalism School should feel as threatened about the future as CNN. People should question the need to spend $40k plus for an inferior education.

Journalism students have the same academic reputation as Ethnic Studies students. They are the dumbest, laziest on campus. This is where the school hides the affirmative action admits. You, as their professor, can be respected as highly as Professor Churchill at Colorado (what a disgrace to a noble name.) A professor at CalTech said this at a seminar.

Your comment that blogs are Lilliputians is nothing but an ad hominem attack. Your lack of an answer proves your impotence. CNN fired Eason, not the blogs.

You and yours are getting your a$$es kicked by the blogs. You don't fool anyone anymore. Sorry Eason, Dan Rather, Columbia U, CNN, LATimes/Tribune, Krugman, Kerry/Heinz...

You can't stop the hemorrage.

Na na na na, hey hey, Good Bye!

Steve Lovelady:

1 -- We are not talking about "news reports" aired by CNN here. We are talking about interpretations of one man's offhand comments at a supposedly off-the-record session where people were encouraged to think out loud.

And if Eason had taken advantage of his opportunity to "think out loud" by wondering if blacks had the necessary mental skills to be news executives, he would have kept his job for more than a millisecond?

Pull the other one.

Mr Lovelady,

You are characterizing the outcome of this affair as a kind of witch-hunt in which bloggers have maliciously run down an honest and intrepid journalist, who was protected by constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

You are surely aware that at Davos, Mr Jordan made a statement which was not only highly inflammatory but utterly without proof. What he tried to pass off to a gathering of world leaders as an objective – and if true, extremely damning - “truth” was nothing more than dramatically embellished hearsay, without a shred of evidence to support it.

It is undoubtedly a tragedy that some journalists have died in covering the war in Iraq. However, there is a difference between being accidentally killed and being murdered. One would normally think that if a CNN executive were to make such an incendiary accusation of murder in front of an audience of world leaders, it might at least trigger the idea on the part of some journalist, somewhere, to investigate the allegation. After all, if it were true, it would be one of the biggest news stories of the year. And if it were false, then another kind of story would be possible: “Major News Network Executive’s False Claims of Murder at World Economic Forum”. I don’t have to tell you what happened. You already know: you and the rest of the mainstream media yawned, and said, “No news here.” It was the bloggers who did the job that newspapermen or TV reporters could (or maybe even should) have done – namely, to fact-check Mr Jordan’s statement and insist that false information be corrected.

Far from being a “lynch mob”, the bloggers who dug deeper into this story were instead the only people who were even remotely acting like “journalists”. You, and the editors of the mainstream press, did not do your jobs at all. Why you didn’t do your jobs remains a mystery. But it remains a fact that the bloggers scooped you all, big time.

The lesson to be learnt here is not that the bloggers, like a baying pack of dogs, are out to hunt down and kill anyone that displeases them. No, the lesson is that collectively, the blogosphere consists of people who are intelligent, articulate, well-informed, very well-networked, and extremely interested in the issues of the day - and therefore in an excellent position to come across the remarks of somebody like Eason Jordan at a huge international gathering, pass them on for analysis and comment among themselves, and rightly insist that he be held accountable for them. How is this different from what a good team of investigative journalists and editorial writers do who work on a daily newspaper? I'll bet Woodward and Bernstein would be bloggers if they were starting their careers today.

It is only thanks to the bloggers that it will no longer be so easy for someone like Eason Jordan to attend an important conference and try to pass off a lie as a “fact”. For that matter, it's thanks to the bloggers that a newspaper will not find it so easy any more to publish only one side of a story and claim that that represents the “truth”. I'm very surprised that someone in your position would want to defend Mr Jordan’s “right” to spread vicious falsehoods while attacking the people who, little by little over the past few days, have been working on uncovering the truth. Haven't you got it bass-ackwards?

From now on, all of you in the traditional media will be continuously fact-checked by bloggers, from every side of the political spectrum, and if they find you are lying, or just conveniently hiding part of the truth, you can count on this: you will be called on it and held accountable across millions of computer screens worldwide.

Short and sweet: your monopoly on reporting and interpreting the news is simply over. Either you report the news truthfully, fairly and objectively, or you can expect that “citizen journalists” will inform the entire world that you are not.

(polite patter of applause)
Hear, hear! Excellantly said, Helveticus!
As one of those citizen journalists, thanks to "The Daily Brief" (www.sgtstryker.com) and a "shake and bake" quickie journalism course at DINFOS 30 years ago. I find myself to be quite offended at the characterization of myself and others as a "lynch mob", merely for asking the questions that the journalistically anointed like Mr. Lovelady SHOULD have been asking.

MSM don't lie because they are stupid. They lie because they think their listeners are stupid.

I've been away from the keyboard for a while -- it's called having a life -- but I see that the hyenas are still munching away at the bones.
No surprise there
Anyway, it's been swell, guys. I have to admit, Will lured me in with his comments on my e-mail to Jay Rosen, I fell for the bait, and thus I ended up impetuously scooping my own website by posting my intial thoughts here.
I should have known I was wandering into a universe where it was one against the hordes.  That's the signature of all too many poliblogs, on the right and on the left, and why should this one be any different -- self-congratulatory, self-referential closed loops of mutual backpatting, and if a stranger should happen to stroll in with an alternative world view, out come the blowtorches.
But in a way, it was worth the trip -- sort of like Alice slipping through the mirror into Wonderland.  At first, all you see seems strange and wondrous, upside down, backwards, inside out -- but eventually the novelty wears off.  (BTW, my apologies to the 35 of 47 e-mailers that I failed to answer...but that too grows redundant.)
Before I go, however, I do want to correct three small but nagging factual errors embedded in this thread.
-- I am not a professor. (That'll be the day...)
--Those of you who think Ted Turner has any control over, influence at, or ownership of, CNN are nine years out of date. The hapless Turner got paved over about three minutes after CNN was swallowed up by Time Warner in 1996.
-- And Andrew Sullivan, having never done it, knows about as much about writing a news story as I know about being an astronaut.
Bye now.
I hear I'm needed on the other side of the mirror.

Steve

Mr. Lovelady, you continue to avoid dealing the core reality.

Given how often the MSM has decided that offhand remarks of people who are not journalists are "news", all you have done is confirm your hypocrisy.

Meanwhile we are treated to your contempt for those who don't fall for your "don't look behind the curtain" attitude. What you have succeeded in doing long term is continue to discredit the idea that CJR has any interest in being anything but a partisan mouthpiece. Its role in discussing the integrity of journalism is - if not over - finished for your term.

Well Lovelady's last post convinced me. We are a horde of salivating morons.

Moreover, it's perfectly ok for the Eason's of the world to spout unsubstantiated borderline treason. That's his First Amendment right becase he's a by God journalist.

And we knuckle dragging morons trapped on the wrong side of Alice's mirror should just STFU.

Oh, and we need to all get lives.

Yeah, well we're able to recognize salavating moronic shills when we read them. If it walks like a duck...is that quack I hear?

Hey Steve. I have a journalism degree from a major public university, I blog, and I vehemently diasgree the the pack here and at Rosen's.

Ask Rosen why I'm banned? WQhy do moronic comments stand? Sacrificial lamb? Toss a liberal to appease the vermin?

Dear Lovejoy,

For many a year online we have had a choice of responses to the drive-by good-bye. Two that come to mind are:

Fish. Barrel. Bang.

and

Door. Ass. Bang.

When you peek back here -- as you *will* -- please take your choice.

In the meantime, over at Jay Rosen's, he has formulated a question to which I have responded (posted here for the sake of keeping both blogs balanced and so I can remember what I said.):
=====

QUESTON:" Let me ask you something, serious question, Will: Is the point to have a dialogue with the MSM or cause its destruction?"

The point could also be to merge with or supplant.

Of course, people could be getting upset because what used to a a single closed network of affiliations, social connections, professional associations, and a lot of nudge, nudge, wink, wink, now finds itself confronted with a much more open network of looser affiliations, socialnetwork connections, associations that find a prating about professionalism without accountability noxious, and a lot of email, email, link link.

Another, perhaps deeper, source of unease among journalists collecting a check from a media company is the simultaneous revelation and discovery that there are a great many people who collect no check from a media company that are simply much better writers, editors, and checkers.

It was once the case that to assume the mantle of "writer" you had to get a job writing "for" something. Now all you need is a modem and a motive. And while I'll grant you that this change means there is a lot of very bad writing swirling about, that gets filtered out pretty quickly. What is astonishing to me is that, regardless of what subject you care to name, I can quickly discover a substantial number of people with a great deal of expertise in that area who are also quite good at expressing themselves. And don't even get me started on the generalists....

Add to that the inescapable envy that must be felt by the "pros" as they note the vast number of online writers with solid skill sets who are also unconstrained by the "needs" and "policies" and "stylebooks" and all the other junk that media companies throw up around themselves to distinguish one apple from the next apple in the bin. Plus there's the freedom of telling it like you see it without worrying how this might affect promotion within or without the organization. On the one hand, yes, they do it for free, but on the other they are free to do it as they please. That's gotta grind like grit on the molars.

Put it all together and I don't think there's a drive to have a "dialogue" with MSM, because frankly dear Scarlett, most don't give a damn. I do think there's a yen to help MSM along to destruction but that's a fantasy ideology. MSM isn't going to any destruction that it isn't fashioning for itself. These little jabs may help it along a bit, but they aren't the determining factor.

What you've got is not some sort of battle to the death in a Hobbesian world, but simply a new species that is thriving in the online environment to an extent that MSM cannot possibly grasp, if for no other reason than that the people who still drive and direct the MSM from atop the corporations cannot, for the most part, type.

If you've ever seen the movie "The Forbin Project," you'll recall that it only got interesting when the rulers of the United States looked up and saw the message board above them begin to flash "THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM."

Man, the pomposity of these CJR guys knows no bounds. Which is amusing, given how few of them could hack it academically in a real grad school program.

The problem with Jordan's treatment of Saddam and with his comments at Davos (where he reportedly received effusive praise after the panel from Arab attendees) was two instances of the same thing: a CNN exec telling anti-American audiences what they want to hear (or not saying what they didn't want to hear) as a way of buying access at the expense of the truth. You couldn't find a more perfect example of the polar opposite of 'speaking truth to power.' Why this type of behavior should be celebrated by journalism students is beyond me.

"Is someone PAYING you to illustrate my points about salivating lynch mobs ?"

Is someone paying you to display the pompus, oblivious idiocy of the media, Steve?

The blogosphere is an intellectual lynch mob for a well deserving media that's out of control and drunk on its own power and sense of self-importance, and the only consequence is that the truth gets told.

Apparently, that has you and your ilk quaking behind your keyboards.

But go cry and play the victim because we're mean. If you ever want to get off your (quickly crumbling) ivory tower, email and we'll have a debate. Come see how thes "mob" owns your sorry butt.

"And Andrew Sullivan, having never done it, knows about as much about writing a news story as I know about being an astronaut."

Right...

Because writing a news story is as challenging as being an astronaut.

Because the skills required to jot down a few notes about a press conference are as difficult to master as the skills required to pilot the space shuttle.

Because the experience of writing short elementary pieces in your native language is as alien to the average person as the experience of traveling into outer space.

I don't know quite how to break this to you, but the vast majority of humanity knows more about how to do your job than you know about how to be an astronaut.

The "if you haven't personally done it, then you're not qualified to criticize" defense is typically the last refuge of incompetent people with no better response. Ironically, if valid this premise would render much of what reporters do pointless. (If you haven't actually been in the military, then you're not qualified to criticize, etc., etc...)

One piece of advice, though. If you want to try to project an image of "professional reporter with superior skills and training", it would help your case if you displayed a better appreciation for proper grammar in your posts.

And thus, Mr. Lovelady gives a very good impressio of a coward.

When presented with a multitude of shortcomings in his arguments and his methods, a non-coward would:

1. Admit he was wrong; or
2. Refute the opposing arguments; or
3. Some mix of 1 and 2, as appropriate.

Instead, Mr. Lovelady jumps in, insults everyone who disagrees with him, addresses three tangential points, and then runs away with his tail between his legs.

In formal debates, any point not answered is conceded. It looks to me like Mr. Lovelady just conceded the entire debate.

Poor Lovelady, forced to communicate with us drooling subhumans. Don't worry Steve, it won't last long, then you will have to find another job where communication with the masses isn't important.

Hmmm. Back to War College - if only he knew that Majors have to go through CGSOC first...
Of course I know journalists have been killed in the war - what sort of strawman argument is that? The point is that Mr. Eason believes the Us Armed Forces deliberately killed these journalists BECAUSE we knew they were journalists, and we intended to do it with malice aforethought.
Distract, insult and hide all you want, but you still haven't a fact to plead....

Hoo, boy! The perjoratives do fly thick 'n fast here, eh? To me, resort to obscenities represents the deliquescing of corpus colossi in bicameral minds. Think of it this way: If Blogs are echoes of the Future, all our teachers save silence have passed away.

What does THAT mean? Ah, my friends, it is the difference between semantics and semiotics, between what words symbolize and what they signify; that is, an attempt at "stimulating intellectual conversation." Without resorting to Lewis Carroll, let's just say that Humpty Dumpty poses King's Men problems for "mainstream" journalism. "Targeting journalists" signifies "killing the news". But in Saddamizing CNN, has not Mr. Jordon done just that?

Cornelius Vanderbilt thought he was building railroads-- tranport networks, actually. Bell invented the telephone-- communication networks, actually. We think that IBM and Bill Gates built hardware and software for computers: No, they supplied complex dynamic systems, presently evolving towards Emergent Order. Asimov on-line!

To call the Blogosphere "a swarm" --perhaps a flock, herd, or school-- is to misunderstand Darwin on coral reefs. The analogy is precise, but we'll let Mr. Lovelady chew it over.

All this is very liberating! Whatever your political or other persuasion, I'll bet you a stale Davos crumpet that within 4 - 6 weeks we'll catch out another Eason Jordan. Once his knees bend forward, what will his chair look like?

Mr.Lovelady, I know plumbers, and you, sir, are no plumber.

My God, the Lovelady man is more dense than plumber's lead.

I think these non-thinkers should be henceforth known as "leadites".

Or Pbites, or PBS? [lead = Pb]

Hey John Blake,

Put down the bong.

There really is a silver lining to this whole affair, considering the involvement of Senators Frank and Dodd in providing a not-insignificant contribution to the lynch mob's ammunition: if even a few righty bomb-throwers are forced - either by whatever vestiges of conscience they keep tucked away in a secret corner of their minds, or by some desire to maintain even the vaguest sense of internal consistency in their attacks on liberals - to stop using the labels of "traitor" or "unpatriotic" as a trump card for winning arguments with anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman, then progress will have been made. I won't be holding my breath for that kind of intellectual honesty, but it would be a welcome development.

That should, of course, be "Congressmen Frank and Dodd".

The new Washington Examiner features an editorial that provides an articulate and thoughtful response to Mr. Lovelady's surprisingly flippant invective.

Hey, Mike C, didn't you get the memo? The whole "left of Lieberman" meme is so yesterday. Literally: http://www.donaldsensing.com/2005/02/meme-war.html. Identified, analyzed, and defused a whole day before you even got a chance to jump on the bandwagon. You need fresh material, man!

Wow UML Guy, that identification, analysis, and defusing of the Lieberman "meme" was so comprehensive, it took me, like, 15 whole seconds to read it! And it even included such irrefutible evidence as Donald Sensing saying it was so! Whew! I guess there's just no way I can argue with that!

But seriously, Lieberman is just sort of a convenient, well-known reference point as someone who righties think is a "reasonable Democrat". And son, do me a favor: try reading a few righty blogs (and especially the comments sections) and pretending that their invective is directed at you. Then come back and tell me you still think this is a "meme".

You should do a wikipedia search for meme or memetic. I don't think you know what it means.

Sad, really, Mike C.

What makes you think that, Birkel?

A cultural idea, social practice, concept or action that becomes a norm and begins to repeat itself consciously in a society.

That's what it means in neutral form. However, generally when used to refer in a hostile manner to one's opponents, it means, essentially, "BS". That was UML's tone. Therefore, I responded in context. Perhaps that wasn't clear. But in any case, if you have something to say, why not try addressing what I said rather than nitpicking my choice of words? I would suggest that you probably don't want to get your little self into a lingustic debate with me, anyway. Now run along.

You must be feeling defensive, Mike C. I intended no hostility, but you read it there anyway. For that, I apologize.

"But seriously, Lieberman is just sort of a convenient, well-known reference point as someone who righties think is a 'reasonable Democrat'."

And thus, some liberal somewhere -- I really don't know who -- said a rather clever line. A line which is HIGHLY debatable -- while there are examples of folks on the right who think all folks on the left are unpatriotic or traitorous, there are plenty who save those judgments only for a few nasty individuals who darn well earned the labels -- but still a bit of clever rhetoric.

And the whole left side of the commentsphere is now repeating it as if it cleverly makes a point, and thus diluting it to nothing. Like Heinlein said, some lines are "funny once" and some are "funny always". Similarly, some are clever once, and some are clever always. This one isn't clever always, and it's still false.

"And son, do me a favor: try reading a few righty blogs (and especially the comments sections) and pretending that their invective is directed at you. Then come back and tell me you still think this is a 'meme'."

Well, since a meme is:

"A cultural idea, social practice, concept or action that becomes a norm and begins to repeat itself consciously in a society."

Yes, it definitely IS a meme. It's repeating itself quite rapidly. I don't see anywhere what invective has to do with that.

"That's what it means in neutral form. However, generally when used to refer in a hostile manner to one's opponents, it means, essentially, 'BS'. That was UML's tone."

Now THAT is BS. My manner wasn't hostile, and I'm sorry you thought it was. My manner was intended to be humorous, and maybe even helpful: "Hey, your clever line isn't very fresh, since it's already spread far enough and fast enough to provoke study and response. Maybe you need fresh material."

"Therefore, I responded in context. Perhaps that wasn't clear. But in any case, if you have something to say, why not try addressing what I said rather than nitpicking my choice of words? I would suggest that you probably don't want to get your little self into a lingustic debate with me, anyway. Now run along."

Now see, if people respond to you in a hostile fashion -- which I didn't, so I'm sorry you think I did -- maybe it's because condescension and invective provoke hostility:

"lynch mob's ammunition": Reading the posts and comments, you should know that at least some involved dispute this characterization. Yet you throw it around anyway, and then complain at the tone with which they react.

"righty bomb-throwers": See above.

"whatever vestiges of conscience they keep tucked away in a secret corner of their minds": Now who's hostile? If you start by assuming evil intentions on the part of those you disagree with, you shouldn't be surprised if they get a little upset in response.

"or by some desire to maintain even the vaguest sense of internal consistency in their attacks on liberals": Your view on consistency is not the only possible view. For instance, I might think that if one sees hostility everywhere and objects to it, then even the vaguest sense of internal consistency would require that you be civil in response, as a way of elevating the debate.

"to stop using the labels of 'traitor' or 'unpatriotic' as a trump card for winning arguments with anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman": See above. Most on the right can't STOP using those labels for anyone left of Lieberman, because we never STARTED.

"then progress will have been made": As you judge it. For some of us, progress has already been made, because CNN no longer employs someone who aided and abetted Saddam Hussein in oppressing and murdering Iraqis. Progress is in the eye of the beholder.

"I won't be holding my breath for that kind of intellectual honesty": See? Condescension. If you could start by assuming that people have honorable motives (even if different from your own), you might see a lot less hostility in response. Then when someone DOES demonstrate ill will, you'll have justification for letting loose your condescension.

"But in any case, if you have something to say, why not try addressing what I said rather than nitpicking my choice of words?" Now this is neither condescending nor insulting. In fact, it's a very legitimate question -- one which I felt was already answered by Mr. Sensing's post, or by Professor Reynolds's post here: http://instapundit.com/archives/021138.php. Basically, you're setting up a strawman. If you want to point to specific individuals who have said that most people on the left are unpatriotic or traitorous, you can then rightly criticize them. Hint: start with Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. I can also think of a fair number of posts on certain comment boards that you can rightly criticize. There ARE people who make the claims you despise. But a blanket accusation couched in condescension and contempt isn't going to get you very far.

"I would suggest that you probably don't want to get your little self into a lingustic debate with me, anyway.": And now you're back to codescension. So sad. And yes, I DO want to get "my little self" into a linguistic debate with you, if that's what it takes to hold a mirror up to you and show you that you're guilty of the same behavior you don't want directed at yourself.

"Now run along.": The blog owners have the right to ask that of anyone here. But we guests have no such power.

"What makes you think that, Birkel?"

Probably the way that your post seemed to display a clear lack of understanding of the meaning of the word.

Alright UML Guy, maybe I did overreact a little. That said, as long as we're discussing condescension:

Identified, analyzed, and defused a whole day before you even got a chance to jump on the bandwagon. You need fresh material, man!

That's as condescending as anything I said, and it's what made me interpret your post as hostile. The main thing, though, is that I definitely haven't seen this Lieberman thing used as often as you apparently have. That's why I said "Lieberman is just a convenient reference point..." etc. So the only interpretation of your use of the word that seemed to make sense was "line of liberal BS".

Regardless, you do make some fair points, although I think you also misinterpret what I said. As Steven seemed to understand, my use of the term "righty bomb-throwers" was intended to be quite the opposite of a broad generalization: I wanted to be careful not to include anyone to the right of center who merely criticized liberals. Criticism is acceptable. Calling someone a traitor for opposing a president's foreign policy is not.

As for where I can go to find such bomb-throwers, yes, Coulter and Savage are good starting points. And Hannity. And Rush. And this guy, who, quite honestly, is the one I had in mind when I was thinking about the left being referred to as traitors (I don't think he uses the word "traitor", but he says that we want to destroy America blah blah blah). Oh, and don't miss the comments section on that one - it's a regular carnival of left-bashing. Let's take the very first comment, for example:

It is the absolute, unalterable goal of the domestic Left to create a Soviet America replete with a Gulag Archipelago into which the bourgeoisie will be banished, all under the aegis of the U.N.

Oh, and let's not forget who linked approvingly to that post. You wanna talk about "memes" (in the proper meaning of the word)? How about "objectively pro-terrorist"? How about "America-hating terrorist-symp"? Tell me those don't get tossed around constantly, especially in comments sections.

Whatever. My anger shouldn't be directed at you. That Belmont Club post just really burns me up, especially the fact that His Holiness the Instapundit declared his agreement and then tried to back off immediately - sort of like Eason Jordan, you might say.

I was one told all you have to know to be a plumber is that "Shit goes down hill". As we can see from Rathergate and Easongate, this rule applies to the "News Plumbers" too.

Jim: going forth with your analogy, aren't the "News Plumbers" now in need of a real Plumber who knows shit when s/he sees it?

Somehow I keep coming back in praise of Plumbers.

J. Peden: Excellent observation, but frankly, I have never had a problem telling the difference. I can always tell it by the smell.

However, since my Smell-A-Vision is not working, I do have a problem when the dial is on CBS or CNN. To solve this, I just leave it tuned to the Fox News Channel.

Mike C:

"Alright UML Guy, maybe I did overreact a little. That said, as long as we're discussing condescension:

"Identified, analyzed, and defused a whole day before you even got a chance to jump on the bandwagon. You need fresh material, man!

"That's as condescending as anything I said, and it's what made me interpret your post as hostile."

For that, I apologize. It was a failed attempt at humor. I'd just read Reynolds and Sensing poking fun at the meme, and here it popped up. Made me laugh, so I tried to build on the joke. Didn't mean to offend.

"As Steven seemed to understand, my use of the term 'righty bomb-throwers' was intended to be quite the opposite of a broad generalization: I wanted to be careful not to include anyone to the right of center who merely criticized liberals. Criticism is acceptable. Calling someone a traitor for opposing a president's foreign policy is not."

OK, if you meant specific individuals, I'm not nearly as concerned. Specific individuals have made some really uncalled-for statements, and that I won't deny.

"As for where I can go to find such bomb-throwers, yes, Coulter and Savage are good starting points. And Hannity. And Rush."

Here, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's a line between satire and rabble-rousing. I think Rush artfullt skirts the line, but seldom crosses it. I think Hannity THINKS he skirts the line, but his temper sometimes gets the better of him. I think Coulter THINKS she skirts the line, but lives firmly on the rabble-rousing side of the line.

And Savage? He's so far gone, he can't see the line. And he's proud of that, and heading full speed away from the line. Even though I think he states a truth every now and again, he's too painful for me to listen to.

"Oh, and don't miss the comments section on that one - it's a regular carnival of left-bashing. Let's take the very first comment, for example:

"It is the absolute, unalterable goal of the domestic Left to create a Soviet America replete with a Gulag Archipelago into which the bourgeoisie will be banished, all under the aegis of the U.N."

The comments dive deep into derangement, I agree. The original poster? I'm not sure, since he seems to be largely describing the European left. Being an American and only exposed to the American left, I can't tell if his brush is way too broad, or if the European left has descended that far. I'm open to evidence either way. My innate trust in human nature tells me that most on the European left can't be as bad as he describes. But I have no evidence either way.

"You wanna talk about 'memes' (in the proper meaning of the word)? How about 'objectively pro-terrorist'?"

Actually, I support that meme IF it's properly applied. If a person's actions -- no matter his intentions -- have the primary effect of supporting or encouraging terrorists and have no other redeeming effect, then good intentions of no, that person is objectively pro-terrorist.

How many people do I think that actually applies to? Darn few. I think Chirac and Schroeder and Putin (for whom I once had such high hopes) knew the real human rights situation in Iraq, and yet suppressed that knowledge for their own power and profit. I think Michael Moore painted such a blatantly false picture of pre-invasion Iraq as to be supporting the terrorists' propaganda effort. I know you may disagree, but I think Eason Jordan's refusal to tell true stories from Iraq helped keep Saddam Hussein's reign going, and thus contributed to specific deaths and to the overall regime of death. If I didn't have a class to teach in ten minutes or so, I could think of a few more individuals. And I can also think of a few individual ACTIONS that I feel are objectively pro-terrorist, even if those committing those acts may not see them that way.

But as a blanket characterization for more than a handful of people, objectively pro-terrorist is a bit too much.

"How about 'America-hating terrorist-symp'? Tell me those don't get tossed around constantly, especially in comments sections."

Depends on who they're tossed at. I've seen a few street protesters who earned that tag. I've met one or two who openly slandered our troops with blatant falsehoods. Were I a less restrained individual, I might have knocked out a few teeth. But better sense prevailed, and I realized these protesters were so pathetic as to make their own cause look bad. I let them do that.

"Whatever. My anger shouldn't be directed at you. That Belmont Club post just really burns me up, especially the fact that His Holiness the Instapundit declared his agreement and then tried to back off immediately - sort of like Eason Jordan, you might say."

I'm sorry that had to happen. But here's a difference between Professor Reynolds and Mr. Jordan: Professor Reynolds put his statement and his later reaction all on public display. Had Mr. Jordan done the same, I think he would have fared better.

Steve Lovelady - if you are whom you claim to be:

You need to take a lesson from history. Its a very important lesson. Rumors can lead to mass violence.

Rumors passed by people in positions of power, or people who are seen as "in the know" have been responsible for nasty bloody killing sprees around the world.

Rumors spread by someone with as much asteem as Mr Jordan might not trigger anti Christian, or anti Jewish riots in Germany or the Ottoman empire, or for that matter anti Moslem riots in India - they might not have the effect of sending otherwise normal people into a frenzy of killing and rape...

maybe.

Steve the pompous says:

"I should have known I was wandering into a universe where it was one against the hordes. "

Which is it that bothers you more Steve-o, that the MSM is no longer going to be able to pick and choose which stories to run, or that the respectibility that used to blanket the entire MSM as a bastion of truth tellers is now showing itself to be moth eaten to the point of non existance.

One other thing, and I realize that this is hard for a 'respected' journalist to grok, ready?

If you can't even recognize your own biases you have no hope of continuing in your field, as the days of unquestioned belief of MSM are dying rapidly. I bet you don't even know why.
Here's to hoping you have other skills.
Ciao.

"Is someone paying you to display the pompus, oblivious idiocy of the media, Steve?"

As I am sure we all know, someone is, indeed, paying him.

A few random thoughts:

The dishonesty of using the term "lynch mob" to refer to bloggers is astounding. What weapons do they wield? What institutional power do they have? The ONLY power a blog has is the power of persuasion. (Contrast this with a real lynch mob or its modern equivalent, a Congressional hearing.)

If Eason Jordan was exercising his first amendment rights (which he was), then so were those blogs that criticized him.

Unfortunately, the use of sarcasm and sneering ad hominem in place of an argument -- as demonstrated so expertly by Steve Lovelady -- is all too common in the MSM. This, I suspect, is part of the reason for the public's growing distrust of MSM. (But the real pros at this sort of "argument," and specifically the "argument from intimidation," are in academia.)

>>"Thanks for your civil questions. (That's rare in this medium.)
In order of your points:
1 -- We are not talking about "news reports" aired by CNN here. We are talking about interpretations of one man's offhand comments at a supposedly off-the-record session where people were encouraged to think out loud.
Have you seen any "news reports" on CNN asserting the worst of what Eason Jordan is alleged to have said ? I haven't."

This wasn't a dinner party conversation. This was at least a quasi-official (and taped) function where Mr. Eason, representing CNN and American journilism before world leaders and world press, made these slanderous remarks (reportedly). I wonder if Dick Cheney were one of the speakers and "thought out loud" that perhaps journalistic lies were directly responsible for emboldening the enemy and killing American troops what your reaction would be.

Also, as I recall, Trent Lott's comments were made at a birthday party or something. Isn't that correct? Public (powerful) people need to be held accountable for what they say in public. Persiod.

>>"-In the 2003 New York Times op-ed piece written by Jordan in 2003, he did not " admit that CNN had decided not to broadcast stories unflattering to the Iraqi government during the time Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein."
He did admit that he had withheld individual stories on specific atrocities precisely for fear that airing them would be the equivalent of a death sentence for his people in Saddam's Iraq. And he expressed relief that finally these stories could and would come out.
Which, when you think about it, is one with his concerns at Davos about the crossfire in Iraq, which has taken the lives of 36 reporters, 11 by friendly fire, if you accept the research of the Committee to Protect Journalists.
As for "honesty and integrity," there is nothing of either to be found on most attacks on Jordan.
Bloodlust, yes. Honesty and integrity, I'm still looking for those.
And yes, I consider it a lynch mob. Even more so after reading today's posts. (Do a search for the word "gloat" in this thread alone.)
Your questions are entirely legitimate; I hope this addresses them.
All best,
Steve Lovelady"

Steve, I wonder if his comemnts weren't that bad that why CNN has not demanded the tape be released and played on the air to clear up this whole issue rather than take huge black eye, fire Jordan and let the "salivating morons" win a "gloating" victory and thereby eroding their own credibility, tenuous as it was anyway. Do you have an explanation?

Ian

Frank Rachelle wrote: "With all due respect I am absolutely stunned that Mr. Lovelady, a former Philadelphia Inquirer editor and current editor of Columbia Journalism Review would make the kind of comments he's making here.

Sir, let's suppose you were still an editor at the Inquirer and you were faced with this possible story:

A blogger from the New York Times writes that Donald Rumsfeld has made a statement at an international event that "we have to torture terrorists to get information" The statement is made at what is supposed to be an off-the-record event.

But now it's out there.

What would you do? Would you task any of your reporters to check out the story or not?

Now let's go one step further, same scenario. There's no transcript or tape of Rumsfeld available, but numerous credible witnesses, including a Republican U.S. Senator and a conservative Republican congressman have verified the story, on the record, at Daily Kos and Atrios' blogs.

Would you get your reporters on the story now?

Next you find out that there is a TAPE available of Rumsfeld's remarks. But the event organizer won't release it and the DoD is issuing backpedaling statements about Rumsfeld's comments.

Now what? Would the Inquirer demand that the event sponsors release the tape? Would you insist that the DoD release all information about the remarks?

But let's say you did NONE of these things and passed on the story.

Then Rumsfeld resigns, without your paper ever running a story during the heat of the controversy.

Do you think that CJR would write that your paper did a great job on the story?

Do you think the editor of CJR would complain that Daily Kos and Atrios were a "lynch mob" read by "salivating morons" because they broke the story?

Do you think CJR would lament that Rumsfeld was taken down by a bunch of "Lilliputians"?

Or would you be worried that your paper, and all the others who sat on the story, would be ripped by CJR for being so incompetant as to get beat by a bunch of bloggers?

It'll be really interesting to see how CJR covers this latest failure by major media to report a story on one of its own.

But I think the outline for it is already prepped. Just like Corey Pein's absurd essay last month on Rathergate, it isn't hard to guess how CJR will cover the Eason story. Bloggers are bad, they're not pros, a great journalist is ruined over nothing, etc. etc...

If you ever wonder why respect for journalists keeps collapsing, you've got a great example in the Eason Jordan story. I'll be fascinated to see what you do with it. "

Frank, that was an excellent analogy. Put that way, how can there be any argument denying bias?

Ian

Two things.

Their vehement reaction is due in part to being scooped but mostly to being shown to have very selective interest in these types of "scandals". If it were someone in the Bush administration that said some asinine and repugnant thing they would have no problem with whoever broke the story or pursued it.

Then there is the fact that since they are unable to attack the facts of the story they are left with personal attacks on the messengers.

Hee, hee. It's funny to watch them squirming!

Mike C. wrote above:
02-13 11:16 PM

"Lieberman is just sort of a convenient, well-known (sic) reference point as someone who righties think is a "reasonable Democrat".
*snip*
Then come back and tell me you still think this is a "meme"."

I stated that his use of the word meme made it sound like he was using a word he didn't fully understand.

Something that is well known and becomes a talking point because it is a fine reference point for engagement becomes a meme. That's why the definition you gave shortly thereafter

("A cultural idea, social practice, concept or action that becomes a norm and begins to repeat itself consciously in a society.")

fits so well.

But I ask, why the scare quotes around the word meme? Either you didn't know the meaning, which would be excusable, or you were trying to win an argument by the use of scare quotes. So I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by questioning your knowledge. Once you show that you knew the definition, but had to resort to scare quotes, I can safely judge your intent.

Now you've revealed your intent and that is worse for you, Mike C.

I am struck by how much of the controversy has moved from Jordan and his multiple slanders to the supposed integrity/sanity of anyone who would question him or the mainstream media.

This is probably what accounts for the great title of this post.

Now you've revealed your intent and that is worse for you, Mike C.

Oh, I've revealed my intent, have I? And what, pray tell, would that be?

Let me offer you an alternative explanation: either my understanding of the word was/is slightly off, or perhaps you've never seen it used the way I have. In either case, I had no hidden agenda. My use of scare quotes was because I thought UML Guy was saying that my reference to Lieberman was bullshit. He corrected that apparently wrong impression, and everything's all hunky dory now.

I wait with baited breath to find out what my real hidden intentions are.

The hidden intention of scare quotes is to scare, quite naturally.

It is one of a long list of tactics used by those who wish no longer to involve themselves in debate but rather wish to win by silencing the other side.

It's the tactic of the MSM, Mike C. It's the tactic of the left generally, Mike C. And it was what you attempted to do.

At least you learned the definition of a word. For that, I expect a hearty thank you. Now you are prepared to use it more accurately. Best of luck using it to make a point without resorting to scare quotes. What you write will gain the respect of others when you don't have to use silly rhetorical devices to make a point.

Good day, Mike C. Happy trollimg.

Oh, and you can thank me for this one too.

It's bated breath.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bai1.htm

Blair - Raines - Rather - Jordan?

All since the Duranty debacle of last year?

I think its bad Karma!

Has not the MSM and the Cloumbia crowd learned its lesson with its bludgeoning since the reaffirmation of the infamous Duranty Pulitzer?

Its not nice to toe dance on the souls of 10 million dead Ukrainians.

The Journalism industry needs to be saved from its leftist past as did Ebenezer Scrooge.

      OK, children, calm down and play nice, or no milk and cookies.

      Steven Lovelady wrote:
"1 -- We are not talking about 'news reports' aired by CNN here."

      No we aren't, directly.  But why do reporters attend "deep background" briefings, where they can't repeat anything they hear?  Because what you know about a story will affect what you write about it, even if you don't include the specific information.

      In Oct., 2002, Eason Jordan accused the Isreali military of "literally" targeting CNN journalists.  In Nov., 2004 Jordan accused the U.S. military of arresting and torturing journalists.  On January 27th of this year, Jordan allegedly made the repeated charge that U.S. forces target and kill journalists.

      Mr. Lovelady, if a local newspaper editor charged that his local police were trying to kill his staff, I suspect your reaction would be either 'This guys a paranoid nutcase,' or 'This is one heck of a story.'  I can't believe you'd dismiss it as unimportant, or think that it would have no effect on how the paper reported news about the cops.

      Jordan's belief, repeatedly expressed, is that members of western military forces deliberately attack his news crews, knowing that they are journalists.  Either that's a big story, or Jordan's mental health is suspect.  Either way, I think it's worthy of paying some attention to.

      Lovelady: "We are talking about interpretations of one man's offhand comments at a supposedly off-the-record session where people were encouraged to think out loud."

      Off the record?  Rebecca MacKinnon, who was there, wrote:

"However many of us at Davos believed the session was on the record because it was conducted in a room called Sanada 1&2. Here are the official guidelines issued to media and potential bloggers before Davos began:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"‘On and Off the Record’ Policy for AM 2005

"All plenary sessions are fully ‘on’ the record.

"All sessions that are broadcast or webcast are ‘on the record’ (for 2005 that means all sessions in the Congress Hall or Sanada 1 and 2)."

      Further, Rony Abovitz blogged about the panel on the WEF's own official site, the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens reported on the panel, and the WEF's official summary of the panel has attributed quotes.  Bogger Sisyphus was initially promised a copy of the tape.  It looks to me like the session was on the record till the potential for embarrassment was realized.

      Mr. Lovelady, the core issue is that we don't take things on faith anymore.  Once, we would have had to take Bret Stephens word for what happened, as he was the only professional journalist that reported the panel.  Now, we have nine somewhat conflicting accounts, plus other evidence, and we want to get to the bottom of the story.

      There was a time when the MSM could control topics, when, as David Brinkley once put it, "The news is what I say it is, it's what I say is important."  You don't have that power any more.

      You still have, for a while, the power to compell polite, thoughtful discussion, but if you keep using phrases like "salivating morons," you'll lose even that.

THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED -- AND WILL BE!

      Mike C:

      I seem to be missing something here.

      Nelson Ascher posts some thoughts on pro-Communists, "those whom the fall of the Berlin Wall had left orphans of a cause."  He says they're enemies of the U.S.

      Wretchard links to the Ascher posts, and adds some comments of his own.  Someone calling himself Heraclitus comments on Wretchard's post.

      Roger L. Simon links to Wretchard's post, chimes in himself.

      Finally, Glenn Reynolds links to and expresses agreement with the Ascher piece, while giving a hat tip to Simon.  Reynolds does not link to Wretchard.  For this act, Reynolds is supposed to be endorsing the views of Heraclitus, Wretchard's commenter.

      Please explain to me how you arrived at that conclusion, in short, declarative sentences, because I can't see it at all.

THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE
DESTROYED -- AND WILL BE!

Journalistic Ethics from The Society of Professional Journalists:

"Journalists should:

Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media."

http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

Aren't bloggers the public? Shouldn't by virtue of these ethics--the MSM invite dialogue with us and encourage us to voice grievances against the news media?

Hypocrites!!

You people need to chill.

I know it's fun to take shots at a representative of what you call the "MSM" (even though, writing for a navel-gazing academic journalism review, he's not exactly Ted Turner here), but you're missing the point. In Mr. Lovelady's screed, he didn't defend Eason Jordan's statements, he merely said that he should not have stepped down after so many years of great service, not without putting up a bit of a fight. The fact that the blogging world has no respect for journalism should not affect an individual's career so much.

I see the situation like this. Just as you bloggers believe journalists are quaking in their boots over the New Media, some journalists believe bloggers are just as frightened that their effort will amount to irrelevance, when people tire of keeping up with so many voices, on so many pages.

The attacks on Lovelady and other MSMers are indeed rabid. That doesn't mean "dumb." Everyone knows there are just as many intelligent posters in the blogosphere as there are idiots. But they are vicious, and for the most part, completely unnecessary.

I never thought I would be apologizing for "the mainstream," but here I am. I like the news. I don't want to see it replaced by a bunch of Republican zealots calling themselves some sort of "pundit."

Jim: yes, I do think you ball-peened that one quite delicately.

Unfortunately, I myself have used the tools of the plumber's trade in really very inappropriate ways upon my tv's, trying to stem the stench by erecting direct stacks and drains from the actual body of the sets, to no avail and at much cost.

At least I now have a toilet left over right in my living room.

But that Lovelady guy will never see it. I don't think he knows even how to use one, given the nature of what he deposited here on this very site.

Please excuse me while I get to work on my computer.

Curses, with Johnny Mainstream's appearance I feel a strange urge to construct a septic drain field right in my entryway.

Johnny, I will probably not see the multipotent free thought of blogging as irrelevant until I get Alzheimer's, unless the fact that I have felt no need to drink water over the past 36 hours means something important?

Really, I have never felt any need to examine the Inquirer, with such far superior fantasy available through the magicland of the MSM. It will never go away because its creators will never cease to exist. And blogs do seem parasitic on this kind of anti-thought for their very existence and definition, to say nothing of its value as a standard or model to rise above.

It may well be some kind of dialectic of the very nature of the Universe, if I might be or seem so anthropocentric as to suppose that we too are a part of the Universe and partake of its mystery and tensions.

But right now, and again, I find a need to look at how storm sewers are constructed, if only to avoid that infernal water which even if distilled seems to constitute a veritable plague of threat to me.

I think the 'Steve Lovelady' poster is really just some random troll.
I don't see how somebody without any real logical skills could have risen so high. I mean, it didn't even try to address any points, it just came in a shat all over the place.

It only failed to leave the troll's calling card.

YHBT HAND

Birkel, you're completely hopeless. Using scare quotes is uniquely a tactic of the left? Come on. You can do better than that. Try again later. Incidentally, I'm not a member of the left. I just happen to think the idea that the left is full of traitors is utter nonsense.

Stephen M. St. Onge:

Reynolds is supposed to be endorsing the views of Heraclitus, Wretchard's commenter

I didn't say Reynolds was "endorsing" that comment. I was just highlighting it as an example of the kind of bomb-throwing lunacy to which I had earlier referred. As for the Reynolds angle, he linked approvingly ("Sigh. I wish they were wrong.") to the original post at EuroPundit. My mistake. That really doesn't make any difference to my point, which is that Reynolds appeared to be endorsing the notion that the left wants to destroy America. That's tin-foil hat garbage just like Michael Moore's. But even His Instyship aside, my main beef was with the post itself, and the commenters at Belmont Club.

In Mr. Lovelady's screed, he didn't defend Eason Jordan's statements, he merely said that he should not have stepped down after so many years of great service, not without putting up a bit of a fight.

Well, I've been in a few fights, and one of the things I figured out early on is that it's a bad idea to get into fights you're probably going to lose.

I'd guess Mr. Jordan has also figured that out, and would rather resign with a nice severance package than be fired for embarassing "The most trusted name in news".

I respect Mr. Lovelady for his response, and debating the issue. I don't agree with him and that is the point of having a debate. Most of the comments here have been polite and well thought out. I hope he learned something from them. He does raise an issue we need to be careful of. There were and are comments that represent nothing more than a lynch mob mentality. These comments will taint the entire argument. They do give some members of MSM the impression that the blogsphere is out head hunting. I don't think that is the purpose, and thats not why I started reading Blogs. Keep the comments clear of personal attacks. and at some point the MSM will realize we are not out to get them, we are out to get the truth.

Mike I'm afraid that would be the majority of commentors. At least on one side of the fence.

Mike,

I was actually disappointed. His (Steve's) first post was a good one. The follow-up was a breath-takingly blatant cop-out.

I absolutely know that he knows the technical names of every single one of the tactics of distraction he used in his farewell. But he used them anyway.

I learned a lot about the ethics of the Columbia School of Journalism today, not to mention the fact that, as somebody else noted, they wrongly consider their job to be rocket science.