![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
depressed news executive Eason Jordan said something in answer to a question. Precisely what he said is unknown, since the WEF is held under the Chatham House Rule: "participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed." No tapes of any session held under the Chatham House Rule can be released, either video or audio.
Eason Jordan was just back from Iraq. A blogger (Rony Abovitz) present at one of the discussions, either ignorant of the Chatham House Rule or deliberately breaking it, wrote: "During one of the discussions about the number of journalists killed in the Iraq War, Eason Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted."
Eason Jordan had already been the target of a right-wing blogmobbing in April 2003, after an Op-Ed he wrote for the New York Times was distorted and used to smear him. It's not surprising that he resigned when it was clear this off-the-cuff comment at what should have been an off-the-record meeting was going to be used as fuel for another blogmobbing.
Arguments have blazed up over whether the real scandal is what Eason Jordan said, or what happened to him as a result (though curiously enough, I've seen no one arguing that the real scandal is that Rony Abovitz egregiously broke the Chatham House Rule and, quite possibly, the organisers of the WEF and other such groups will consider banning amateurs who can't keep the rule from such meetings in future). A few people have pointed out (Jeanne at Body and Soul for one) that the real scandal is that US soldiers have been killing journalists in Iraq - and no one in the American MSM seems to care very much.
I found an In Memoriam page that lists 24 journalists, translators, and cameramen who have died in Iraq:
To all war correspondents out there, to all those who cover the horror of mankinds cruelty to mankind, maybe one day the horror which you captured may persuade us that war is a barbaric way to solve our differences. An independent journalist who covers war is a peacemaker. The pursuit of truth can bring grim consequences to those who pursue it. Thanks to those who have been killed in their duty of reporting on the truth and to those imprisoned and tortured.
The 24 names are: Terry Lloyd, Paul Moran, Gaby Rado, Kaveh Golestan, Michael Kelly, Kamaran Abd al-Razaq Muhammad, David Bloom, Julio Anguita Parrado, Christian Liebig, Tariq Ayoub, Taras Protsyuk, Jose Couso, Mario Podesta, Veronica Cabrera, Elizabeth Neuffer, Walid Khalifa Hassan Al-Dulami, Richard Wild, Jeremy Little, Mazin Dana, Mark Fineman, Ahmad Shawkat, Duraid Isa Muhammad, and Ali Abdul Aziz.
Terry Lloyd was driving a van clearly marked TV when he came under fire from a US helicopter. His interpreter, Hussein Othman, was also killed. Fred Nérac, his cameraman, is missing, presumed dead.
Tareq Ayyoub was killed when the US bombed Al-Jazeera's Baghdad office. Nabil Khoury (U.S. State Department spokesman) said: "My personal view is that it is a mistake, a grave mistake. It is something we all regret. I personally cannot imagine that a country which respects general freedoms can target media establishments." This wasn't the first time the US had bombed an Al-Jazeera office, nor is it the only time the US bombed "enemy" media establishments).
Taras Protsyuk was killed when a US tank fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, where most international journalists were staying - a fact known to the military command, whether or not the individuals in the tank knew it.
Mazen Dana was killed when two US tanks fired on him while he was filming outside Abu Ghraib prison. "His sound engineer, Nael al-Shyoukhi, said that the pair had spoken to a US soldier near the prison shortly before the shooting. 'They saw us and they knew about our identities and our mission,' he said. cite
Mazen Al-Tomaizi was killed when a US helicopter fired on people who had gathered around a Bradley fighting vehicle that had been set ablaze in Baghdad.
Ali Abdul Aziz was killed when US soldiers fired at him in Baghdad. His cameraman, Ali al-Khatib, was also killed in the same incident.
Asaad Kadhim (not listed on the In Memoriam website) was killed when US and Kurdish soldiers fired on him. His driver, Hussein Saleh, was killed in the same incident.
Hamid Rashid Wali (not listed on the In Memoriam website) was killed in a clash between US soldiers and Sadr's insurgents.
Dhia Najim (not listed on the In Memoriam website) was killed by a US marine sniper in Ramadi.
In August 2004, INSI reported that 51 media workers had been killed in Iraq (by January 2005, when Jordan made his comments, this figure had risen to 62). To give some idea of how high this figure is: "According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 58 journalists died during the Algerian civil war of 1991-1996, while the International Federation of Journalists says 63 journalists died in the Vietnam war." This death toll isn't something anyone whose job it is to send journalists and other media workers into war zones, takes lightly, and Eason Jordan's comments at Davos can easily be understood in that context - just as his painfully honest account of the restrictions required of him when he worked in Iraq, during Saddam Hussein's regime, could have been easily understood.
There's been much argument about what "targetting" means in this context. In the sense of the US military deliberately deciding to kill media workers for being media workers, clearly there have been incidents, acknowledged by the US military as such, where this has happened: bombing of TV stations in Belgrade and Baghdad.
In the sense of soldiers shooting at media workers to kill them, whether or not they knew they were shooting at media workers, of course this has happened: several incidents are documented above.
Whether or not some soldiers have shot at media workers to kill them, knowing that they were killing media workers, would be a matter for public investigation. Some incidents, such as the killings of Terry Lloyd, Hussein Othman, Mazen Dana, Ali Abdul Aziz, and Ali al-Khatibm would certainly seem to merit public investigation - something which the Pentagon has persistently refused to provide.
It's no news to anyone that the US military is apt to kill its allies by mistake - Anthony Swofford, a US veteran of the first Gulf war writes about this: John Simpson famously reported about one incident shortly after it happened, while still bleeding from his injuries. It's entirely possible that the Pentagon just doesn't want to admit that the high death-toll among non-embedded journalists in the Iraq war is the result of pure carelessness on their part: they've never been very helpful to non-American victims of "friendly fire", and, notably, all the journalists killed in Iraq by US soldiers were not American.
There's a list of casualties up to the beginning of November here.
The ongoing scandal is - why isn't the US military doing more to ensure that US troops don't kill journalists? Whether it happens by accident or where there is clear intent (as when three Reuters journalists were captured and abused by US soldiers, in a manner very reminiscent of Abu Ghraib) this is something that the US military, and the American public, ought to care about.
What the right-wing blogmob got het up about, though, was not the shame of the US military's apparent inability to avoid targetting noncombatants, but the fact that Eason Jordan mentioned that this was happening. It was argued that we ought not to care about journalists being killed: they choose to go into lethal situations, and ought to take the risk accordingly. Iraq is a dangerous place to be, since Bush invaded: as the recent Lancet study showed, at least 100 000 people have been killed (many of them "due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims") since Bush & Co invaded in March 2003.
Should we care about 12 noncombatants killed by US soldiers when so many noncombatants have been killed by US soldiers? But it doesn't appear that the rightwing blogmob who targetted Eason Jordan for talking about the 12, actually care any more about the 100 000: most of the rightwing blogmob attacks on the Lancet study consisted of unscientific attempts to decry the study's methodology, while a few simply denied that the figure could possibly be that high. (A sound analysis of the study's methodogy can be found here.) Nor does the Lancet study cover noncombatants targeted by US (and UK) cluster bombs, who were only maimed, and not killed.
In part, I think, the right-wing blogmobbing of Eason Jordan was simply caused by a settled dislike of Jordan and via him of CNN, because CNN cannot be relied upon to invariably report in complete sympathy with Bush & Co. (Given that Bush supporters have their own channel, Fox News, this would seem a little selfish on their part; but I suspect the fact that they can switch on one news channel that will tell them what they want to hear and nothing else, makes them more outraged at news channels that report the world somewhat differently. If Fox News is right, the other channels must be wrong - there must be a mass media conspiracy to make Fox News look bad! - and so on.)
But in part, I think, the right-wing blogmobbing was triggered by a wish that noncombatant deaths in Iraq caused by the US invasion shall remain invisible. Until the Lancet study came out, I remember getting abused by some right-wingers when I cited Iraq Body Count - after the Lancet study, many of the right-wingers seemed to flee to IBC, I suppose because 18305 confirmed civilian deaths in Iraq seemed a comforting kind of figure next to 100 000 deaths. (IBC's response to the Lancet study is here.)
It is difficult to argue that the US invasion of Iraq must have been a good thing, welcomed by "good Iraqis" (as opposed to the growing insurgency), when so many Iraqis have been killed as a direct result. It is much easier if you can bring yourself to ignore these deaths, to claim they couldn't have happened, or that most of them must have been "insurgents".
Journalists who report on what's happening - who are courageous enough to go out into dangerous territory and see for themselves what is going on - deserve more respect than, it appears, the rightwing blogmob is willing to give them.
The dangers that media workers face in Iraq have been an issue from the beginning to the present day. It's not only important because these people are non-combatants: it's an issue because media workers are attempting to report accurately on current events. Kill journalists, and you don't just kill an individual: you kill the story that journalist could have told.
Al-Jazeera has been banned from reporting in Iraq. Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, Al-Arabiya's reporter in Falluja, was arrested on 11th November and held prisoner by US forces till 23rd November.
It may be that every single media worker killed by US troops died by accident - that the US soldiers who killed them were firing hysterically, in panic, without thought, without judgement, carelessly - any or all of the above. We know this happens. We know noncombatants are killed as a result. Was it the case in every single incident above? No one really knows, because the Pentagon has in most cases declined to investigate, and in no case made its investigation, which just happened to find the US military innocent in all cases, open to the public.
We are expected, it appears, to accept the Pentagon's word for it that US soldiers only kill noncombatants by accident, and there's nothing the general public needs to know about why these "accidents" happen - and why they happen so often.
The right-wing blogosphere appears to feel that it's not only wrong to question the Pentagon's word on this topic, it's even wrong to mention the topic - even at a closed discussion where the subject has come up.
What's the real scandal of the Eason Jordan incident? It's really not what Jordan said, whatever that was. Nor is it even that Jordan lost his job over it.
Update: this entry is also being discussed over at Obsidian Wings, thanks to Slartibartfast.
I've added a new link to the entry about Mazen Dana, found via Suburban Guerrilla.
February 22 2005, 16:44:01 UTC 7 years ago
I did not follow the nature of the right-wing rant about this, but I assume it was the usual about any negative media comment about US behavior in the Iraq war.
This is a story about right wing agitprop and CNN spinelessness. I also heard that Jordan was on a downward career curve at CNN, so it may also have something to do with office politics.
As for the real scandal, I suspect its the natural result of an undermanned force trying to fight an insurgency in a hostile population, and getting very trigger happy as a result. Way too many Iraqi civilians have died in a manner similar to the media people, so I think this is not so much about media being targeted as it is about a de facto shoot first, ask questions later policy. Although when you add hostility toward foreign press, you further lower the hesitancy to refrain from shooting someone who might be media (maybe its a press person filming, or maybe its a guerrilla with a RPG -- shoot first and find out later).
So that is the real scandal -- the killing of thousands of innocents because the troops are overwhelmed in a sea of potential hostiles. Most of the media deaths should be seen as examples of this more general slaughter -- not as something unique to media targets (though I have no doubt that there are a few such episodes, too).
The press has overblown a few incidents -- the Palestine hotel incident was a clear episode of journalists killed as part of an active firefight between US troops and Iraqi army forces when it was simply not reasonable to infer that they were shot at because they were media. That has not prevented media types from unfairly portraying it as a US excess.
February 22 2005, 16:59:57 UTC 7 years ago
On a closed forum, where it's been agreed that you don't name names and quote, he said something that could be poorly interpreted - not scripted, but on the spur of the moment. *shrug* Let he who has a little bot on his back to stop him saying stupid things in public, cast the first stone.
I did not follow the nature of the right-wing rant about this, but I assume it was the usual about any negative media comment about US behavior in the Iraq war.
A surprising amount of it was targetted directly at Jordan.
the Palestine hotel incident was a clear episode of journalists killed as part of an active firefight between US troops and Iraqi army forces when it was simply not reasonable to infer that they were shot at because they were media. That has not prevented media types from unfairly portraying it as a US excess.
Fairly, I think. The US command knew that the Palestine Hotel was where the foreign journalists were staying: this should have been made clear to the US forces in the area.
February 22 2005, 17:14:38 UTC 7 years ago
I think you are wrong about the Palestine hotel episode. This occurred during one of the first incursions into Baghdad, and the US forces were under heavy fire from Iraqi military. The explanation for the tank shot at the hotel was that the US forces thought they observed spotters for Iraqi artillery at the hotel, and shot to suppress them. It is entirely possible that there were spotters, as opposed to simply mistaking journalists observing the fight with cameras as spotters. A mistake would also be justified in that environment, and it seems that either there were spotters (unknown) or a very understandable mistake. Portraying that as targeting journalists is simply wrong.
You seem to suggest that orders not to shoot at the hotel should have been the rules of engagement because it was known (and it clearly was known by higher command, though probably not by the tank commanders in the engagement) that there was media at the hotel.
Although, I bet that if it was a mosque suspected of being used for spotters rather than a hotel known to be regularly occupied by journalists, there would have been much more vetting of the decision to shoot.
February 22 2005, 17:21:40 UTC 7 years ago
That's the point, isn't it? Why didn't higher command bother to pass along to the lower echelons that the Palestine Hotel was offlimits?
Although, I bet that if it was a mosque suspected of being used for spotters rather than a hotel known to be regularly occupied by journalists, there would have been much more vetting of the decision to shoot.
Rather the reverse, I think. Mosques have been attacked all over Iraq, on the excuse that they were being used by insurgents for cover, and there's been very little criticism or publicity. Same for attacks on hospitals. Journalists do have the advantage that they tend to have international links - that when they die or disappear or are unjustly imprisoned, at least someone from outside the country, who has access to the media and to important people, will always want to know what's become of them. When an Iraqi family are gunned down in the street by US soldiers and there's not a single journalist about, the only way that would become a story is if one of the soldiers told.
February 22 2005, 19:07:33 UTC 7 years ago
Since the hotel was known to be the full of non-combatants it needed to have safeguards, mmore clarity on the shoot/don't shoot requirements.
If there was confirmed fire (and of a sort which could have harmed the troops in the tanks, though this is harder to judge) then all bets are, pretty much off. Barring that (and there was no evidence that anything was certain enough, even in the heat of the moment) then the hotel should have been out of bounds.
The allegation that the tanks were facing artillery is an after the fact excuse, not made by those on the ground. The guys on the ground (at least per the reports of the engagement I read) thought they had observers, but there was no arty to speak of, and no one can say; in a built up area, that spotting is coming from any specific target. By the logic of, "potential spotters = valid targets," there was no building in Baghdad which was off limits.
Since some were off limits, the Palestine Hotel, again, ought to have been on the non-target list.
It wasn't.
TK
February 24 2005, 17:04:44 UTC 7 years ago
Here's a link to a summary as well as to the official report of the Palestine Hotel incident (this is similar to but better than the link I sent you in my e-mail response -- it actually has the pdf for the official report). I wrote my post from past recollections, but I got it mostly right. The troops that made the decision to fire on the Hotel were under fire, and had intelligence that spotters were directing fire from a tall building. They shot at the Hotel because they thought they observed spotters there -- the speculation is that they mistook journalists watching the firefight (and pointing cameras?) for spotters. Maybe if they had been informed that the building has journalists in it, they might not have made the mistake. Or the heat of the moment may have caused the mistake no matter what. This episode cannot be described as a "hair-trigger" response or a shoot first, ask questions later episode. It is similar to friendly fire episodes under the heat of combat.
The military admits that higher command knew of the sensitivity of the Hotel and that it failed to brief the guys on the ground as to the sensitivity of the Hotel. I think this reflects an indifference to media in the fire zones -- I don't think they get treated worse than civilians, but no better than civilians. And as I said above, I think the media deaths are more symptomatic of the circumstances that have resulted in a lot of civilians being killed, rather than something unique to the media (with a few isolated exceptions).
Why does the fire also have to be harmful to the tanks? If a machine gun position is spraying troops with deadly fire, does a tank have to refrain from shooting because it is not threatenting the tank itself?
February 24 2005, 17:30:32 UTC 7 years ago
As for what makes a valid response: The principle from the ROE were vague enough that a passing moment of concern would let us shoot people.
That said there are rules of engagement, from the Hauge and Genenva Convrntions which require a level of measured response (using a tank to take out a sniper is out).
If a tank unit is taking fire it can igore (button up and move on) then to let go with HEAP fro the main gun is probably out of line.
If there is a high risk of collateral damage it is both out of line, and outside the ROE for the shooting war (which ordered avoidance of collateral damage whereever possible).
Unless troops were taking fire, which could be directly attributable to the occupants of the hotel, it was off limits.
TK
February 24 2005, 17:55:42 UTC 7 years ago
I have not actually read them, but I believe this is true.
I agree that in an urban environment, tank fire in response to any threat does not make sense. I don't know enough about the ROE to say more.
Where do you go to read the daily summaries of the V Corps that you reference? I would be interested to compare them to the official report issued months later.
February 25 2005, 15:49:59 UTC 7 years ago
You can't.
I am going on inside knowledge, I was an NCO in the human intelligence company of V Corps during the war. As such I was privy to information which was not public, and is not readily available to people now.
I do my best to keep my comments to public sources, but can't always keep my secondary opinions from being colored enough by what I know to come to my conclusions without information most people can't get.
Nature of the beast.
From the CFLCC ROE
That's extracted from the ROE Card, handed to everyone who was in theater. It has a lot of wiggle room, and that wiggle room is why what was, in effect a bush shot, was deemed legit.
Were the tankers wrong? No, not really. Not from the ROE, and not from their POV. Someone told them the hotel was being used to spot, and they shot it. A tad heavy handed, (and not really useful, without some real intel, there are a number of high points which could have been used to spot for arty, this was no Monte Cassino), but not outside the rules.
But it does break some of the spirit of the rules, and given the nature of the ROE, and what CentCom, CFLCC and V Corps knew about the hotel, it should have been off limits, without approval from at least brigade, and probably Division.
TK
February 25 2005, 17:46:29 UTC 7 years ago
When I read the official report, which did not censure the shooting, I had an awareness that something like that written momnths later could easily paper over contradictory information. I wish there was some other source for another point of view.
What is your perspective on this question? I am a lawyer by training, so I know something about rules and the practicalities of their enforcement. But my only background re military is having read a lot of military history (i.e., next to no background), so I am interested in your practical point of view.
I wonder about the ability to actually run an urban battle with anything other than a sort of gross adherance to these ROE. There must be many violations caused as much by the hot-headedness generated by the heat of combat as by recklessness (or are they the same thing?). So much of the ROE require judgment calls which must be made somewhat on the spur of the moment. And rules exist only if they are enforced -- how can that be done except as to clearly egregious violations?
I think it all comes down to the willingness of non-coms and lower level officers to enforce these rules on the spot, which I hope (and believe, naively?) is happening. Is it?
February 25 2005, 21:22:25 UTC 7 years ago
1: The shooting. It was gray. With so many buildings about choosing one and saying it was the spotter's, was naive. No need for optics to pick targets (tanks and bradleys and troops are visible enough that naked eyes would be fine.
2: The ROE. There were buildings which were off limits for purely political reasons. Since the occupants of the Palestine were known to be there, well in advance of the shooting war starting, to not include it was either a lack of foresight, or a semi-deliberate act (which is to say someone decided they would either have left, or could take their chances, no measure to protect them would be taken).
As for violations... I only gave you the relevant portions of the ROE to our conversation.
Adherence to much of anything, in a firefight, is problematic. People trying to kill you are not likely to be the immediate beneficiaries of reasoned response. When recently threatened, everything looks more threatening.
Example: Under the subsequent ROE (somewhat more restrictive) I'd have been in my rights to shoot someone who was in a car, which entered my convoy (this happened more often than you would think, esp. in two-three vehicle convoys) and then did something I thought threatening (like lean forward in the back seat and pull something dark and metallic out of his coat).
The same gesture, were I in a convoy in Korea, would not evoke the level of response, even were I armed as I was in Iraq.
Enforcement is always problematic. What is a violation? Who gets to make the call? Me, as an NCO on the spot, or some guy in the rear who never gets shot at?
All in all, the censure of one's peers is the best enforcement tool. My troops know there are things I won't condone, and they don't do them. The question is, as it has always been, what will the Army keep beyond the pale.
TK
February 24 2005, 17:36:49 UTC 7 years ago
And much differently now then they were in Viet-nam. There is a decided opinion, among both the rank and file, and the command structure, that reporters are out to get troops.
Look at the reactions to reportage of war crimes... the reporters are lambasted, the troops are siad to have been reacting to circumstance.
Bull.
It's kind of like congressmen. If a reporter has been hanging out with a unit (like Ernie Pyle did) then he is seen as ok, but every other reporter out there is, at best, ignorant of the real facts and at worst, sympathising with the enemy.
So if they are in the beaten zone, who cares. Since there is no convention on how to treat them, a press/tv marking is no protection, and may serve to draw fire (not so much by intent, as by standing out; the last thing one really wants in a firefight is to be noticed).
I do know, because I heard it, more than once, and from more than just grunts, but officers as well, that reporters from Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya were thought of by many as more more than just sympathetic toward, but actively working for, the enemy, and that some ought to be shot to make the rest behave.
TK
February 24 2005, 18:00:28 UTC 7 years ago
I have no doubt that your comments are correct. That is why I suspect some of these shootings are troops exploiting an exigency to shoot at media (or else not caring to check it out further even though they have an inkling that the potential threat may be media). That is why I indicated that the command did not bother to take any special measures about the Palestine Hotel -- they resent media and surely resent having to take any special measures for media in a fire zone.
March 1 2005, 13:06:49 UTC 7 years ago
March 1 2005, 17:06:13 UTC 7 years ago
TK
February 23 2005, 05:09:06 UTC 7 years ago
Great Work
This is important, painstaking analysis. I've followed enough ObWi threads to know that your thoughts deserve respect. Thanks!March 1 2005, 13:06:11 UTC 7 years ago
Re: Great Work
Thank you!February 23 2005, 15:59:26 UTC 7 years ago
March 1 2005, 13:06:29 UTC 7 years ago
February 28 2005, 14:42:01 UTC 7 years ago
Echoing Congressman Barney Frank, then...
Setting aside the after-the-fact response of the right-wing blogosphere, can we merely reprise the question asked by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank (who was a participant of the closed-session meeting at Davos)? If Eason Jordan believes that journalists are being killed -- if not because of "targeting", but at least with some frequency above that of other civilians in the same territories -- why isn't CNN reporting that as news? Or if the "news" is not provable, why isn't CNN at least investigating it as potential news? And if they're investigating the deaths as a potential news story and running into some sort of military informational road-blocks and/or cover-ups -- why hasn't CNN approached the leadership of the Opposition political parties (like Frank himself, and like Senator Dodd, or like Dachel before him or like Harry Reid now) with the indications of such a cover-up -- asking for public hearings? When a Congressman asks a general to answer a question, the general - generally -- responds. The response may or may not be completely forthcoming, complete, or accurate, but the general responds. I would expect a global journalistic enterprise like CNN, the BBC, or others of that caliber to have investigative resources comparable to that of any national intelligence service. Putting the hints, clues, indications and statistical analysis about any "disproportionate" numbers of incidents involving the military and journalists into the hands of those with the power to demand explanations would seem to have been an EARLY step to be taken when "targeting" became a possibility in Jordan's mind.So, did Jordan bring his suspicions to press? No. Did he bring them to Congress. No. Has he even, himself, taken the question up with the military? This is not apparent.
So, I echo Barney Frank-- why does Eason make such accusations in the Davos forum, first? Why here, why now, and with what proof?
I don't consider Frank's response to Jordan's remark an attack. It seems to me to be a quite legitimate pursuit of the truth.
If the right-wing takes a "put up or shut up" attitude with the question, that's them. But the left at least is equally interested in the "put up" portion. Why hasn't Eason put forward in his mass-media outlets the same sorts of research offered here?
As it stands now, it appears that Jordan is repeating the crime he confessed to earlier. As he sucked up to and permitted editorial control to Saddam Hussein prior to the war; he now is sucking up to and permitting control to the Pentagon. Don't matter what the truth is, CNN'll keep secret the crimes so they preserve "access" to the "story". And if that's what Jordan has been doing, -- submitting to and protecting the Pentagon's killers as he protected Uday and Qusay -- why would anyone on the left rise in Jordan's defense?
March 1 2005, 13:05:43 UTC 7 years ago
Re: Echoing Congressman Barney Frank, then...
why does Eason make such accusations in the Davos forum, first? Why here, why now, and with what proof?That's the bizarre thing, for me - why Barney Frank is taking this attitude.
From all accounts, Eason Jordan was asked a question about journalists being killed in Iraq, and he responded with an off-the-cuff comment, which he has since clarified. As Hilzoy said on Obsidian Wings, allowance ought to have been made for someone just back from Iraq.
In short, Jordan isn't making any public accusations, and never has had. He said something in private, in the course of a heated discussion. That this is being interpreted as a public accusation is just plain wrong, on all levels.
Why hasn't Eason put forward in his mass-media outlets the same sorts of research offered here?
I strongly suspect because CNN would not have anything to do with it. Given the fury of the right-wings' response to even a private comment about the killing of civilians by US soldiers, and the implication that such killings could be avoided if the Pentagon took more trouble, what would their reaction be to a serious news item covering the killing of journalists by US soldiers? Especially when none of the journalists killed by US soldiers have themselves been American: I noted early in the attack on Afghanistan that when three US soldiers and eight Northern Alliance soldiers were killed by "friendly fire", the US media ignored the eight Afghan deaths utterly - not even mentioning that these men had been killed - while focussing with intense detail on the three US soldiers, the first American casualties killed in combat in the attack on Afghanistan.
Until a US soldier kills an American journalist (and even then, that journalist had better be either famous or safely center-politics, in no way possibly described as left-wing or anti-war) I think the killing of civilians by US soldiers will continue to be ignored by American mass media, on the grounds that the American public just aren't interested in that kind of thing.
March 1 2005, 17:12:48 UTC 7 years ago
Re: Echoing Congressman Barney Frank, then...
why does Eason make such accusations in the Davos forum, first?Because he's a reporter, talking shop among reporters.
Reporters get killed. I knew that when I was one. They get killed at a higher rate than anyone who isn't in a line unit; in regular contact.
In this squabble, they are being killed at higher rates than that. Sitting around, with a bunch of like minded sorts, we talk, we chat, we speculate. That's what Davos is supposed to allow. Is CNN looking at it? We don't know.
Is it the ponderings of one man, in a decent position to look at the numbers? We don't know.
Does it merit what he got? No, not so long as O'Reilly and Coulter and Savage and Brooks are allowed free rein.
TK
Anonymous
March 2 2005, 04:34:18 UTC 7 years ago
You're alleged facts are wrong
For one thing, the panel was in a room which the WEF had announced would be completely on the record (independently reported by Rebecca MacKinnon and Bret Stephens). For another, the WEF initially agreed to release the tape, then reneged.And many of the allegations about dead journalists are false or uncertain too.
In fact, Jordan has a history of making statements he can't support with evidence, as well as uttering flat lies, and changing his tune depending on who his audience. Usually he got away with it, but this time he didn't.
March 2 2005, 12:45:09 UTC 7 years ago
Re: You're alleged facts are wrong
For one thing, the panel was in a room which the WEF had announced would be completely on the recordIf true, this is an important datum. Can you provide a cite for it? (That is, the WEF announcement that you have read that stated, before the event, that this panel would not be subject to the Chatham House Rule?) If you can, I'll certainly update my post with a link to your cite, as that somewhat changes the situation about whether Eason Jordan should have been quoted. Actually, if this is true, it does explain why the WEF haven't made more of a fuss about the situation. But I await your cite.
And many of the allegations about dead journalists are false or uncertain too.
This comment, on the other hand, is so vague as to be ridiculous, and casts extreme doubt on your previous claim. If you have first-hand evidence to show about any of the specific killings of journalists that I have linked to, I await your refutations, one by one. If you are merely spouting off, I don't suppose I'll hear from you again.
In fact, Jordan has a history of making statements he can't support with evidence, as well as uttering flat lies, and changing his tune depending on who his audience.
And again, this sounds like mere cheap slander, especially from someone who doesn't appear to want to sign their name. I don't expect you to get a livejournal especially to comment, if you don't want one, but you'll find that comments are more likely to be taken seriously if they're substantiated, and come from someone who isn't just signing in as (Anonymous).