It came from the email box

Sad conclusion in the Eason Jordan affair (see below the New
York Times article), sad day for the freedom of expression in
America and sad day again for the future of blogging

When did some one say we needed to have freedom from responsibility to have freedom of speech?

Eason Jordan spoke freely, and will I am sure continue to do so again.

I am sure Eason Jordan will even write a book about how he was mistreated ( and a lot of folks will be buying this book)

he defense
of the US army honor seemed more important to some bloggers
than the defense of reporters' work (and sometimes life)!

A man who ordered covering up for a dictator to get CNN access to his atrocious regime. I think if anything this is showing the world the work of Eason Jordan outside the bounds of the media fraternity

Nevertheless, there is one advantage in this story: masks are
fallen! Within the honest community of bloggers, some of them
claimed to be the "sons of the First Amendment", they just were
the sons of Senator McCarthy. And this is very worrying to see
this new wedding between self-proclaimed citizen's media and
mainstream journalists scalps' hunters.

You see we've been lied to

we've been lied to for a long time by folks like Eason Jordan. They have controlled, spun, and manipulated everything we know.

that's why the Scalp hunter mentality is out there amongst bloggers, along with the "we actually pushed him to resign" euphoria which will in time go away

folks like Eason Jordan have been smug and arrogant in how they treat the masses, but now the masses can respond to their treatment by their overlords... A new status quo will have to emerge

but Calling us McCarthites is not the way to get there ( and further perpetuates historical inaccuracies about McCarthy)

Fifty years ago, it was
enough to be communist to be fired, today, it is enough to raise
questions about the Bush administration policy in Iraq to be
denounced as "anti-American".

Mr. Eason didn't question Bush administration policy. he spun an innuendo ( at best) or a lie ( at worst) about Us Soldiers. And then he backed down when he was caught in the act. This reminds me of why i liked Congressman Frank back in my early days of watching C-Span he is a man of political integrity and honesty.

Maybe the only difference is that
you are not fired, but that you must dismiss! What's my
conclusion? Real promoters of citizen media would have to take
some distance with those who have fueled and organised the
Eason Jordan hatred. If not, the "new era of journalism" opened
by the blogosphere will appear as the old clothes of American
populism.

So you hold that no one should be responsible for their words? I'd love to see you apply that same rule to a politician

According to the New York Times, "Eason Jordan, a senior
executive at CNN who was responsible for coordinating the cable
network's Iraq coverage, resigned abruptly Friday 11 February,
citing a journalistic tempest he touched off during a panel
discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,
late last month in which he appeared to suggest that United States
troops had deliberately aimed at journalists, killing some.
Though no transcript of Mr. Jordan's remarks at Davos on Jan. 27
has been released, the panel's moderator, David Gergen, editor at
large of U.S. News & World Report, said in an interview last
night that Mr. Jordan had initially spoken of soldiers, "on both
sides," who he believed had been "targeting" some of the more
than four dozen journalists killed in Iraq. Almost immediately
after making that assertion, Mr. Jordan, whose title at CNN had
been executive vice president and chief news executive, "quickly
walked that back to make it clear that there was no policy on the
part of the U.S. government to target or injure journalists," Mr.
Gergen said."

He walked it back after being CONFRONTED

thats a huge difference. What if Congressman Frank wasn't there? would anyone with that position of authority who was there forced Eason Jordan to walk it back?

the coverage also fails to note how Arab Journalists praised him for "speaking the truth" the same journalists who make inuendo and lies about the US government on a regular basis

In a memorandum released to his colleagues last night, Mr.
Jordan, 44, who had worked at the network for more than two
decades, said he had "decided to resign in an effort to prevent
CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over
conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming
number of journalists killed in Iraq."
Bret Stephens, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial
board who attended the session in Davos, wrote in Thursday's
Journal that Mr. Jordan had "made a defamatory innuendo" but
added: "Mr. Jordan deserves some credit for retracting the
substance of his remark, and some forgiveness for trying to weasel
his way out of a bad situation of his own making."
Source: New York Times. See also the first posting on 28 January
2005 about the Eason Jordan affair: it was posted by Rony
Abrovitz on forumblog.org, the official weblog of the World
Economic Forum.

something my mother taught me that Eason Jordan should have remembered

Its not the crime that always gets you, but lying about it most certainly will