Ronda Hauben wrote:
> The Conservative Media's Attack on CNN's Eason Jordan
> CNN's News Chief Eason Jordan was targeted for attack.
> Is this a clue to the way some journalists in Iraq are targeted for attack?
Ronda, excuse my foul language, but you're full of crap.
1) It was not the "conservative media" that attacked Jordan - it was
conservative non-mainstream media (=blogs). The whole "easongate" was
not reported in mainstream media until he resigned.
2) The evil WSJ
If you'd do your homework you should be able to locate plenty of
articles/blogs that addressed this topic BEFORE Jan 28th, BEFORE the
WSJ. Try google.com and search for "easongate".
3) "targeted"
<from sayanythingblog.com>
During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum last month,
Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by
coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted.
He quickly backed off the remarks, explaining that he meant to
distinguish between journalists killed because they were in the wrong
place when a bomb fell, for example, and those killed because they
were shot at by American forces who mistook them for the enemy.
“I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when
U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to
anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise,” Jordan said
in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.
...
<me again:>
Essentially, the whole circus started around the definition of
"targeted".
Easons (reported) remarks led to believe that the american military
was targeting journalists (because they were journalists).
Now, can someone please explain why a journalist is not able to
properly distinguish between the erroneous "targeted" killing of
journalists on the battlefield that look/act like enemy fighters
(e.g. "aim" their optics at US forces from the Palestine hotel) and
the fully intended targeted killing of journalists (as a group)?
Ronda, you are describing this as an "orchestrated alliance of
mainstream and amateur media who are determined to shield the US
government from criticism".
I personally would describe it as an "informal alliance...to shield
the US government from unfounded/partisan criticism".
And we got plenty of other media outlets that are orchestrating
criticism against the US government across mainsteam and amateur
media - just look at moveon.org or telepolis.
PS: I do believe the US government deserves a lot of criticism.
But people like you (or Michael Moron) make it too easy for the
conservatives to discredit valid criticism.
> The Conservative Media's Attack on CNN's Eason Jordan
> CNN's News Chief Eason Jordan was targeted for attack.
> Is this a clue to the way some journalists in Iraq are targeted for attack?
Ronda, excuse my foul language, but you're full of crap.
1) It was not the "conservative media" that attacked Jordan - it was
conservative non-mainstream media (=blogs). The whole "easongate" was
not reported in mainstream media until he resigned.
2) The evil WSJ
If you'd do your homework you should be able to locate plenty of
articles/blogs that addressed this topic BEFORE Jan 28th, BEFORE the
WSJ. Try google.com and search for "easongate".
3) "targeted"
<from sayanythingblog.com>
During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum last month,
Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by
coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted.
He quickly backed off the remarks, explaining that he meant to
distinguish between journalists killed because they were in the wrong
place when a bomb fell, for example, and those killed because they
were shot at by American forces who mistook them for the enemy.
“I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when
U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to
anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise,” Jordan said
in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.
...
<me again:>
Essentially, the whole circus started around the definition of
"targeted".
Easons (reported) remarks led to believe that the american military
was targeting journalists (because they were journalists).
Now, can someone please explain why a journalist is not able to
properly distinguish between the erroneous "targeted" killing of
journalists on the battlefield that look/act like enemy fighters
(e.g. "aim" their optics at US forces from the Palestine hotel) and
the fully intended targeted killing of journalists (as a group)?
Ronda, you are describing this as an "orchestrated alliance of
mainstream and amateur media who are determined to shield the US
government from criticism".
I personally would describe it as an "informal alliance...to shield
the US government from unfounded/partisan criticism".
And we got plenty of other media outlets that are orchestrating
criticism against the US government across mainsteam and amateur
media - just look at moveon.org or telepolis.
PS: I do believe the US government deserves a lot of criticism.
But people like you (or Michael Moron) make it too easy for the
conservatives to discredit valid criticism.