| Home |
 |
Student Resources |
|
Chapter 6: The Mass Media |
|
Updates |
|
Speaking at the annual gathering of luminaries at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 27, 2005, CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan reportedly said that U.S. military forces in Iraq had targeted journalists covering the war and its aftermath, killing 12.1 Those in attendance later claimed not to remember the precise language Jordan used, but confirmed the nature of his remarks. Challenged by several people at the Forum, including Senator Barney Frank, Jordan reportedly said that, while journalists may not have been purposely targeted, American forces had been unduly reckless. Jordan cited as an example the shelling of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, where journalists from many countries were headquartered in April 2003 as the city was taken by U.S. forces.
Though several journalists from major news organizations were at the session, they did not report on Jordan's statement because the sessions were officially "off-the-record." Bothered by what he had heard at the conference, Rony Abovitz, a businessman from Florida, posted a story on the Forum's new blog-short for Web log, an on-line journal where commentaries and news reports are posted with little or no editorial oversight-- entitled "Do U.S. Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?" As a first-time blogger, Mr. Abovitz didn't expect much to happen, he said later. The posting, which appeared the day after Jordan spoke, was noticed by conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, who mentioned it on his show on February 1. Hewitt's remark generated what's called a blogswarm; within days, hundreds of conservative blogs were attacking Jordan, calling him and CNN poster children of the liberal mainstream media.
Trying to stem the tide, CNN responded on February 2 to those who had contacted it about the incident, claiming, "Many bloggers have taken Mr. Jordan's remarks out of context. Eason Jordan does not believe that the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists...." As the blogswarm increased, Jordan released a statement to the same effect, but the storm kept growing. Slowly, news organizations began to get on the story. Not surprisingly, the conservative-oriented ones jumped in first, starting with The Weekly Standard and The Washington Times, and continuing with The New York Sun and several cable news commentators, including Brit Hume. Several regional newspapers began to run the story, and a number of bloggers agreed to coordinate their efforts, forming a new blog called "Easongate." By February 10, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal had picked up the story, though neither ran an extensive treatment. Feeling the pressure building and much to the surprise and distress of many in the news business, Eason Jordan resigned from CNN on February 11, 2005.
Though the "Easongate" bloggers were delighted with the outcome, others were alarmed. Steve Lovelady, managing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Daily, complained that "the salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevailed." Jeff Jarvis, who publishes a widely read blog, "buzzmachine.com," and champions the democratic information role of the "blogosphere", was nevertheless troubled, saying, "I wish our goal were not taking off heads but digging up truth." Even Ron Abovitz, who had started the ball rolling, was concerned. Noting bloggers should have higher goals than destroying people's careers, he observed, "At times it did seem like an angry mob, and an angry mob using high technology, that's not good."
The Jordan incident was not the first time bloggers played a central role in creating news and mobilizing partisans in American politics, nor will it be the last. . In 2004 conservative bloggers accelerated the resignation of Dan Rather as CBS News's nightly anchor after uncovering inaccuracies in his critical reports on George W. Bush's National Guard service during the Vietnam War, and in 2005 they fueled the conservative firestorm that compelled Harriet Meirs to withdraw as a nominee for the Supreme Court. Liberal bloggers have their trophies as well, helping to force out Trent Lott as Majority Leader in the Senate in 2004, for example, over racially inflammatory remarks he had made at a 100th birthday celebration for Senator Strom Thurmond and keeping alive the story of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, long after mainstream news organizations had moved on.
Weblogs and bloggers are surely here to stay, given the low costs of entry into the blogosphere-anyone with a computer and a broadband connection to the Internet can create a blog at almost zero cost-and the sense among a wide range of people, some expert in some area, some merely passionate about some cause, that they have something to say and the constitutional right to say it. While most weblogs are apolitical,, many are devoted to serious matters, and many of these are intended to affect thepolitical debate in the nation. What the blogosphere will mean for democracy remains tobe seen. What it means for news organizations is that they can no longer dominate the informationenvironment. In response, some are creating their own weblogs to be players inthis new arena of news gathering and dissemination.
1 Information for this story is from the following: Edward Morrissey, "Eason's Fable: Bloggers, the Old Media, and the Rise and Fall of CNN's Eason Jordan," The Weekly Standard online (www.weeklystandard.com), February, 17, 2005; Jacques Steinberg and Katherine Q. Seelye, "CNN Executive Resigns Post Over Remarks," The New York Times (February 12, 2005), p. A1; Katharine Q. Seelye, "Bloggers as News Media Trophy Hunters," The New York Times (February 14, 2005), p. A1; Richard Posner, "Bad News," The New York Times Book Review (July 31, 2005), p. 1; and Daniel W. Drezner and Henry Farrell, "Web of Influence," Foreign Policy (November/December, 2004), pp. 32-40.
| Legal and Privacy Terms |  |