Bret Stephens & Eason Jordan: Conflict of Interest?

Blogs such as Captain's Quarters, Hugh Hewitt and many others have commented on the apparent conflict of interest between Wall Street Journal Editor, Bret Stephens, and his reporting on the "Eason Jordan" incident at the recent meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

A summary of the "conflict of interest charges" are concisely summed up in today's posting by Captain Ed. His response is to today's unsigned WSJ editorial (on-line by subscription only) which declared the whole "Jordan" incident to be over and the conflict of interest matter concerning Bret Stephens to be laughable. (Note: It has since been revealed that Mr. Stephens was himself the one who wrote the editorial belittling the charges of his conflict of interest).
CORRECTION: Hugh Hewitt has posted a correction today stating that he was in error yesterday when he identified Mr. Stephens as the writer of this editorial. I add my apology for repeating his error. 2/15/05
The Captain's summary is as follows:

I assume that the OJ (e.g. "OpinionJournal" a publication of the WSJ), editors read my objection or that of the Dinocrat, and they have mischaracterized the conflict in any case. Stephens belongs to the Forum of Young Global Leaders, which has exactly 1,111 members and is closely affiliated with the World Economic Forum, which means Stephens has an interest to protect with the WEF that he did not disclose. The YGL forum appears to fall under the purview of none other than Eason Jordan, whose bio describes him as a member of the WEF's Global Leaders of Tomorrow programme.
Whether or not that influenced Stephens' reporting is only known by Stephens, but that connection should have been disclosed to WSJ/OJ readers, and the OJ's defense of his silence speaks volumes about their editorial standards. (They also made my mistake of calling Jordan a "board member" of WEF, which I retracted here, so
I'm fairly sure that the OJ has my blog in mind.)

What has captured my own imagination in this matter is the fine print of Bret Stephens' "contract" agreement which enables him to serve on that Forum of Young Global Leaders for the next three years. On page 8 of the official brochure promoting the "FofYGL" are a short list of "rights" and "responsibilities." The first of three "responsibilities" is of particular interest as it requires the member to:

Respect diversity of opinion within the group but likewise support the consensus behind its public statements.

Normally this would not pose a problem. But, for Mr. Stephens (who was attending both as a "member" participant of the conference and as a correspondent for the WSJ) the Eason Jordan affair placed him between a rock and a hard place.

First, he is required by his membership commitment to "respect diversity of opinion within the group." I can only assume that this would include even the most outrageous comments that might be offered, including those of Mr. Jordan. For Mr. Stephens to express criticism of Mr. Jordan's comments would be "disrespectful," would it not? The additional fact that Mr. Jordan sits on the Board of Directors that oversees the Fof YGL only serves to compound the problem for Mr. Stephens.

Second, he is required by his membership commitment to "likewise support the consensus behind its public statements." Does this limit Mr. Stephen's options in commenting on the WEF's declaration that it would not release the video or transcripts of the session in question? For Mr. Stephens to request or demand the release of the video would be to "withhold support" from "the consensus behind its public statements" would it not?

Should a journalist be required to promise that they will not express dissent or criticism of an international organization as a condition of membership? Should a journalist who has made such a promise then proceed to pretend that they are free to be completely objective in their new reporting on that organization?

I join with Captain Ed, Hugh Hewitt and all the others in asserting that this does, in fact, constitute a conflict of interest on the part of Bret Stephens. Mr. Stephens should have disclosed this matter or, with honor, have asked to be excused from reporting on the controversy completely.