Eason Jordan Resigns

After two weeks of growing criticism over remarks made at the recent World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, CNN Chief News Executive Eason Jordan announced his resignation this evening. (see my previous post for information about the content of his remarks)

His resignation statement and the CNN article which accompanies it still leave the central question unanswered, "What, exactly, did Mr. Jordan say and what transpired after he said it." Although the answers are most likely to be found in the videotape of the session neither Jordan nor CNN have publicly asked for it to be released. I cannot imagine them not agressively seeking such evidence had the story not revolved around one of thier own. This smacks of hypocracy of the highest and meanest sort.

In the end it is not Eason Jordan's comments that have damaged CNN's already embattled reputation but how the news network has stonewalled and deflected all efforts from bloggers and other news agencies to "come clean" and present the truth in as honest and straightforward manner as possible.

Even in their resignation announcement CNN had the gall to write the following description of the controversy:

The Davos organizers have said the session, like most at the forum, was off-the-record, and they have refused to release a transcript to preserve their commitment.

At the heart of the dispute is what Jordan said about the deaths
of journalists in Iraq. Several participants said he told the audience that U.S. forces had deliberately targeted some journalists.

But Jordan strongly denied that he had made such a suggestion and said he did not believe journalists had been deliberately targeted.

The first paragraph fails to mention that CNN has refused to publically call for the release of this tape, effectively burying whatever truth there is to be found. Would they have done this if the evidence on the tape had been anything other than damning?

The second paragraph fails to mention that the "several participants" referred to include a U.S. Senator (Chris Dodd, D-Conn ), a U.S. Representative (Barney Frank, D-Mass) and the nationally respected editor, Harvard professor and political commentator David Gergen, each of which expressed shock, disbelief and even disgust over what they claim to have heard Mr. Jordan say at the Davos session. Is this good reporting? or more evidence of obfuscation of the truth at CNN?

The third paragraph represents Jordan's denial of having said the things he has been accused of saying. With CNN failing to seek out and report the facts Jordan is allowed to retain the status of persecuted martyr, being unjustly forced to step down as a personal sacrifice for the rest of the CNN team.

CNN would like us to think that, in the end, it is Jordan's word against most everyone else who were in the room and who heard what he really said. They would like us to think that the whole controversy simply revolves around a badly parsed sentence or two and a near universal misunderstanding of what he was really trying to say.

Although it is not juris prudence in the American legal system to do so, I am sore tempted to declare that the shameful behavior of CNN and the lack of evidence to the contrary leaves me no choice but to declare Jordan Eason guilty until proven innocent.

I am still open and hopeful of having this personal verdict overturned as a result of some good investigative reporting or from the actual public release of the videotape. If, however, such evidence should ever surface I strongly doubt that CNN will have had anything to do with it.

Good links on this story can be found at Powerline, Instapundit, Hugh Hewitt, Sisyphean Musings & Michelle Malkin.