Guardian - US Targets Journalists

Most readers are aware of the CNN/Eason Jordon scandal. If you're not, just do a Google search on Eason Jordon.

What you probably don't know is that CNN's Jordon was not the first main stream journalist to make these unsubstantiated charges. That dubious honor goes to none other than the BBC and Nik Gowing.

Today The Guardian steps in it and I mean that literally.

The article starts out innocently enough describing the power bloggers now enjoy but descends into a defense of Jordon and an attack on the blogsphere.

Keep this in mind as you read: there is a videotape of Jordon's remarks. Neither CNN nor Jordon have asked for its release or a transcript of Jordon's remarks. Why?

Abovitz attended an off-the-record panel in Davos on January 28, addressed by, among others, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan that was filmed. During the discussion, Jordan reportedly claimed that he knew of 12 journalists in Iraq whom the US military had deliberately targeted and killed. The Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, who was also on the panel, asked him if CNN had reported this. Jordan said no. Abovitz asked him if he had any objective and clear evidence to back up these claims, because "if what he said was true, it would make Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park". Jordan appeared to backtrack. The debate continued and then moved on.

Note the "reportedly" and "appeared to backtrack" to plant a little doubt in your mind. Jordon admits he made the remarks but they were misunderstood; which raised the question again - if that's the case why resign?

Left to the mainstream media, also in attendance, the story would have ended there. Abovitz told the New York Times that he asked some of the journalists if they planned to write about it and they said no, the discussion was off the record. But Abovitz surmised that the journalists were also eager to "protect their own", so he took matters into his own hands, posting a write-up of the conference at 2:21am local time with the headline: "Do US Troops target journalists in Iraq?"

Notice the vigilante comment "he took matters into his own hands".

But Jordan's demise may be much more significant than it first appears. In particular, it has been hailed as a victory of new technology over the old....

The Guardian is feeling threatened and rightfully so.

Jordan's claims cannot be proven and appear, in their details, to be incorrect. According to Ann Cooper, executive director for the Committee to Protect Journalists, 54 journalists and their translators have been killed in Iraq since 2003 - at least nine slain by the US military.

But that's not good enough for the Guardian. Now comes the defense of Jordon.

But his remarks are far from unsubstantiated. In April 2003, American troops bombed the Palestine hotel in Baghdad, where journalists were known to be staying. Al-Jazeera's offices in Baghdad, the location of which was known to the US military, was also hit by a laser-guided missile, killing one journalist, as was its offices in Kabul, which the US claimed was a "legitimate target" of "military significance".

In a chapter of a book, Dying to Tell the Story, about journalists killed in Iraq, the BBC's Nik Gowing writes: "There is evidence that media activity in the midst of real-time fighting is now regarded by commanders as having 'military significance', which justifies a firm military response to remove or at least neutralise it."

There is where the Guardian just stepped in a big pile of it. Nik Gowing of the BBC is the person responsible for starting "the US targets journalists" propaganda in the first place.

Blithering Bunny takes a detailed look, complete with links, at Mr. Gowing's propaganda. Bunny's article on Gowing ends with this revealing quote from Gowing: "we at the BBC and many broadcasters have enormous respect for Al Jazeera."

One site that the Bunny links to, This Isn't Writing, It's Typing shows that Gowing and Jordon go way back and have been spreading this propaganda for years.

Now comes the swipe at bloggers from the Guardian.

Where the internet was once regarded as providing a potential check on the mainstream media it has now in some cases, usurped it - being free from the restraints of editorial meetings, ethical codes, deadlines, schedules and production costs.In the words of one blogger:

"Mr Jordan; I'd like you to meet my friend the internet.

"Mr Internet this is Mr Jordan. I'll leave you to chat for a while. Have fun, and be careful. Internet remembers everything and he's a real blabbermouth."

"Free from ...ethical codes..."? Not if you want to have any credibility. Mainstream media lost both a long time ago.

Jordon and Rather are not the victims of the public; the public have long been victims of the Jordons and Rathers in legacy media. Now the victims have a weapon to fight back, the blogsphere, and the casualties are mounting.

The Guardian is right about one thing though, the Internet remembers everything.

Be afraid Guardian. Be afraid BBC. Be very afraid. Stop your lying and bias or your history; just like Jordon and Rather.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------