Eason Jordan story doesn't add up
What we know of this story to date does not easily fit into the package we presently have. I have to think that there is more that we do not know. Too many bloggers are a little too excited about the current plotline -- Jordan makes scandalous accusations in Davos; coverup attempted; bloggers overcome MSM stonewall; CNN forced to demand he resign; bloggers win.
I'm sorry. That just doesn't add up. All of this (of what we know) isn't sufficient to force CNN to remove him. The MSM would have continued to ignore the story. CNN would not have suffered any embarassment in the eyes of its fellow journalists in the MSM. CNN's audience would not have diminished one bit. Of course, a whole lot of people who don't like to watch CNN would have had one more reason to conclude that CNN was a dishonest news broker. But they already do! If CNN wanted to keep Jordan, they could have simply hung tough, ignored the blogs and waited for the storm to wear itself out. There was no business requirement to cut him loose over this.
Something is missing. Perhaps, Jordan was already in hot water with his bosses. I suspect that Davos was the final straw. Perhaps CNN had determined that its shrinking audience was due to its overwhelming liberal bias. Davos, in conjunction with the other similar accusations Jordan has made, simply gave them the excuse they were looking for to start making changes.
Maybe CNN saw a chance to get rid of him and gain sympathy by allowing him to be a martyr in the eyes of other journalists in the MSM.
Another possibility may have been fear that this would give the administration an excuse for freezing CNN out of the loop. I don't think this is likely, but I can imagine a scenario where the relationship between CNN and the Pentagon, White House and GOP leadership in Congress is already strained. I don't think Bush would publicly pick a fight with a news organization, but if he wanted to, CNN would be one of the logical choices.
It may be that some in the GOP in Congress were making noises about pursuing an investigation into Jordan's comments. And there may be a lot of stuff in the closet that CNN really, really doesn't want to be made public.
Whatever it is, I don't think we know the whole story.
I'm sorry. That just doesn't add up. All of this (of what we know) isn't sufficient to force CNN to remove him. The MSM would have continued to ignore the story. CNN would not have suffered any embarassment in the eyes of its fellow journalists in the MSM. CNN's audience would not have diminished one bit. Of course, a whole lot of people who don't like to watch CNN would have had one more reason to conclude that CNN was a dishonest news broker. But they already do! If CNN wanted to keep Jordan, they could have simply hung tough, ignored the blogs and waited for the storm to wear itself out. There was no business requirement to cut him loose over this.
Something is missing. Perhaps, Jordan was already in hot water with his bosses. I suspect that Davos was the final straw. Perhaps CNN had determined that its shrinking audience was due to its overwhelming liberal bias. Davos, in conjunction with the other similar accusations Jordan has made, simply gave them the excuse they were looking for to start making changes.
Maybe CNN saw a chance to get rid of him and gain sympathy by allowing him to be a martyr in the eyes of other journalists in the MSM.
Another possibility may have been fear that this would give the administration an excuse for freezing CNN out of the loop. I don't think this is likely, but I can imagine a scenario where the relationship between CNN and the Pentagon, White House and GOP leadership in Congress is already strained. I don't think Bush would publicly pick a fight with a news organization, but if he wanted to, CNN would be one of the logical choices.
It may be that some in the GOP in Congress were making noises about pursuing an investigation into Jordan's comments. And there may be a lot of stuff in the closet that CNN really, really doesn't want to be made public.
Whatever it is, I don't think we know the whole story.
posted by Stan at 2:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home