The WSJ editorial page jumps into Easongate with a defense of the ex-CNN executive (yes, really!), available for free at OpinionJournal.com:
As for Mr. Jordan, he initially claimed that U.S. forces in Iraq had targeted and killed 12 journalists. Perhaps he intended to offer no further specifics in order to leave an impression of American malfeasance in the minds of his audience, but there is no way of knowing for sure. What we do know is that when fellow panelist Representative Barney Frank pressed Mr. Jordan to be specific, the CNN executive said he did not believe it was deliberate U.S. government policy to target journalists. Pressed further, Mr. Jordan could only offer that "there are people who believe there are people in the military who have it out" for journalists, and cite two examples of non-lethal abuse of journalists by ordinary GIs.
None of this does Mr. Jordan credit. Yet the worst that can reasonably be said about his performance is that he made an indefensible remark from which he ineptly tried to climb down at first prompting. This may have been dumb but it wasn't a journalistic felony.
I think the Journal's editorial staff is way off base here.
- Remember what they said about Watergate: It wasn't the crime, it was the cover up? Why did Jordan and CNN refuses to release a video or transcript of the event? Why did Jordan and CNN stonewall until the story got so big that they had to act?
- Jordan spread a malicious lie about the US armed forces while they were in combat, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Then his attempt to "ineptly ... climb down at first prompting" was a non- apology that invoked the ravings of whacked out conspiracy theorists to justify his remarks. Is that the conduct of a credible journalist?
- Even if he did "ineptly ... climb down at first prompting," how do we know what his true views are or whether they would continue to color his reporting?
- Cumulative damage. Eason Jordan is the same guy who admitted that CNN pulled its punches for years with respect to Saddam Hussein so that it could keep its Baghdad bureau open. Perhaps, like most employers, CNN's decision to let Jordan go was based not just on a single screw-up but on a pattern of problems.
- Finally, what employer has to wait until an employee commits a "felony" in order to fire that employee? Eason Jordan badly and publicly embarrassed CNN twice in the space of less than 2 years. In the corporate world, which is where CNN has to function, that's plenty of grounds for firing.
All told, the Journal's usual good sense seems to have deserted it on this occasion.
