Howard Kurtz: Disgrace

Here's the latest on L'Affair Eason.

First, Howard "Conflict of Interest" Kurtz finally broke his silence regarding his boss Eason Jordan's claims that the American military tortured and killed journalists. Let's fisk a bit, shall we?

Eason Jordan, Quote, Unquote
CNN News Chief Clarifies His Comments on Iraq

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 8, 2005; Page C01

Oooh, problems from the get-go. Kurtz doesn't write his own headlines, but the copy editor misleads from the outset. The "Quote, Unquote" bit I simply don't get, but the overall impression is one of dismissiveness. Also, Jordan isn't clarifying his comments on Iraq, but specifically his claims that U.S. soldiers target reporters. He ain't talking about the makeup of the Iraqi National Assembly, folks. Plus, aren't headlines supposed to pique interest and invite the reader to read further? What's with the ho-hum soundbite for a major Internet scandal? They could just as easily have headlined this "J'Accuse!" with a "CNN News Chief Targeted By Blogosphere for Unsubstantiated Sedition" or somesuch.

Plus, Howard Kurtz isn't simply a "Washington Post Staff Writer", he's a media critic who hosts a CNN media criticism show. Jordan's his boss, in this sense. Would Kurtz EVER tolerate such a failure to prominently disclose an obvious conflict of interest, even amongst bloggers? He didn't when it came to Maggie Gallagher.

What CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan said, or didn't say, in Davos, Switzerland, last month has become a burgeoning controversy among bloggers and media critics.

Why is it only burgeoning, Howie? It's been over 10 days. And which media critics find it controversial? You've sat on it for a week, and you're certainly a prominent media critic. This implies some sort of parity between bloggers and media critics in chasing down this story. Heck, even Brent Bozell's Media Research Center has been AWOL on this one. They haven't made a peep about Eason Jordan since he admitted to being Saddam's toady months ago.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who attended the World Economic Forum panel at which Jordan spoke, recalled yesterday that Jordan said he knew of 12 journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq. At first, said Frank, "it sounded like he was saying it was official military policy to take out journalists." But Jordan later "modified" his remarks to say some U.S. soldiers did this "maybe knowing they were killing journalists, out of anger. . . . He did say he was talking about cases of deliberate killing," Frank said.

Wait a second. Howie's first quote describing the controversy features neither a blogger nor a media critic, but rather a Democrat congressman. Moreover, he talked to him yesterday, or 9 days after the fact. How about talking to the conference attendee and blogger who reported it AS IT HAPPENED, Howie? Why break up Frank's quotes on the question of Jordan's clarification? The effect of quoting Frank late and in this disjointed manner is one of obscuration, not clarification.

Jordan denied that last night, saying he had been responding to Frank's comment that the 63 journalists who have been killed in Iraq were "collateral damage" in the war. "I was trying to make a distinction between 'collateral damage' and people who got killed in other ways," Jordan said last night. "I have never once in my life thought anyone from the U.S. military tried to kill a journalist. Never meant to suggest that. Obviously I wasn't as clear as I should have been on that panel."

Nice touch. Talk to Frank, get a quote, then go talk to Jordan to refute Frank's quote. Are you a defense attorney or a critic, Howard? Did you think to ask Frank if he claimed that the 63 were collateral damage, or is Eason's word unassailable? If Jordan never "thought" this, then why did he say so months before Davos?

Eason's argument on this point is incoherent. Either the journalists were killed intentionally or unintentionally. If unintentionally, they were "collateral damage"---civilians slain in the process of trying to kill the bad guys. If intentionally, then they died because the U.S. military "tried" to kill them and succeeded. Indeed, the latter's the very point Jordan claimed he was making. Is the man a liar or a fool? Howard doesn't probe, so we don't know.

In some of the cases, "with the benefit of hindsight, had more care been taken, maybe this could have been avoided," Jordan said, referring to shootings that involved mistaken identity. But, he said, "it's a war zone. Terrible things happen."

Then why bring it up at Davos? And who needed to take more care---the journalists tromping about with terrorists, or the U.S. soldiers fighting for their lives? We get no specifics on the incidents Jordan is referring to, either. Nice job, Howie.

Two other panelists backed Jordan's account. David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, said he "sort of gasped" when Jordan spoke of journalists being "deliberately killed," but that Jordan "realized, as soon as he said it, he'd gone too far" and "walked it back." Jordan then expressed "a very deep concern about whether our soldiers on the ground level are using as much care as they should" when journalists are involved, said Gergen, who moderated the discussion.

Gergen was the moderator, not a panelist, as he notes later. And how does Gergen gasping in shock and relaying that Jordan criticized U.S. troops for negligence back Jordan's account? Because he retreated from his original position? You could as easily say that Gergen utterly discredits Jordan's position because he says that U.S. soldiers "deliberately killed" journalists, which sounds an awful lot like our troops "tried" to kill them.

BBC World Services Director Richard Sambrook, in a note to New York University journalism professor and blogger Jay Rosen, said Jordan was objecting to the phrase "collateral damage."

"He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists, although there are others in the media community who do hold that view (personally, I don't)," Sambrook wrote. "They had been deliberately killed as individuals -- perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don't know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion."

Umm, no, actually it's not, to anyone familiar with military art, as one would think the head of CNN might be. "Collateral damage" is a sterile term for "noncombatant deaths". These do happen on the battlefield, you know, especially when the enemy refuses to honor the Geneva Conventions by, say, wearing a recognizable uniform or not hiding in civilian zones. As for "we don't know", isn't it the media's job to find these sorts of things out? Or are they afraid to ask the question for fear they'll be targeted? It is a stupid distinction to try to make. Dead is dead.

No transcript exists of the Jan. 27 session, which was supposed to be off the record, and a videotape of the event has not been made public. The dispute erupted when Rony Abovitz, co-founder of the technology company Z-Kat, posted an account on the forum's Web site of what Jordan said, while also noting that he had backpedaled when challenged.

Oh, nonsense, Howard. "Off the record" didn't stop the media from reporting on Dick Cheney's energy task force. Videotapes don't just pop up of these things. If it was off the record, as you claim, why'd they tape it at all? Why allow note-taking? Why didn't you quote Rony Abovitz, Howard?

This triggered widespread denunciations of Jordan by conservative bloggers, who have also criticized the mainstream media for not reporting the remarks.

Sigh. How is the "conservative" tag relevant, particularly given Mickey Kaus and Roger Simon's outrage over this? Given that you quoted hard lefty Barney Frank without a corresponding "liberal" tag, your bias is showing, sir.

"Why would Arab members of the audience come up and congratulate him for having the courage to speak the truth?" asked Jim Geraghty of National Review Online. "One of the most senior news execs in the world tells a crowd of dignitaries from around the globe that the U.S. military targeted a dozen journalists for death, and there is no [mainstream media] coverage of that?" wrote radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt. Edward Morrissey of the Captain's Quarters blog urged his senators in Minnesota to hold public hearings "to establish once and for all whether the U.S. military has a policy of assassinating and torturing journalists, in Iraq or anywhere else, and correct the terrible damage Mr. Jordan may have inflicted on our image abroad."

Why didn't Howard mention that Arab members of the audience congratulated him? Why didn't he ask Jordan if this was true? Why did he quote Geraghty, Hewitt, and Morrissey only after tagging them as "conservative bloggers" above but didn't quote Abovitz, who started the whole deal? Was it because Abovitz isn't easily dubbed a conservative?

In the interview last night, Jordan said he and a group of other news executives have discussed with a top Pentagon official allegations by Iraqi employees of NBC, Reuters and al-Jazeera "who claimed to have been detained and tortured by the U.S. military. They all came out with horrific statements about what had been done to them."

Any evidence of that, Jordan? Howie doesn't ask, so I guess conservative bloggers need to. Why not identify the official? He's not a source.

At the World Economic Forum, participants say, the only specific case cited by Jordan was the April 2003 incident in which U.S. forces fired a tank round at Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, killing a cameraman employed by Reuters and another for the Spanish network Telecinco. Military spokesmen said the troops were responding to sniper fire from the hotel, which was known to house about 100 foreign journalists, and defended the shelling as "a proportionate and justifiably measured response."

Which participants, Howard? How many? Why are they on background? And for God's sake, didn't you notice how this example flatly contradicts Jordan's claim that he was trying to draw a distinction between people killed in explosions and shot by snipers? What do you think tanks fire, anyway? What do you think "shelling" means? Does CNN have anybody handy who knows anything about the military?

But Jordan supplied a list of the other incidents, such as a tank firing on and killing Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana as he was filming outside Abu Ghraib prison in 2003. U.S. officials said the troops mistook Dana's camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

Which at range, it does. Does that mean American soldiers intentionally killed a journalist? Or does it mean he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and became "collateral damage"?

Frank said he found Jordan's remarks "troubling" and in a later phone conversation asked him for specifics about the journalistic casualties so he could make inquiries at the Pentagon. Jordan said Frank was responding to a note from him and that there had been a "misunderstanding" if the congressman expected a further response.

Seems like Barney Frank's a better journalist than Howard Kurtz. Did Kurtz ask Frank or Jordan for a copy of the note? Seems it would clear up any misunderstanding. When a U.S. Congressman asks for more information pursuant to a public claim you made, would you blow him off?

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who was in the audience, "was outraged by the comments," said his spokesman, Marvin Fast. "Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel."

But if Jordan was only trying to quibble about the definition of "collateral damage", why would Dodd or anyone else be outraged? We've got three eyewitnesses Kurtz has quoted who were all taken aback by Jordan's remarks. All three are Jordan's political fellow travelers (yes, that includes Gergen) who have no apparent axe to grind with him. Why would they all perceive his remarks as outrageous unless they were, in fact, outrageous?

Jordan's comments have sparked controversy before. He drew widespread criticism in 2003 for saying in a New York Times op-ed piece that CNN had withheld information about some of Saddam Hussein's abuses out of concern for the network's Iraqi employees in Baghdad. "Withholding information that would get innocent people killed was the right thing to do, not a journalistic sin," Jordan told his staff in a memo.

Nice sleight of hand here, Howard. This presumes that CNN reported on the bulk of Saddam's atrocities, missing only "some". You must not watch your own channel, sir. Plus Kurtz has the gall to introduce the "controversy" only to dismiss it by giving Jordan the unchallenged last word. Not to mention Jordan confessed this journalistic sin in a repentant tone because he clearly recognized it as a sin. Why confess if you were only doing the right thing?

Three CNN staffers have been killed in Iraq, two of them in January 2004 when the cars they were traveling in came under fire by insurgents.

Gergen said Jordan had just returned from Baghdad and was still "deeply distraught" over the journalists who have died in Iraq. "This was a guy caught up in the tension of the moment," Gergen said. "He deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Waitaminute. Howard's using the death of CNN staffers as some sort of justification for Jordan's intemperate remarks, and yet 2 out of the 3 were killed by "insurgents". If the other one was killed by Americans, I'm sure he would have told us.

Shouldn't Eason Jordan be mad as hell about the "insurgents" and their indiscriminate killing of noncombatants?

Howard Kurtz hosts CNN's weekly media program. Staff writer Lisa de Moraes contributed to this report.

Ahh, the small print disclosure. Why not indicate what the relationship is between Jordan and Kurtz? Can't have too much disclosure, right, Howie?

This is pathetic.

I've been skeptical of the legs of this story, but now I'm fired up.

The facts are simple and indisputable.

CNN head honcho Eason Jordan repeated unsupported claims that American soldiers target journalists publicly in Davos, outraging some very prominent Americans who were present.

Rather than apologize, Jordan went into spin control, releasing quotes only to favored media personnel, including his subordinate Howard Kurtz, alleged media critic. He has stonewalled for 10 days.

When challenged to back his statements up, by a U.S. Congressman no less, Jordan refused to do so.

Eason's comments were an outrage, but Howard Kurtz' washed-over puff piece is an utter disgrace.

Howard, you need to meet some of the fine men and women in our armed forces serving in Iraq. If you buy your boss' lying weasel words, clearly identify yourself and don't stand too close to a jihadist when you do.

Update:

The New York Sun shows Howie how it's done when you're not a bootlicker.

Even Larry Kudlow sees a problem here. And he ain't talking about money, baby.

That hardcore conservative blogger Mickey Kaus wants a piece of Howie.

Powerline wants to know who's on Howie's list.

Archconservative Roger Simon isn't a Howie fan right now either.