fixtheworld

The Freedom To Be Critical

Posted from the U.S

An unfortunate byproduct of Easongate is a strong feeling, mostly from the Left, that freedom of speech has been trampled.

A comment from the dailykos blog struck me:

Jordan brought up a serious topic and discussed it at a panel among other journalist in a private discussion explicitly off the record and purposely without a transcript.    It was not part of a report, on TV, in the paper, on the internet, or anywhere outside of the private conversation between him and the other panelists.  The conversation was meant to be kept confidential within the walls of the room they were in. The only reason his words got out was because of the Right Wing Noise Machine. And he is forced to resign over this? This means any discussion of a potentially charged controversial topic is off-limits, and anyone who has built any sort of name for themselves (journalist, political figure, whatever) will be forced to resign for even suggesting them? http://3pistight.blogspot.com/

by avi on Sat Feb 12th, 2005 at 02:37:39 PST

A response to this blogger's thoughts:

• A private discussion explicitly off the record...

The World Economic Forum's policy was that "All sessions that are broadcast or webcast are ‘on the record’  (for 2005 that means all sessions in the Congress Hall or Sanada 1 and 2)". The audience numbered in the hundreds, and included major world figures and media.  Attendee Bernard Rappaz, a Swiss journalist wrote about it, as did attendee Bret Stephens, of The Wall Street Journal. In a recent radio interview Bret said that "My understanding is that the meeting was on the record".

• The conversation was meant to be kept confidential within the walls of the room they were in...

Really? Was that why the session was being filmed in a broadcast room? Were hundreds of disparate leaders from all over the world supposed to keep his remarks to themselves? This argument is the seasoned stripper expressing shock at being naked in front of a gawking audience - this was no private conversation. It was an open talk in front of hundreds in a broadcast room.

• The only reason his words got out was because of the Right Wing Noise Machine...

His words got out to hundreds of people, who probably discussed it with enough others to reach thousands. Blogging amplified the discussion to millions. This had nothing to do with a "Right Wing Noise Machine". It had to do with asking for evidence and truth, and not being biased about which way the truth turned up. In this case the supposedly left-wing and liberal CNN and other media were pretty silent, other than some poor spin. I would not blame the Right - I would blame the Left for selling out Jordan. Who really came to his defense? From my seat it was pretty quiet, other than a flurry of statements about him not saying what we (in the room) all heard him say, and the continued suppression of a tape which has him saying it.

• And he is forced to resign over this? This means any discussion of a potentially charged controversial topic is off-limits, and anyone who has built any sort of name for themselves (journalist, political figure, whatever) will be forced to resign for even suggesting them?

No! What happened was not a hypothetical discussion of a potentially charged controversial topic - "I think..." or "My opinion is...". This was a respected media authority figure telling us something in a factual, authoritative manner, and we were led to believe that he had substantial facts and evidence to back up bold assertions. I think he was forced to resign because the blogging world appears to be intolerant of spin, coverups, and overall B.S. Confronting the bloggers with a much more open dialogue and releasing the tape would have probably quieted the storm.

We must be free to openly criticize the government, the military, and all of our leaders without the fear of repercussions. That is a cornerstone of our democracy, and of any healthy democratic and free institution. The Left (and the Right) need to wake up to the reality that widespread blogging presents a threat not to freedom, but to the entrenched Powers That Be. The freedom of an individual citizen to directly and openly challege those in control is an overwhelming sense of empowerment. The masses will learn to have their own voice. No longer will a senator or congressman or reporter be required to serve as a proxy. Speaking for yourself is the ultimate expression in free speech, and the technology which makes your voice heard is here and now.

-R

Freedom of Speech - Has It Been Lost?

Posted from the U.S

I found the following on Danny Schecter's News Dissector Blog:

MAKE NOISE

With that in mind, I bring you a letter Media for Democracy, the MediaChannel's action arm, sent out yesterday. In the end, action always speaks louder than words:

CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit late last week amid a furor over remarks he allegedly made about American soldiers intentionally killing journalists in Iraq. Jordan delivered the remarks while sitting on an off-the-record panel of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

While no actual tape of his comments has yet to be released, an attendee disseminated news of the event into the blogosphere and ignited a firestorm, which included charges that CNN itself – not just Jordan in his personal capacity – had "slimed our troops."

Leading the charge was CNN competitor Fox News Channel and its sister publication, The New York Post. Members of Congress piled on with angry demands for evidence although the tone of their remarks suggested a total denial of the possibility that Jordan may know something that they didn't. Instead, Jordan's patriotism and CNN's integrity was attacked.

This incident raises three urgent issues:

1. Do media executives have a right to express opinions that deviate from the official line? Media companies should defend the rights of their employees to take part in democratic debate without fears of recriminations. The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and the World Editors Forum have rushed in to defend Jordan's right to express controversial opinions without intimidation.

2. Do media companies have an obligation to investigate and not just denigrate? CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, AFP and other media outlets should take a fresh look at these charges to determine their validity. At least eleven journalists have been killed by "friendly fire" since the War in Iraq began, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Thus far there has been little effort by the Pentagon to explain their deaths.

3. Are we who care about integrity in the media willing to stand up to protect free speech during a time of war? While this issue is often spun as a left-right story, it's about much more than that. We are all paying dearly for this war. Shouldn't we Americans have a right to know what's being done in our name?

Reuters, the International Federation of Journalists and other press freedom groups have pressed for independent investigations of suspicious killings in Iraq. The Pentagon has refused to cooperate or permit journalists to interview soldiers involved in these incidents.

What's the truth?

Media for Democracy members can help press for full disclosure and clear up the controversy and partisan mudslinging on this issue. Here are two things you can do:

1. Write CNN and ask them to conduct a full investigation into Eason's charge that journalists may have been intentionally targeted:

Jim Walton
President of CNN News Group
One CNN Center
PO Box 105366
Atlanta, GA 30348
E-mail: jim.walton@turner.com
Phone: (404) 827-1500
Fax: (404) 878-0891

2. Write the Pentagon to demand more cooperation with independent groups seeking an inquiry into "friendly fire" deaths:

Lawrence DiRita
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Pentagon
Washington, DC
Email form: www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
Tel 1: (703) 697-5131
Tel 2: (703) 428-0711

Thank you for taking action

and

THEY SHOOT JOURNALISTS, DON'T THEY?
Chris Paterson, AlterNet

Eason Jordan of CNN is the latest casualty of a media cowed by the right wing and the military. Unlike some journalists in Iraq, Jordan only lost his job.

www.alternet.org

Here is part of my original posting:

Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd, you both seem like good and honest men, and Congressman Frank especially seems like someone with a bit of courage (I'm sure Senator Dodd is brave as well). Clear up this mess, use your power and authority as elected leaders, and make transparent what really happened. You must do this to respect the 12 journalists killed and let the world know how and why. Here is another challenge, and this one is for the CNN and the BBC: What the hell happened? Is Eason right or is he wrong?  Good journalism calls for digging into and revealing all of the facts (or was everything that was said in the mild part of the discussion about fair coverage and seeking the truth just verbage?).

Here is an open question regarding "Eason Jordan of CNN is the latest casualty of a media cowed by the right wing and the military":

Why didn't CNN, the BBC, or other major media outlet produce any tangible, hard facts about what happened to those 12 journalists?

-R