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? |
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
Sir,
I am living abroad, but nevertheless have been following the discussion and I'm horrified! Is this the kind of "freedom of speech" the United States want to spread around the world?
Your actions & point of view seem - to me - to stem from an oversized ego, paired with a false sense of importance:
To be on Fox as a "willing instrument" has nothing to do with you - as a person - you could have been replaced by anyone who knows what "blogging" is about. You chose to be there - as initiator of a witchhunt - no need to minimize that now. It will stick to you.
You have no personal knowledge about what is really going on in Iraq, you rely on hearsay, hence you are not in a position to judge about which version of truth you have in front of you.
Your government has repeatedly been caught not telling the truth, in Congress, at the UN. The truth has been twisted to match the intent of the current administration, to say the least.
Wouldn't it have been a better decision to play this safe? Without the kind of damage you caused?
You are right:
Blogging is a way to express oneself - and be heard by a larger audience than ever. But this also means to be even more conscious about what outcome you may produce. "Judge not, lest you be judged!"
[sorry about any spelling/grammar mistakes, not a native speaker!]
Posted by: WvS | February 20, 2005 at 04:34 AM
I agree with you that I have no personal knowledge about what is really going on in Iraq. I have not made any claims to know what the truth is there. I asked for the truth, which is my right, as is yours or anyone else's. I'm not sure if any complete and satisfactory answer has been provided, because questions remain in the minds of many people around the world. We do know that CNN let Jordan go rather than dig in and defend his original views, which many people around the world believed had merit. Why? I do know what he said, and originally expected a response such as "next week my network is releasing an in-depth news report on this topic - all will be revealed".
Being critical of the U.S., or any government, is fine. But you should also be willing to accept that sometimes you need to be critical of your information source, which in this case was a major media figure. The media is also shaping your opinions and views, and you should consider questioning this as well.
Would it be a better decision to play it safe? To sit back and be spoonfed by the those in power? Why be a passive recepient when anyone can be an active participant, even if what you do is simply ask tough questions? What kind of enormous damage is caused by unquestioned, unchallenged leaders? Look at North Korea - is that the society you would want to live in?
An inflated ego is a bad thing - I hope that does not come across in what I am writing. I am also asking questions, not judging. Others in the media and blogging world became judge and jury, but I have tried to stay away from that. I asked for answers, not someone's head.
Being on Fox or any media, like the BBC? I wanted to make clear what happened and why. From my point of view this was not a witchhunt - it was questions asked, unanswered, followed by media spin, followed by a suppression of a tape. At any time a strong response could have countered anything the Right was saying. I have an independant view - and was suprised at how asleep the Left was at the wheel here. A strong, unanswered Right was one unanticipated reaction from my first posting. If you come from the liberal Left, where were you? As a blogger, my voice is no stronger than yours.
-R
Posted by: rony | February 20, 2005 at 09:22 AM
Okay. the left is in denial. They had a beautiful product, once. But they've lost their customers. Of course, places like Kos get money from the left ... Maybe, like Arafat did? So when you just have to feed a few ... your corruption can be like a cancer on your organization? It won't be fixed in a day. And, sooner or later they'll have to come to realize THEY LOST THEIR CUSTOMERS! And, bleeding red ink doesn't stop because you spew bile.
The real thing to watch is what the republicans do to remain in control. When Bush began there were some thoughts that the republicans were sliding down hill. And, instead, BUSH STOPPED THE FALL. Or was it 9/11? And, his absolute mastery at politics since then?
We're all lucky that the LSM weren't swift enough to see that Americans WANTED A STRONG APPROACH TO THE War on Terrorism. And, things have been going swimmingly for Bush.
So? It's pretty good news for all of us that all we hear from the left are complaints. The more numbers they shed the very less likely we'll see Florida 2000 replayed. And, that's the only card they have! Maybe, democracies are always works in progress?
Posted by: carol herman | February 20, 2005 at 08:26 PM
Has anyone heard or know where is Mr. Jordan Eason? Is he working for El Jazira now? They can use him in line with their good ballanced reporting.
Posted by: E.B. | February 22, 2005 at 08:15 PM