|
I stumbled upon this posting on the Eason Jordan affair by a guy named Bertrand Pecquerie, who is the director of the World Editors Forum. Pecquerie tries to read proof for what seem to be his personal political views in the fact that Jordan resigned his post as chief news executive of CNN. Pecquerie needs five points to 'prove' that there's more to the Jordan resignation, and it's done in a way that I've noticed to be quite common here in Europe: by propagating the myth of the absent American left, pretending right wing ideas are the only thing you'll find in the USA.
Well, let's deconstruct Mr. Pecquerie's statements. (Press 'Lees verder'.)
1) What Eason Jordan has - presumably - said about U.S. forces targeting journalists in Irak is just UNAUDIBLE for a majority of Americans. After the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004, a new attack on the role of US army cannot be accepted anymore.
Must be why that Michael Moore guy has hit absolutely rock bottom. OK, he has, but I mean: in terms of popularity. The myth of the absent American left: that no American would ever criticize his own country. Besides of course Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Al Franken, Howard Dean, John F. Kerry, Edward Kennedy, the whole of Hollywood (and for that matter, San Francisco), most of the Democratic party - the list goes on.
I have in mind this sentence of the BBC news chief, Richard Sambrook: "American media were failing the public by wrapping themselves in the American flag…" It was true six months ago and it is still true. In that sense, the Jordan case doesn't reveal a clash between bloggers and mainstream media... because nobody in mainstream media tried to really defend Jordan. In that sense too, I'm convinced that the main question to American journalists and citizens is: how patriotism interferes with journalism?
'Nobody in the media tried to really defend Jordan.' The not exactly loony left Wall Street Journal, for frag's sake, did precisely that in an editorial today. Also, for a sophisticated and nuanced European, Mr. Pecquerie acts with blatant superficiality by pretending all Americans hold exactly the same political views (see above).
2)The whole Jordan story is now reduced to the release of the videotape of his remarks. But who can believe this is the real issue?
Yeah, who could believe that anyone would want to know if Mr. Jordan did indeed say what he is reported as having said, after the numerous contradicting statements he made? There must be a conspiracy!
Even if the CNN executive said U.S military had aimed at journalists, where is the scandal? International news organisations as Reporters without Frontiers and a lot of Arab media - Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya - told the same thing, asking for international and independent inquiries about the death of nine journalists killed by American forces. The real crime of Eason Jordan was to say what Arab media claimed and, today, in America, nobody can have such a beheavior.
Crime? Nobody got convicted. And as I understand it, Mr. Jordan levelled accusations of atrocities at the US Armed Forces which he then didn't back up. Then followed the very undignified spectacle of Mr. Jordan trying to weasle himself out of what he had said. By any standard, that is slander, or at the very least, rather unprofessional behavior for a journalist.
Also, is Mr. Pecquerie advocating that American television audiences are going to demand resignations at Arab tv stations for spreading similar unsubstantiated claims? Or will Mr. Pecquerie then write furious articles about American imperialism against such fine journalistic gems as Al Jazeera, which Mr. Pecquerie has previously described as 'more professional than Fox TV'?
3) The Eason Jordan affair is compared to the Dan Rather dismissal. Because of the role of non mainstream media in the process. But there is another comparison, much more convincing: Eason Jordan is a new Peter Arnett, this well-known journalist accused in 2003 to be a "traitor" becase he talked on a Iraki television. The same arguments gave the same results: Arnett was sacked from NBC and Jordan obliged to resign!
As I recall, Mr. Arnett went on Iraqi state television to tell the Iraqi public the American war plan had failed. After the invasion had started, it took only days before journalists like Mr. Arnett were talking about 'quagmires' and the like. Even though Rumsfeld botched the post-war planning IMNSHO, there can be no doubt now that the invasion itself was a military success, other than what Mr. Arnett claimed. So in the sense that both journalists were voicing untruths to further their own political agendas, perhaps this is indeed a good comparison.
4) What's wrong with what was said on the blogosphere between the 28 January (first posting on Jordan's speech) and the 11 February 2005, date of the Eason Jordan resignation? Seen from Europe, it is very surprising that the only question was about "truth" and "facts" about Jordan's words. But who cared about "truth" and "facts" regarding the death of journalists in Irak? I'm not saying that the only goal of bloggers was to sack a mainstream journalist, I'm just surprised by how it is easy in the blogosphere to forget real issues. Instead of asking for the release of Jordan's videotape, why didn't anybody ask for an international and independent investigation into the journalists' death?
Great, let's have an international and independent investigation! Maybe Kofi Annan's son can be the chair. The prime witness will of course be Mr. Eason Jordan, a well-known and respected journalist, who will gladly elaborate on his claims that the US military have deliberately fired upon journalists. Mr. Jordan, your testimony and evidence on the record please.
Mr. Jordan?
5) My goal was not to shock when I made the comparison between some bloggers' behaviour and the McCarthy era. But it is difficult not to see the same hatred against "anti-American activities": Jordan was not vindicated because he didn't tell the truth, he was demonized because he had some doubts about the death of certain journalists.
No, because he made claims he didn't back up, then tried to deny he ever made those claims.
So, my goal was not to judge all bloggers - it would be foolish -, just to say that it is too easy that all bloggers represent "grassroots journalism". Not at all.
Only proper left-wing - er, I mean: neutral! - bloggers represent "grassroots journalism"!
And I am urging for a strong barrier between real citizen media and pure political activists. If not, it could ruin the new phenomenon that is participatory journalism! In Europe, we are following this movement with particular attention, but we don't want that political bias to inhibit its potential.
From which it logically follows that real citizen media have to become apolitical? As for bias, Mr. Pecquerie really isn't one to speak. Especially not by implying his point of view is (a) neutral, (b) the 'European' one, which is a double count of a rather 'Americanesque' form of arrogance, if you think about it.
|
