After-the-fact Thoughts on Eason Jordan

The bottom line on the sad saga of Eason Jordan is this: When he had the chance to do the honorable, courageous, and correct thing in pre-OIF Iraq, and have his network report on the atrocities and wide-spread government-sponsored murder that CNN KNEW of and had evidence of what was occuring under Saddam’s regime, he opted not to. Instead, he and his network kept their collective mouths shut so they could maintain their "access" so as to be able to remain in Iraq and continue to NOT report on the most significant events occurring there. What kind of twisted logic is that? Maintaining access for its own sake, apparently, was more important to this "newsman" than reporting the gruesome, yet crucial, truth.

Then, in front of a largely “friendly” audience liberally sprinkled with America-haters, he “reported” defamatory comments against the American military for which he (go figure) did NOT appear to have evidence. (Otherwise, why wouldn’t the evidence have been presented by now?) . Sucking up to his audience by reporting as fact what were actually unsubstantiated allegations, apparently, was more important than being objective and truthful.

This so-called newsman got it exactly bass-ackwards. When he knew the truth, he suppressed it; when he had only conjecture to offer, he presented it falsely as the truth. He’s a modern-day Walter Duranty who deserved to get the ax - years ago.

That the MSM hasn’t, even yet, after Jordan’s resignation, gotten into this story to the extent that it warrants speaks volumes. They circled the wagons around one of their own, and it didn’t work. And yet the wagons remain circled. Will they never learn?