Eason Jordan knew MSM's culture would protect him

Yesterday Eason Jordan, a news executive at CNN, decided to resign due to the firestorm of criticism that CNN was drawing over his accusations that U.S. troops tortured and targeted journalists. In an Washington Post article recapping the account of this incident was this tidbit:

Steve Lovelady of Columbia Journalism Review e-mailed his verdict to New York University professor and blogger Jay Rosen: 'The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail.'

Abovitz, the Davos participant whose blog (is there anyone left in America who doesn't have one?) is called Fix the World, says in an interview that Jordan meant what he said about soldiers targeting journalists and that his later backpedaling was 'running, hiding and evading.'

'He was going on a rant and he thought he was among friends,' Abovitz says. [emphasis mine—johnh] 'I thought, if this is true this is the most horrible thing I've heard about the United States military in a long time.'

Abovitz says he had 'no idea' his post would cost 'a big news guy' like Jordan his job. 'What I do regret is that the level of accountability should not just be on one person. Is he the only one who's made a mistake and should be held accountable? Is it just the right wing going after Eason Jordan? It quickly became an agenda, right versus left.'

Note Abovitz's perception of why Eason Jordan permitted himself to speak freely: he thought he was among friends. Meaning that Eason Jordan believed that those present would protect him with their silence. This begs the question: who did Eason Jordan automatically assume would protect him? Well, for starters, he assumed that nobody in the audience—which was largely comprised of journalists—would alert the world of his slander against the U.S. military. He also believed—evidently correctly—that David Gergen wouldn’t voluntarily out him.

Obviously he didn’t count on the possibility of a blogger in the audience, however, but this is beside the point I’m trying to make. My point is that Eason Jordan knew that he could safely smear the U.S. military as he pleased because he was among MSM journalists. Put another way, Eason Jordan knew that a room full of journalists was an excellent risk if he felt like publicly smearing the U.S. military because they wouldn’t out him and not single journalist there disappointed him.

Think about this incident the next time you wonder about where most journalists stand on the U.S. military. This episode reveals the leftist reality distortion field that is such a part of the mainstream media’s culture.

True, David Gergen did confirm Eason Jordan’s statements when Michelle Malkin contacted him but I doubt that David Gergen would have raised the subject first. Let me be explicit, David Gergen—who I believe is particularly reluctant to lie—refused to cover for Eason Jordan when he directly asked about the specific allegations. What am I’m saying, however, is that I feel sure that David Gergen, if given the option, would have kept this story to himself.

Other tipbits about the blogosphere:

Michelle Malkin:

How brave of him to hand in his resignation on Friday night

The Anchoress has some completely scathing comments regarding an Eason Jordan apologist who said that Jordan was “tire-necklaced.”