Mr. Jordan's Frying Pan

The dike hastily constructed by the mainstream media to contain the Eason Jordan affair has all but collapsed. US Senators are involved, actively calling for full disclosure. Talk shows around the country are buzzing with discussion of Jordangate. And Jordan himself has gone to ground, hoping the storm will blow over (news flash: it won't).

The MSM coverage now spans the spectrum of left to right:

Atlanta Journal Constitution: CNN news chief clarifies comments on Iraq New York Times: CNN Exec Clarifies Comment on Military Al-Reuters: CNN Executive in Hot Seat Over Iraq Claim CMAQ (Canada): CNN Executive says GI's in Iraq Target Journalists National Ledger (Arizona): Christopher Dodd to Eason Jordan: Release the Tape Washington Times: Stonewalling at CNN New Hampshire Union Leader: CNN continues to slime and smear US troops

It's gone down exactly the way Hugh Hewitt predicted:

CNN has hunkered down, hoping that the [State of the Union address] will cover the Jordan story. I don't think this will work, and the network is producing a second act to Rathergate.

What is truly amazing about this story is not the fact that the blogosphere bit into the story and wouldn't let go. It's the control over the MSM that the blogosphere now exerts! A serious story, vetted by observers, analysts and pundits (amateur though many may be), is pushed into every corner of the Internet until it can't help but escape into MSM, no matter how much stonewalling the bigs attempt.

If indeed the "the blogs are percolating into mass media," then the jomokes at CNN and NYT better buy some copies of Blog, and quick. Because they certainly don't seem to understand the opportunities represented by the blogosphere, nor the dire threats to their staid, sluggish, and stained institutions.

* * *
The sole firsthand comments from Jordan himself (at least, that I've seen), regarding his pet -gate, were released by filmmaker Danny Schechter, in the form of an email:

...Eason, seemingly shaken by all the heat coming down on him for discussing something that many journalists and press freedom groups like the International Federation of Journalists has been discussing, began to withdraw from the controversy he stirred. He wrote... I was not as clear as I should have been during the Davos panel discussion. I was trying to make a distinction between journalists killed being the victims of collateral damage and journalists being killed under different circumstances. No doubt most of the 63 journalist deaths in Iraq fall outside the collateral damage category. I have never felt and never intended to suggest, however, that anyone in the U.S. military meant to kill anyone known to be a journalist. As you will see in the Howard Kurtz Washington Post today, my comments were controversial. While I am pleased the spotlight is on the issue of journalist safety in Iraq, I intend to let others do the talking for a while after I gave several interviews and statements on the subject. I will let my colleagues know of Danny's availability as an on-air guest. I thank you and wish you well.- Eason.

Uhmm, yes, Mr. Jordan, it's getting hot. Real hot. Feel like jumping out of that frying pan yet, sir?