“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain

Oliver North used a slight variation on Twain’s sardonic comment to title an article in which he castigates our mainstream media for its slanderous conduct in regard to the American military (“Lies, damned lies and network ‘news’,” TownHall.com, Feb. 11, 2005). He was referring to comments that CNN news executive Eason Jordan made on January 27 while he was participating in a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland .

During that panel discussion, Jordan initially stated—before he tried to take back his words—that U.S. troops had deliberately targeted and killed 12 journalists in Iraq .

It wasn’t his first calumnious attack on U.S. military. Last November, Jordan stated to a group of Portuguese journalists, “. . . at least 10 journalists have been killed by the U.S. military, and according to reports I believe to be true, journalists have been arrested and tortured by U.S. forces.”

Apparently, Jordan has not named any witnesses or offered any evidence of these alleged war crimes in Iraq or anywhere else. On Friday, February 11, Jordan abruptly resigned from CNN, after claiming repeatedly that his remarks had been “taken out of context.”

North asks the questions that many of us, outraged by Jordan ’s comments, would ask: “Aren’t news reporters supposed to have a thirst for truth? Isn’t there some standard of proof or corroboration required before someone in the ‘news business’ makes such a horrific accusation?”

Perhaps ultra-liberal, anti-military CNN can be moved, given sufficient public outrage. We can thank our bloggers, who pursued the story and “nailed it to the door,” so to speak, by obtaining and reporting eyewitness accounts from persons who were in attendance at the meeting in Davos.

Jordan seems to have a knack for indefensible remarks, including a 2003 New York Times op-ed in which he admitted that CNN had remained silent about Saddam's atrocities in order to maintain its news access in Baghdad . For that, he should have been summarily fired. But he was not, and to this day, CNN “plays the same shut-up-for-access-to-dictators game with its Havana bureau,” according to media watchdog, Brent Bozell (“Attack of the Blogs,” Feb. 16, 2005 ).

There are other instances of journalistic maleficence on Jordan ’s part. In the fall of 2002, he reportedly accused the Israeli military of deliberately targeting CNN personnel “on numerous occasions.” At the time, Eason was in the middle of the Tailwind scandal, in which CNN was forced to retract a Peter Arnett story that the American military used sarin gas against its own troops in Laos .

In 1999, Jordan declared: “We are a global network, and we take global interest[s] first, not U.S. interests first” (Michelle Malkin, “CNN slimes our troops,” Feb. 9, 2005 ).

That’s clear enough. Jordan makes no apology for putting his loyalty to “global interests” before his loyalty (if any) to his own country.

Hurt to the Troops

Those with direct access to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan report that the most common complaint from our military personnel in those regions is that the media rarely report on the good things the military has accomplished. The emphasis, more often than not, is on the negative.

Ms. Malkin, in her article of February 9, observes: “With folks like powerful CNN executive Eason Jordan in charge—a man who clearly has issues with the U.S. military—it’s no wonder our troops so often feel smeared and slimed.”

Organizers of the Economic Forum in Davos have stonewalled citizen attempts to gain access to a videotape or transcript of the Davos meeting, according to Malkin, but she cites one American businessman, Rony Abovitz, who attended the panel discussion and corroborated Jordan’s accusations immediately after the forum. He reported that Jordan repeated his assertion several times, and that it seemed to “win favor in parts of the audience” (the anti-U.S. crowd) and “cause great strain on others.”

Other eyewitnesses, House member Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) also corroborated Jordan ’s remarks.

This episode is one more confirmation of the institutional anti-military bias of CNN. However, economist and television host Larry Kudlow apparently does not believe “institutional anti-military bias” is strong enough. He comments that Jordan’s remarks “border on wartime treason, since they so clearly give aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies as well as anti-American Arab militants throughout the Middle East” (“Eason Jordan vs. the Blogosphere,” TownHall.com, Feb. 11, 2005).

Corrupting Power

Jordan’s remarks came just a few months after Dan Rather’s “October Surprise” in which he used his powerful platform as CBS anchor to attempt an 11-th hour expose that would (if true) have undercut President Bush’s chances at re-election. Of course, the documents on which the infamous expose were based proved to be counterfeit, and the whole thing blew up in Rather’s face. Ultimately, several CBS personnel involved in the fraudulent (and defamatory) fabrication were fired. Rather kept his job, but the network made a point of re-emphasizing his imminent (March) “retirement.”

Irresponsible . . . or Treasonous?

Former U.S. Senator Zell Miller, in a speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 9, 2004, spoke of the damage of hostile, out-of-control demagoguery, especially in time of war: “Again and again, they [left-wing Democrats, Vietnam-obsessed theorists, anti-Bush and anti-America elements] came up with ways to blame America, claiming that Iraq had not been a breeding ground for terrorism until our invasion had made it one. They called the new Iraq government ‘an American puppet.’ Even though they knew our troops would be put at increased risk by a misperception that America was trying to colonize Iraq or grab its oil, they went ahead and made those dangerous and damaging charges.”

And the liberal media in this country have been only too happy to publish their propaganda.

Economist and television host Larry Kudlow, like Zell Miller, calls a spade a spade: “Besides the obvious anti-military bias, Jordan’s comments were incredibly arrogant and cynical. And, yes, I believe his remarks border on wartime treasons, since they so clearly give aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies as well as anti-American Arab militants throughout the Middle East.” (“Eason Jordan vs. the Blogosphere,” Feb. 11, 2005

Islamist recruiters are delighted when one of our own seems to confirm their propaganda that all Americans are evil. If high profile media people like television executive Eason Jordan can convince the world that the U.S. military targets our own journalists, will that not seem to mitigate the horror of the beheadings and other vicious crimes that the terrorists are perpetrating on journalists? Is this not a malevolent attempt to create a sense of moral equivalence?

For his contribution to our enemies, Jordan should be not only deeply ashamed, but his loyalty to his country should be seriously questioned. A generation ago, his behavior would have been openly and unequivocally depicted as treasonous.

Picking and Choosing

Our news media exercise their own right to freedom of speech. They pick and choose. That’s their right. But it’s also where responsibility comes into play.

Thomas Sowell wrote recently, “While this column is protected by freedom of speech, that does not stop any editor from getting rid of it if he doesn't like what I say. . . . Editors, movie producers, speakers' bureaus and other intermediaries have every right to decide what they will and will not present to their audiences.

 “Unfortunately, many of those who talk the loudest and longest about “freedom of speech” . . . are in fact trying to justify the imposition of propaganda on a captive audience . . .”

Thankfully, free speech is protected by law. But in news reporting, there is a responsibility to differentiate between what is factual and what is opinion. Many in the liberal media seem no longer to recognize—or care—that the difference even exists.

When Eason Jordan resigned, hysterical liberals began attacking the bloggers with phrases like “cyber-McCarthyism,” and accusing them of recklessly “destroying Jordan's career.” The fact is, the bloggers were simply delivering the goods—factual information and accountability—that the major media claim to provide (unless, of course, one of their own is on the hot seat).

These flagitious (and increasingly frequent) eruptions of lies and perversions of the truth by high-placed media personalities do not constitute a mere failure of the media to exercise judgment as to what (and how) they publish. They are an attempt to create in the collective mindset of the public an acceptance of an ideological viewpoint that is hostile to our American culture, our traditional values, and our form of government. It is subversive at best, and at worst—especially in wartime—it is criminal.

We Have a Right to the Truth

It is up to each of us to demand accountability from our media. A free people cannot remain free if they allow the truth to be stifled and their media institutions corrupted by forces adverse to freedom. It is an irony that Jordan made his unsupported allegations of U.S. military war crimes during a panel discussion titled, “Will Democracy Survive the News?”

Jeffrey Sessions, one of several U.S. senators who expressed anger at Jordan ’s liberal, anti-U.S./anti-military bias, pointed out what is increasingly obvious: episodes like this demonstrate why the mainstream media has lost so much credibility in recent years.

We have the power as consumers to “de-select” these anti-American purveyors of hatred and cynical bias. We have choices: Change the channel, boycott programming and products, cancel subscriptions . . .

Ratings indicate the “de-selection” process is well underway. Let’s get on with it.

####