Let's get frank

Represenative Barney Frank has finally weighed in on Easongate, in a conversation with Michelle Malkin:

Just got off the phone with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who spoke with me about Easongate. Rep. Frank was on the panel at Davos.

Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately "expressed deep skepticism." Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, "explaining that he wasn't saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined."

Rep. Frank said he didn't pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was "somewhat disturbed" and "somewhat exercised" and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan's assertions were "disturbing if true." I have a call in to Sen. Dodd's office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.

Rep. Frank has not yet heard back yet from Jordan.

Don't hold your breath, Congressman.

Meanwhile, Jordan's BBC counterpart, news chief Richard Sambrook—who was also in the room at Davos—is backing Jordan's version (or one of them, at least), in a statement to Jay Rosen:

[Eason's] point was that many of these journalists (and indeed civilians) killed in Iraq were not accidental victims--as suggested by the terms "collateral damage"--but had been "targeted", for example by snipers.

He clarified this comment to say he did not believe they were targeted because they were journalists, although there are others in the media community who do hold that view (personally, I don't). They had been deliberately killed as individuals-- perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents, we don't know. However the distinction he was seeking to make is that being shot by a sniper, or fired at directly is very different from being, for example, accidentally killed by an explosion.

Looks like the video is going to have to tell the tale. (Unfortunately, WEF's Mark Adams is now starting to backtrack about when the tape might be made available.)

Howard Kurtz, meanwhile, continues to keep silent on Easongate—along with pretty much everyone else in the MSM.

Guess he must not have gotten my question.

UPDATE: Will Collier at Vodkapundit has called Kurtz out: "You're a coward, Howard. Your silence, your outright stonewalling in failing to even mention a developing story about one of your bosses isn't just deafening, it's damning. We'll all remember this the next time you run a story about conflicts of interest in "journalism." We'll all remember you covering for your boss. Shame on you. You wouldn't take this from another reporter—and certainly not from any politician—in the same position."