More from witness #8

In case you missed it, Bernard Rappaz—one of the eyewitnesses to Eason Jordan's remarks at Davos—left the following comment to my earlier post.

I reproduce it here, unedited:

I heard Mr Eason in Davos. Mr Eason didn't accused the US military of deliberately targeting reporters in Irak. There is absolutely no reason to create an "easongate" about it. It doesn't make any sense. What he really said he is far more important and should open an important discussion away from the usual partisan warfare: Mr Eason explained that too many reporters have been killed in Irak, some by US forces. He explained that no inquiry have been open by the Pentagon about it and he stated his worries about the way the US military were handling their relationships with independent reporters. (if reporters are not embedded can they do their job without risking their life ?) These are serious comments and important questions. Based on what Mr Eason said there is no reason to open a war against CNN but there are a lot of good questions left unanswered.

I'm not sure exactly how to reconcile M. Rappaz' comments with the accounts of other witnesses, but they definitely underscore the need for the World Economic Forum to overcome its bureaucratic inertia and release the video.

On his own blog, M. Rappaz has posted some additonal observations that may be of interest those who've been following the Easongate saga.

Here's his post from last Friday, just after the news of Jordan's resignation:

The affair hasn't tapered off. Two weeks after his shattering statements at Davos … Eason Jordan, a top executive of the CNN news network, has just announced his resignation. Accused of having implied—without proof—that the Pentagon targets journalists in Iraq, the CNN news chief would not have long survived a debate largely maintained by the blogs. In the immediate aftermath, two observations emerge from this astonishing business. First, the ferocity of the information battle between the American left and the American right. Clearly, in this debate, a muscular right managed to accuse CNN of anti-patriotic bias. Second, this resignation again shows the growing power of the blogs. Without the contribution of scores of net surfers who blew on embers these the past fifteen days, it's uncertain that the mainstream media would have seized on the story. The incredible ease of publication the blogs offer makes it possible for new actors to take the stage. In the end, this form of "participative journalism" will create a counterweight that traditional media will find impossible to circumvent.

[L'affaire n'aura pas traîné. Deux semaines après ses déclarations fracassantes à Davos … Eason Jordan, patron de l'info de CNN vient d'annoncer sa démission. Accusé d'avoir laissé entendre - sans preuve - que le Pentagon abat sans état d'âme des journalistes en Irak, le chef de l'information de CNN n'aura pas survécu longtemps a une polémique largement entretenue par les blogs. A chaud, deux observations à retenir de cette étonnante affaire. D'abord, la férocité de la bataille pour l'information entre la gauche et la droite américaine. Clairement dans cette polémique, la droite musclée s'est jetée sur une CNN accusée de dérive anti-patriotique. Ensuite, cette démission montre à nouveau le pouvoir grandissant des blogs. Sans la contribution de dizaines d'internautes qui ont soufflé sur les braises ces quinze derniers jours, il n'est pas sûr que les grands médias se seraient emparés de l'affaire. L'incroyable facilité de publication qu'offre les blogs permet à de nouveaux acteurs de prendre la parole. A terme, cette forme de "journalisme participatif" va créer un contre-poids incontournable aux médias traditionnels.]

Bernard also offers this additional Easongate post from last Thursday:

Here's a story that illustrates the growing influence of the blogs on the mainstream media. I wrote here earlier of my surprise listening to the head of CNN at Davos denounce the intrigues of the US army in Baghdad. Fifteen days after the end of World Economic Forum, the debate still rages: Did Eason Jordan, the news chief at CNN, imply during the WEF meeting that the American army targeted  journalists in Iraq? Or at least those who weren't embedded. For two weeks these remarks, inevitably considered to be anti-patriotic by the Bush partisans, have caused the fury of scores of blogeurs on the American right. As expected, they find evidence of CNN's leftward drift. The interest of this polemic is not only to know the true thinking—admittedly a little ambiguous—of CNN's boss. The affair shows once more how the blogs impose their agendas on the traditional media. In fact, this story—commented on today by hundreds of blogs—wound up being relayed, two days ago, by the powerful Washington Post. And some already compare  this debate to the one that brought down CBS news anchor Dan Rather—a matter of "forged" memos which had been initially denounced by many blogs. Definitely "citizen journalism" is making its way.

[Voici une histoire qui illustre l'influence grandissante des blogs sur les grands médias. J'écrivais, ici même, ma surprise à Davos à l'écoute du patron de CNN dénonçant les agissements de l'armée US à Bagdad. Quinze jours après la clôture du World Economic Forum, la polémique fait toujours rage : Eason Jordan, le patron de l'information chez CNN a-t-il oui ou non laissé entendre lors du Forum de Davos que l'armée américaine tirait sans état d'âme sur les journalistes en Irak ? Du moins ceux qui ne sont pas incorporés avec les boys. Depuis deux semaines ces propos, jugés forcément anti patriotiques par les partisans de Bush, provoquent la fureur de dizaines de blogeurs de la droite américaine. Comme d'habitude ils accusent CNN de dérive gauchiste. L'intérêt de cette polémique n'est pas seulement de connaître le fond de la pensée - un peu ambiguë - du patron de CNN. Cette affaire montre une fois de plus comment les blogs commencent à imposer des sujets dans les médias traditionnels. En l'occurrence cette affaire commentée aujourd'hui par des centaines de blogs a fini par être relayée, il y a deux jours, par le puissant Washington Post. Et certains comparent déjà cette polémique avec celle qui avait fait chuté le présentateur de CBS Dan Rather. Une affaire de reportages "trafiqués" qui avait été d’abord dénoncée dans de nombreux blogs. Décidément le «journalisme citoyen» fait son chemin.]

(My apologies for the rough-and-ready translation; my French is many years out of practice. Corrections and suggestions are gratefully accepted.)