damn, Margaret, that was one outrageously professional and thorough story and analysis. I didn't really have all the facts on the CNN situation and hadn't even heard of the Gannon situation. That was just super. Don't forget our own David Flanagan's Bloglust story, which was actually mentioned on CNN.

Thank you.

I didn't really know much about Gannongate until I began researching my article, which was originally only going to be about Easongate. As I learned more about Mr. Gannon, I decided to re-think my original premise.

These are interesting times. The internet and blogs have truly changed the way that news is delivered.

Excellent roundup and reportage.

Possibly the main thing New Media needs from MSM is good editing - especially copy editors

The Fox News Prez seems to think New Media has not changed anything.

I think that all 'Easongate' comes down to is that you've got to be prepared to take responsibility for the things you say in public if you have any kind of position of prominence. Eason Jordan said some very foolish things which were also demonstrably untrue. Frankly, the claims he made could be legally actionable. The US Military could sue CNN over his statements and probably win damages. It's not just a tempest in a teapot, but a sterling example of irresponsibility and its consequences.

Dave

"Eason Jordan said some very foolish things which were also demonstrably untrue."

Please demonstrate their untruth for me..

thanks for the clarification...

Re: Gannongate: Gannon is also connected to the Valerie Plame outing. He's on a list of people to be questioned by the lead prosecutor because he implied that he's seen the leaked CIA memo during an interview with Plame's husband.

I'm glad it's finally coming to light that this administration purchases or otherwise manipulates much of its positive media coverage.

Who else is on the payroll and who else is a plant?

No, BTP. Show me ONE piece of evidence that coalition forces tortured members of the media or deliberately targeted them for death. You can't and Eason Jordan can't. That's why he resigned. Until you've got some evidence that any of those outrageous lies are true, stfu.

Dave

in essence a good article. but, bloggers of every ilk somehow think they have become IMPORTANT now.

there is nothing going on here but the winds of change. eventually CNN, which at one point i had the hardest time stomaching because it was so biased--until i was given the opportunity to watch Fox News--will understand, you don't stand down from a situation like the eason affair.

bloggers can get away with murder. that's what personal opinion is all about. at the same time pundits like michelle malkin can spout the vilest of spooge (her personal opinion) in blogs, all the while getting picked up in syndication by the "MSM." what sense does that make.

CNN had one simple thing to do to save the career of eason: "sorry, guys, eason stays. he asked to resign but we won't let him. the military eviscerated accurate reporting with embedding. even we took part in it. and eason certainly is correct to put it in the light it deserves. we got massacred out there, just by having to look over our shoulders if we weren't embedded."

"on the other hand, since this is a blogfight (a new meme?), there are plenty of blogs out there that reported what eason noted (like http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=04/05/07/1906893 for instance). just do a google on 'reporter killed baghdad bombing' and many interesting things come up. add in 'al jazeerah' and it's even more interesting."

"what was presented in an off-the-record forum was just the same as has been presented in such forums before: opinion. in this case, it shall remain so and CNN sees no need to comment further on eason's remarks."

it is a sad state of affairs in america when someone like eason can be run out of town, but the likes of malkin and limburgher (or however you spell his name ;-), and hundreds of others can spout off about things like racial profiling, gay bashing, and other drivel with impunity.

get a life bloggers. believe it or not, you, as about only about 0.003% of the 7 billion people on this planet, ARE NOT REALLY THAT IMPORTANT.

ps. dave nalle - who said anything about torture? you wouldn't be trying to spin us, would you? nah....

Dave Nalle wrote: "I think that all 'Easongate' comes down to is that you've got to be prepared to take responsibility for the things you say in public"

Well, that is what it came down to for Mr. Jordan who is not the first -- nor will he be the last -- person of note to have said something that got him into trouble. This is a part of the price of exercising one's right to free speech.

The striking thing about Easongate was not how he resigned after having been called on statements he made, but how the controversey was made public. Remember, Mr. Jordan did not make those remarks on the air, but in an off-the-record panel discussion. Had it not been for Mr. Abovitz's reporting, very few people outside of the attendees of the Davos World Economic Fourm would have ever known what Mr. Jordan said.

This is significant because it demonstrates the power of the "New Media" and how the way we get our news is changing right before our eyes.

Dave Nalle wrote: "Frankly, the claims he made could be legally actionable. The US Military could sue CNN..."

Not really. Certainly, Mr. Jordan made the accusations, but when he was pressed to provide proof, he admitted that he didn't have any. So unless a plaintif could prove malicious intent (which is extremely difficult to do), this is nothing but a case of somebody spouting off his speculative opinions.

Dave Nalle wrote: "It's not just a tempest in a teapot, but a sterling example of irresponsibility and its consequences."

I saw it as a little bit of both. Sure it is irresponsible to make serious allegations without having the proof to back them up and Mr. Jordan did pay the consequenses, but what real damage would have been done by one man's conjecture, keeping in mind that this conjecture was made in a forum that was not intended to be broadcast to the public?

That's the tempest in a teapot. People getting all riled up about some guy's specualtions, as if those specualtions would carry any weight with a public that demands concrete proof before it will believe anything.

bhw wrote: "Gannon is also connected to the Valerie Plame outing."

I ran across this angle during the course of my research, but there really isn't anything to it other than some circumstancial evidence which is not very compelling.

Until more information comes to light, Mr. Gannon's possible connections to the Valerie Plame outing are nothing but specualtion (and perhaps a little wishful thinking).

dKosopedia, the DailyKos community's free political encyclopedia, has a Plame Leak timeline. Mr. Gannon is mentioned in it several times, but there are currently so many holes in his part of the story that I did not think that angle was worth pursuing at this time.

bhw wrote: "I'm glad it's finally coming to light that this administration purchases or otherwise manipulates much of its positive media coverage."

But it isn't really. There is no real evidence of that and quite frankly, the bloggers who were looking into that with regard to Mr. Gannon blew it when they began concentrating on the lurid story behind his domain registrations.

Sometimes, it is better to sit back and watch things develop, take notes and wait for solid evidence to come to light to break the story.

As far as I can tell, there are still plenty of bloggers out there working on the media manipulation angle, but their efforts have likely been set back because of Mr. Gannon's premature exposure as a hypocrite who writes anti-gay articles while setting up domain names for apparent gay porn sites.

If the bloggers who investigated Mr. Gannon had held back on the domain names angle -- I do understand how great the temptation to share such delicious ironies can be -- and let him keep attending press conferences, asking his lame questions and writing his articles for Talon News so that they could further obeserve his words and actions, he might have eventually exposed himself as a shill. Now, we'll probably never know.

bhw wrote: "Who else is on the payroll and who else is a plant?"

That is where the investigation into possible White House press maniputlation is currently about. Perhaps the bloggers who were looking into Mr. Gannon will be taking notes on whomever might take his place as the alleged "plant."

Stay tuned...

Sometimes, it is better to sit back and watch things develop, take notes and wait for solid evidence to come to light to break the story.

Well, I think it's unrealistic in today's media environment to expect someone who has a story to hold onto it, particularly when they *know* it's true, as is the case with Gannon's web sites. It is true that he had no journalism experience and it is true that he registered the domain names. That's a story in today's news business.

The fact is also that the web sites were not gay porn web sites, but prostitution web sites, with Gannon offering himself up as an overnight "escort." The porn part comes in with the nude photos of himself as advertising.

Do you not think that story is worthy of coverage? Isn't prostitution illegal? This guy had special access to the White House with no real reporting pedigree and an easily-found history of promoting himself as a prostitute. What kind of background check did he go through? And was he using a fake name on his ID tag -- he apparently applied for access under his real name but was known in the press circle by his pen name.

bhw wrote: "I'm glad it's finally coming to light that this administration purchases or otherwise manipulates much of its positive media coverage."

But it isn't really.

Yes it is. My comment was in relation to the Gannon situation AND the recent revelations that the DoE and another agency paid members of the media to promote their ideas, which they did, while conveniently forgetting to mention that they were paid for it. When you add them all up, you get an administration that is *directly* manipulating the media.

I ran across this angle during the course of my research, but there really isn't anything to it other than some circumstancial evidence which is not very compelling.

Well, I read that the lead investigator on the case has Gannon on his list of people to talk to. That's compelling to me. We may even eventually find out the truth, which would be even more compelling.

your links are dead

I believe he is referring to the links in comment 10, which are dead

want a chuckle re. Gannon:

http://tinyurl.com/5jgkh

(safe for office)

>>ps. dave nalle - who said anything about torture? you wouldn't be trying to spin us, would you? nah....<<

Actually, as I understand it Eason Jordan previously made claims that journalists had been tortured. This latest incident is not the first or only time he's expressed unique opinions about how the US Military has treated journalists.

Dave

david wrote: "in essence a good article. but, bloggers of every ilk somehow think they have become IMPORTANT now."

Well, collectively, they have.

The importance and the power comes from the efficient dissemination of information that results when a large number of bloggers, in cooperation with one another, pick up on a story and repeat it with additional details as they become available. This is the dynamic of what has come to be known as a blogswarm or blogstorm. In the MSM, especially the print media, this is sometimes called "pack journalism."

david wrote: "there is nothing going on here but the winds of change."

The winds of change are always blowing. Sometimes, however, they blow harder and are felt more intensely. Such is the case with how the "New Media" known as the blogosphere is changing the way that news is delivered and consumed.

david wrote: "bloggers can get away with murder. that's what personal opinion is all about. at the same time pundits like michelle malkin can spout the vilest of spooge (her personal opinion) in blogs, all the while getting picked up in syndication by the "MSM." what sense does that make."

No we can't. If a blogger posts misinformation or disinformation that spreads to a significant number of people, the same sort of blogswarm that got Mr. Jordan will expose that blogger's lies.

While personal opinions cannot technically be called truths or lies, if the opinion giver attempts to back his assertions with inacuracies and/or falsehoods, he will be called out and exposed -- if anyone bothers to take him seriously in the first place.

Ms. Malkin is not just a blogger, she is also a well-known MSM columnist, so it makes perfect sense that the MSM would pick up her writings for syndication.

david wrote: "there are plenty of blogs out there that reported what eason noted..." "...just do a google on 'reporter killed baghdad bombing' and many interesting things come up"

Indeed there is some circumstancial evidence to indicate that Mr. Jordan might have been telling the truth and one should wonder what possible motivations he could have had to lie, but there is currently no real proof.

If the allegations Mr Jordan made are true, then the evidence is out there waiting to be discovered by those who are currently investigating the matter. But if that happened, it would still be too late to save Mr. Jordan's reputation because he spoke without first gathering the proof.

The blogosphere is basking in the glow of its newfound limelight and some bloggers -- who are probably hoping to break the next big "-gate" story -- appear to have become impatient and overzealous in their pursuit of notoriety to the detriment of their pursuit of the truth, but this by no means applies to the entire blogosphere.

Some of us bloggers are out here reading, observing and gathering facts, looking for the stories, not the other way around.

PS.
david wrote: "who said anything about torture?"

Mr Jordan did.

The links in post #10 are working as of this writing.

dKosopedia.com's traffic has probably been exceeding its bandwidth, so access is intermittent.

bhw wrote: "Well, I think it's unrealistic in today's media environment to expect someone who has a story to hold onto it, particularly when they *know* it's true, as is the case with Gannon's web sites."

But that was only a small part of what could potentially be -- if it turns out to be true and someone can prove it -- a really big story about the White House manipulating the press. This is the suspicion that prompted the bloggers to investigate Mr. Gannon in the first place.

bhw wrote: "Do you not think that story is worthy of coverage?"

Perhaps for gossip columns and tabloids. But as serious news? No, not really, unless that is where the story ends.

And especially not if that news will be a distraction from a serious investigation into possible White House manipulation of the press.

That's the trouble with Gannongate. Right now Jeff Gannon is known by the lurid details of his exposed personal life and any suspicions of him being a White House shill have been relegated to the status of a sidestory in which hardly anyone is interested.

But all is not lost, for if the allegations of White House press manipulation are true, there will soon be another Jeff Gannon (or more) in the press room, asking loaded and softball questions and writing bad news articles that read like they were copied almost directly from White House press releases. And someone somewhere will look into that guy or gal and maybe discover something -- if there is something to discover.

bhw wrote: "Isn't prostitution illegal?"

That is not relevant because Mr. Gannon has not been arrested for it, and even if he was, he would still be entitled to the presumtion of innocence.

Besides, prostitution is a misdemeanor and Mr. Gannon was originally suspected to be a participant in something far worse than that.

bhw wrote: "This guy had special access to the White House with no real reporting pedigree and an easily-found history of promoting himself as a prostitute. What kind of background check did he go through?"

Probably one to determine if he had a criminal record or something else in his past which could make him a security threat.

As far as Mr. Ganon's pedigree goes, sometimes it isn't what you know, but who you know -- and that would have been an interesting angle to follow up on.

bhw wrote: "And was he using a fake name on his ID tag -- he apparently applied for access under his real name but was known in the press circle by his pen name."

That is a non-story as Mr. Gannon did not hide his legal name and he certainly isn't the only person to ever use a nom de plume in his professional endeavors.

bhw wrote: "My comment was in relation to the Gannon situation AND the recent revelations that the DoE and another agency paid members of the media to promote their ideas, which they did, while conveniently forgetting to mention that they were paid for it. When you add them all up, you get an administration that is *directly* manipulating the media."

So how come nobody who has thus far done this arithmetic has published his or her results? Could that be because they are currently inconclusive?

This is why it is sometimes better to wait for things to develop. News cannot go stale if the story has yet to unfold completely. If you don't have all the facts, you don't have a story, you have a conspriacy theory -- and maybe not even that.

bhw wrote: "I read that the lead investigator on the case has Gannon on his list of people to talk to. That's compelling to me."

I read that, too. Sure, it's potentially interesting, but there's nothing to it right now, except that Mr. Gannon is on the same list as a bunch of other people.

bhw wrote: "We may even eventually find out the truth, which would be even more compelling."

We shall see what happens when that investigation is completed, right now, all we can do is speculate.

"Show me ONE piece of evidence that coalition forces tortured members of the media or deliberately targeted them for death."

You may recall that several Jouralists were killed when a U.S. Army tank fired on the hotel that they were staying in. A hotel known for being where many journalists were living. But perhaps being shot by a tank is not deliberate enough for you.

"Footage said to show tank deliberately fired at hotel" - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/09/1049567708762.html?oneclick=true

Now your turn, "Eason Jordan said some very foolish things which were also demonstrably untrue.", please demonstrate...

Sorry, BTP, that's not what we call proof here in America. You need to have someone on record saying that their intent was to kill the journalists in the hotel. That's what Eason Jordan claimed happened. No one ever claimed that journalists have not been killed. The question is whether they were targeted for death specifically as Jordan claimed. Where's the proof?

Dave

Thanks, Margaret.
I have commented on this article at my own blog and at American Street.