The Laughing Wolf

CNN Yet Again: Eason Jordan Slanders The Military

Others are all over this, but I have to add a few things from my perspective as a recovering journalist on the shameful comments by Eason Jordan of CNN. The Captain's Quarters has already pointed out that this is not the first time he has apparently made similar slanderous charges. Then again, this is not the first time CNN has made baseless charges of war crimes against the military.

What bothers me the most about this is the clear pattern of failure to adhere to even the most basic of journalistic principles by the leadership at CNN. You almost expect a cub reporter or someone trying to prove themselves to get aggressive and go a bit overboard. That's why you have editors, layers of editors, to prevent such from ever seeing the light of day.

If this had been a story being done by a reporter at a responsible organization, they would have to have first told their assignment editor what they were doing. That person would have had to check off on it. They would also have to review the story and evidence before sending it up the line. Even if cleared by the editors, the fact checkers at the copy desk are supposed to independently check with the sources, review the material and any evidence, and then and only then allow it in print.

When I was doing newspaper and radio, anyone coming in with charges like that without any evidence or corroboration would have handed their heads (and other portions of anatomy) by the assignment editor. In point of fact, they might well have found their rear end bouncing on the street, as had it seen print (or been broadcast) it would then have been a matter of libel. Libel can and does cost reputations and large sums of money.

Word of advice to bloggers: go get the AP Stylebook and Libel Manual. The styleguide is extremely useful, and the libel portion is well worth the read. It can and will keep you out of trouble.

What Jordan did was not libel, though base and foul, but rather slander. Unless he can and does provide proof to back up his claims, he does CNN and journalism a disservice. It also serves as, yet again, rather compelling evidence that the editorial control and review process at CNN is lacking in rigor when the top person so obviously fails at this basic point of journalism and journalistic integrity.

The Old Media and those that claim to watchdog ethics ignore this at their peril.

LW

UPDATE: If this is the first entry of mine you have ever read, may I recommend to you my Saving Pvt. Journalism series, and I also have an entire category of media posts that cover a wide range of topics in journalism and media operations.