Sunday, February 13, 2005
I'm shocked -- shocked -- at Eason Jordan's resignation. It seemed all along from a casual glance at what was available that he'd been well within the reasonable limits of conversation. The way it seemed to me, he was pissed that dead journalists were being called "collateral damage" when they were actually viewed incorrectly as legitimate targets. It seems reasonable to get pissed off and respond -- and even perhaps go a bit too far in one's response and then have to walk it back to rationality.
But to resign without the real story ever having come out is just wacky.
My initial instinct is that he figured he was on the outs anyway and that if he's resign without the tape he'd have a better chance of being rehired without controversy later.
Did bloggers do this? If the video had come out and it turned out to be bad, I'd say "sure." But this seems so premature, so odd, that it simply doesn't make sense to say that.
Could Jordan really have resigned because he thought that a story that was gaining no groung in the mainstream media simply wouldn't die down in the blogosphere?
The sex angle doesn't make a lot of sense, either:
Several CNN staffers say Jordan, who was distraught about the controversy, saw the handwriting on the wall in tendering his resignation. But top executives are also said to have lost patience with the continuing gossip about Jordan, including his affair with Marianne Pearl, widow of the murdered reporter Daniel Pearl, and subsequent marital breakup.Yeah, I suppose that explanation might be meaningful if Jordan worked for some old-boy law firm (but wasn't a partner), or if he were a politician...but a CNN exec? Please, that just sounds stupid.
Steven I. Weiss 1:57:00 AM