Well, I've been (deservedly so) called out via email for non-mention of the situation regarding CNN chief news exec Eason Jordan's latest comments about journalists (American and otherwise, it appears) being "targeted" by military forces currently serving in Iraq. In all honesty, I have been reading about this for the last few days, but haven't had the "wherewithall" to put together a solid item for your reading enjoyment. But since the ammunition is all sitting in my inbox and bookmarks, I'll share what I've got.

Recently, Jordan made statements to the effect of what is mentioned in the graf above while at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The Forum's own blog discussed the situation on January 28, and is probably best viewed as the closest transcription of what actually went down. Jordan seemed to flip around a bit on the topic, in what was described as wavering "back and forth between what might have been his beliefs and the realization that he had created a kind of public mess."

So what's the deal? Surely Mr. Jordan would not stand in front of a group of individuals at a high profile forum as this and make this kind of statement with either a) some proof or b) some belief that this was the case, right? It appears that the proof isn't really in the pudding. I've seen numerous places where mentions of press being part of "collateral" deaths in the region - to be brutally honest, this wouldn't be surprising, considering the proximity of members of the media - foreign and otherwise - to the fields of war. But it's a pretty damning statement to even suggest that soldiers are actually trying to kill reporters, directly or otherwise.

To me, as someone who follows as much media (let alone the stories the media is covering) as I can, it's amazing to note that rarely - if ever - was any news regarding this statement picked up in the last few days. Think about it - if someone had proof, irrefutable proof, that soldiers were killing members of the media, wouldn't that be big news? Perhaps there's a reason for it not being big news - it isn't happening.

Now obviously I'm not in the head of every soldier fighting in Iraq right now, so you can never say never in a case like this - but with the prevalence of mass media in the area, doesn't anyone think that this would have "gotten out" if it were indeed going on? Hell, wouldn't someone have been captured on camera doing so by now? I'm all for conspiracies when they have merit, but this looks like someone spitting out some mumbo jumbo, then trying to hide under the desk when he realizes that people actually want to hear about what has just been spewed forth. [And yes, I mean spewed.]

On Thursday morning, John Hinderaker at Power Line wrote about the latest on this situation, including a harkening back to 2002, when Jordan stated that "...in both places journalists are not only being killed but they're being targeted. There are combatants in both of these conflicts who are trying to kill journalists, and that is unusual and a very nightmarish situation." That specific 2002 incident is pretty clear after reading this post by Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters - a journalist getting killed while in a warzone is a very different situation than one being killed in a warzone on purpose.

So what is it? Do we really believe that journalists are being targeted and killed because they are journalists? Are we talking about people in Iraq who are working as journalists by day but are terrorists on the down low? Are we talking about journalists being systematically "taken out" by the military for some unknown purpose? I don't know about you, but it's amazing to me that someone with a level of prominence as Mr. Jordan would be going on about such things, with nary a comment from the major media outlets in this country - and I'm not talking about commentary shows, mind you.

If you're looking for some really comprehensive coverage of the Eason Jordan situation, and any future fallout, definitely keep your eyes peeled at Captain's Quarters - the site is all over the story and is a wealth of information on the subject. [Thanks, Matthew, for the heads up]