Hugh Hewitt has a link to Bret Stephens' editorial [SEE UPDATE BELOW FOR CORRECTION] in today's Wall Street Journal. The WSJ believes that Mr. Eason's comments at Davos did not rise to a level to be worthy of the response in the blogosphere and his ultimate "resignation".
I usually agree with the WSJ Opinion Journal, but I must say I think they miss the larger point with this story. Here is my letter to them:
While I value and respect the WSJ editorial positions a great deal of the time, I cannot disagree more with you regarding "Easongate". Had there been a full airing of what was actually said (ie., the tape was released), a resignation may not have been necessary. It is the cover-up that has rankled the "right-wing" blogs.
Many conservative blogs had asked for a vetting of the facts, since the blogs only had reports from other attendees on what was really said and thereby meant. The WSJ also fails to note the anger and frustration many in the blogosphere felt over the intense media coverage of Marine General Mattis while at the same time all but silence on Mr. Jordan's comments from the Mainstream Media.
It is fairness in the media that the blogosphere seeks. The WSJ is usually a good voice for representing the truth. Here the WSJ is on the wrong side of having the truth be told, the video released, and for all of us to decide for ourselves what Mr. Jordan meant and ultimately what the rightful consequence should be. Mr. Jordan resigned or was forced out without the facts made public. It is difficult to believe that Mr. Jordan nor CNN could have compelled the release of the video to set the record straight from Davos.
This article, along with others such as this NYT piece (thanks to Power Pundit) are indicative of the head in the sand, missing the point attitude of the old print newspapers. Also, see Kausfiles (12.14.05) for more speculation on why Mr. Jordan was quick to quit.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt is reporting that Bret Stephens did not in fact pen the WSJ article like he originally claimed. It came from the WSJ editorial board, and no one author is its source at Opinion Journal.
Comments