Finally, somebody brought up Paul Gigot. I haven’t read what he’s written lately (has he gone all Gergen on us?), but was completely taken aback by his commentary on Fox News Sunday this past weekend. As expected, Liasson defended Jordan, but the supposed conservative panelist also was soft on his “misstatements” and sounded more concerned that CNN didn’t defend their guy! What a company man.

I was floored, however, when Juan Williams of all people disagreed with Gigot and agreed with the decision to let Jordan go for the integrity of the CNN organization. Chris Matthews disappointed by not weighing in either way. Only the wonderful Brit Hume emphasized that the videotape has not been released for some reason. One could see him thinking, oh, the irony of the Watergate inspired press not clamoring for taped evidence.

Still, the day may come when Brit or Roger is given a stealth copy of Jordan’s remarks during a parking garage meeting with Deep Quote…

We since have learned that Bret Stephens penned this particular editorial apparently mounting a defense of his own slipshod reporting. We have learned that he has a previously undisclosed connection to Davos and the WEF. So far my impression of Mr. Stephens is that he’s just another self-important snotnose. I have a very big problem with Paul Gigot, however, and a lesser one with James Taranto.

The Journal’s Reader Responses for the editorial make interesting reading. The majority of its readers are not amused.

Second, I don’t know if everyone saw that our favorite rube, R.McClelland, posted a note on Oliver Willis’ blog suggesting that people dig up embarrassing background on Glenn Reynolds. I get a bad feeling that bloggers are the next targets of “opposition research.”

(Any lawyers out there? Would you argue that bloggers could be considered “public figures,” and thus are much more easily libeled?)

That said, I wish they’d release the Davos tape, then tie Eason around CNN’s neck like an anchor – much like I think the UofColorado should not only keep Ward Churchill, but be compelled to have him co-sign all fundraising letters. In other words, let’s be perfectly transparent about the types of people who work at these institutions, and then let the public decide how to respond.

Funny how the MSM looks back, time after time.

You may be right, I certainly don’t know. A little of Occam’s Razor does have to enter in, though. I still haven’t found the article I read on CNN cable rights contracts expiring this year but I know that CNN was getting paid for what FNC has been giving away. CNN’s advertising income may not be able to support the level of reporting that they are currently doing. They have a lot more depth than FNC – even if you throw in SkyNews and a couple of others. If advertising income has become very important, then major advertisers may be pointing out that CNN’s “position”, “view”, whatever (just don’t call it slant or bias) is not shared with a majority of Americans. Ratings appear to confirm that rather solidly.

The market for a tilted edudoctrination channel is pretty well covered by PBS. Birkenstock and Big Bob’s Bongs just can’t carry a 24 hour news channel. It really could be that CNN felt a need to bust their liplock on dictators butts, I just haven’t seen any evidence of that happening. Of course, I watch CNN about 3 minutes a year so I’m not right up to the minute on any changes.

I mean cripes, Jordan said what he said, if he did not mean it, he should not have said it.

How hard is that for professional journalists to understand?

It’s the “off the record” or non-attributable aspect (coupled with crowd size) that I’m asking about. I know that the WEF is a tin cup opportunity for the NGO’s to hit up corporations just as I know without looking very hard that “Save the Kyoto” will be featured as well as something to do with “Educating (indoctrinating, actually) the Impoverished”. Very, very old stuff. But Jordan’s remarks (which some are characterizing as “raising troubling issues” – more hogwash) were an assertion of murder that if proven to have the tiniest basis in fact would be a tremendous story. Jordan controlled assets that could have been used to unearth not just the truth but every aspect of all sides of each “targeted” death.

The plain fact is that Jordan is a damned liar and knows it. He can couch his resignation in “protect the company” language but he just wants an end to a story that will prove him to be as much a fraud in the world’s eyes as he is in his own. The blogs didn’t do Jordan in and I haven’t read anything on blogs that justifies the WSJ editorial.

Eason Jordan will be looking at the cause of his downfall every time he shaves for the rest of his life.