Eason Jordan Op-Ed on Iraq for CNN

The somber tone revealing the tense nature of reporting for CNN in Iraq. The intent of his piece was not to ask for forgiveness, but rather to enable understanding for why he did the things he did. He explains he couldn't divulge any of those stories he heard for fear of putting his staff and Iraqi citizens in danger. By writing this piece in paragraphs, it looked more like a personal essay than an article.

He kept it in the first person and included an introduction and conclusion, noting how he felt about having to hide these stories from the public. Although some of it makes it seem like a letter, the structure, and the transitions in-between paragraphs clearly denotes an essay. Some of it was written in defense of his actions, and then in the end he expressed remorse for having to keep it all inside. However, the overall tone, was to show why he did what he did back then.

Eason Jordan sounds genuine. He explained in a logical and coherent way the reasons for his actions. He also explained that if he had revealed any of the information he gathered, he would have faced the deaths of several people he knew and worked with during his time in Iraq. By citing the various times, the Iraqi government abducted people and how some people were inevitably killed, it confirmed why it was dangerous for him to reveal those stories.

For me personally as a consumer of news, it gives clarification and understanding to why the media projects a certain image on the news and why they apply certain filters. Some of it is fueled by a need to censor certain events to protect the public or the people affected by such an event. Although it is important to find the truth as discussed by Bob Steele in his guidelines, it is also important to consider the repercussions of revealing such truth.

While some may lend a sympathetic ear to Jordan and CNN, some as seen in The Media's War interview, find CNN's actions wrong. Franklin Foer asked "Why wouldn't it have been told on CNN? CNN could have gotten people to testify to that demonstration after the fact.

It doesn't seem to me the necessity of being in Baghdad means that you would miss out on all these great stories." There seems to be a lack of concern for the Iraqi people at the time and for the news workers that live in Iraq. It is easy to say CNN violated journalistic ethics by not giving a voice to the voiceless or holding the powerful accountable.

However, there also needs to be consideration for the people outside of story, the ones that must deal with a horrible dictator and the ones that must continually report the news. I personally would not have published the news stories until Hussein was removed. As much as I want the truth to be out there, the fact that people were tortured and killed for small leaks of information shows me it's not worth it.

In regards to if Eason Jordan sold his soul for the story, I do not believe it is true. He could have gained so much attention and acclaim had he published the stories he included in his article. It was a compromising situation. If Jordan revealed everything he gained from being in Iraq, people around him would have been killed and CNN would have been removed entirely from Iraq. He even mentions several reporters from CNN removed for skirting the lines of acceptable behavior according to the Iraqi government.

The truth was, that even revealing small details or being there to translate something meant someone would be abducted, tortured, and/or killed. It is easy.