Tuesday, February 08, 2005

A Proposal to Resolve the Eason Jordan Affair

Tonight, Jim Geraghty offers a summary of where things stand regarding the Eason Jordan situation (HT-Instapundit):

We’ve got two dramatically different interpretations here – the account of Rony Abovitz and Rebecca MacKinnon and Barney Frank, and the account of Eason Jordan. (Dodd’s statement appears to confirm Rony & Company but is brief; Gergen mostly confirms Rony but is sympathetic to Jordan; Richard Sambrook’s account is pretty close to Jordan’s.)

These accounts are so contradictory on so many key elements that one has no choice but to conclude one side is dramatically misrepresenting what happened.

The videotape that the Davos authorities are sitting on would solve this issue immediately.

Either Rony, MacKinnon, and Frank are passing on inaccurate accounts that will trash Jordan’s reputation, or Eason Jordan’s denial is a lie. . . .

Either Jordan said it, or he didn’t. Right now, the reputations of the five “he said it” witnesses (Rony, MacKinnon, Frank, Gergen, Dodd) – are on the line on one side, and Jordan and Sambrook’s reputation is bet on the other side.

Obviously, there is great concern on the part of someone that releasing the tape would not be beneficial and/or fair to someone (or someones) in attendance. The general reasons offered seem to indicate that perhaps the conversation in the session in question was assumed by some of the participants to be off the record.


Here's a way I propose we could resolve this situation. Jim Geraghty notes that it increasingly looks like those in attendance do not agree on specifically what was said. They're all drawing on memory and arriving at mutually exclusive versions.

A possible resolution: Rather than releasing the tape to everyone, allow the primary witnesses who were in attendance (including Mr. Jordan) to view the tape and then amend their reactions according to what they see.

This would certainly seem fair to the concerns of both sides. If Mr. Jordan or CNN would object to this, I would like to know the basis of the objection.


Blogger GWhizKids said...

Would you allow them to view the tape separately or only in a group? If you let them view individually, I'll bet you all your bogus gold that they would emerge proclaiming (at least for public consumption) exactly the same position with which they entered. On the other hand, if they viewed it as a group, it would be much harder for the liars (er, excuse me -- the cerebral cortextually challenged individuals) to keep up the pretense.

Call me cynical!

8:50 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

That's a very good point. But I think its one that could be resolved in negotiation. Hopefully the main thing that would come out of it is the ability to agree upon the specific words used and the sequence of events. I'm sure there would still be areas of differing interpretation, but this would resolve all the major ones.

If David Gergen, Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, and the rest all insist their meticulous notes they took upon reviewing the tape show the order went one way, and the words used were this, and Jordan still insisted they did not, that would create HUGE pressure to allow independent arbitrators at the very least to resolve it.

9:00 PM  
Blogger GWhizKids said...

Let's hope so!

10:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home