Talk:Eason Jordan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does the use of quotation marks imply that somebody is being quoted? Otherwise, what's up with the scare marks around the phrase taken down here? Either use a phrase that stands without quotes, or say who the source is, please. --Christofurio 13:43, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Another interesting angle has to do with Marianne Pearl, widow of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter murdered in 2002 by jihadists in Pakistan. Rumors that Eason is 'involved' with Ms Pearl may have helped persuade the CNN honchos to escort him out the door. Might such an involvement have impacted his coverage -- i.e. led him to see journalist-martyr-murdervictims in the Daniel Pearl mode where, on cool reflection, he has had to acknowledge that there isn't evidence of anything more than wartime accidents? --Christofurio 13:54, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Although it was old, I added the link to Jordan's 1996 bio because it included information not found elsewhere. Randy 03:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV???

What's with the new NPOV alert? I can certainly understand if some of this seems heavy-handed, but you're supposed to indicate specific objections on the talk page so that we can all follow what needs to be addressed. The NPOV notice even refers to this. The "scare quotes" comment seems to have been handled a long time ago. -- Randy2063 02:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Mainstream media's refusal to run the story," and the like. This article reads like a collection of quotes taken straight from the right-wing blogosphere, as opposed to an article covering it. When did "the mainstream media" refuse to cover something, and who is their spokesperson? Shem ^(talk) 19:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, for all its heavy-handedness, this article was well documented. If you check the last reference you'll see that the Washington Post's media critic gives credit to the bloggers for driving the story. If you doubt that the media wasn't covering it, you're welcome to contribute sources of your own. I may add one correction later: It wasn't just the "right-wing" of the blogosphere. There were moderates and liberals who joined in as well. -- Randy2063 21:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article says "right-wing of the blogosphere"; I used its wording. Nor did I say it was not covered (despite that it was, for a week on FoxNews.com), I said I take issue with a Wikipedia article stating that the mysterious "mainstream media" refused (key verb) to cover something. I'd be interested in seeing the moderate-to-liberal blogs who "joined in" on Eason as well, though. I rather enjoy keeping tabs on the FoxNews-CNN-CBS media war, but didn't keep track of the blogs who covered Mr. Jordan here. Again, the wording makes this article read like, as Glenn Reynolds said in the WaPo link, a "right-wing of the blogosphere scalping." I did not insert the the tag as an "NPOV alert," I inserted it because I read POV language, and assumed that was the proper protocol. Shem ^(talk) 23:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about the wording. I'll have to look at that later. I wasn't referring to your comment when I said about "right-wing" -- I knew it was in the article. I just don't have time to source it properly for a correction. But the only others I can think of right now are Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus and Jeff Jarvis who I'd really call moderates. I thought there were outright liberals too, and I'll keep looking.

I don't know when FoxNews.com (the website) got into it, but the cable network was surprisingly late. From my quick scanning right now (from Reynolds), it looked like it began slowly spilling out of the blogosphere after February 4th and 5th. Kaus was still talking about their silence on the 4th. I don't think FoxNews got into it yet by that time either. -- Randy2063 00:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)