The madness of blogs

Steve Lovelady of CJR looks on in horror as the knuckle draggers of the blogosphere destroy the career of Eason Jordan.

The Captain Eds, Jay Rosens and Jeff Jarvises of this world have always celebrated the blogosphere as a self-correcting perfect democracy where the participants supply accountability and oversight. The other side of that coin is to say that the mob is headless, and that neither the best efforts of the deacons, nor those of anyone else, can mediate the wrath when the headhunters smell blood.

That, in fact, is the problem here. (And that, by the way, is a conservative thought, not a liberal one.)

Meantime, David Gergen, the conservative columnist and panel moderator who does know what Jordan said, and who challenged his statement at the session, is himself dismayed at the end result. He chalks it up "to the increasing degree to which the news media [are] being drawn into the culture wars," as the Times puts it, and told Howard Kurtz that "[t]his is too high a price to pay for someone who has given so much of himself over 20 years. And he's brought down over a single mistake because people beat up on him in the blogosphere? They went after him because he is a symbol of a network seen as too liberal by some. They saw blood in the water." This morning, even the Wall Street Journal's editorial page reached much the same conclusion -- that the punishment here far exceeded the provocation.

But it's no longer the Jeff Jarvises or the David Gergens or Journal editorial writers who drive these matters to a conclusion. It's the headless mob.

Some think that's a good thing, others see anarchy unloosed. As for us, we're with Gergen and the Wall Street Journal editorial writer. This one is not a case of the wisdom of crowds; it's a case of the madness of crowds.

I think Gergen's right, what was done to Jordan certainly did not fit the crime. And I disagree with comparisons to the Jeff "Gannon" scandal. Jordan, at worst, misspoke during a panel discussion, then quickly retracted his remarks during the same discussion. He was speaking emotionally, with the thought that not all the reporters, cameramen, and translators he'd sent in to Iraq had managed to come back. Moreover, this was his career -- 20 years worth -- and it's more or less over because of the hyperventilating of a few Fightin' Keyboardists on the Right.

Gannon, or whatever he's called, is a story because he was receiving daily passes for more than a year. He had no credentials as a member of the press and he was using an alias to boot. And to those who are aghast that in the process of uncovering his and the administration's fraud, it was learned that he'd been running a male prostitution ring, well, I'm sorry, the personal is the political in this case. It sure strikes me as "news," that a guy with a past like that would be given such a pass by an administration obsessed with restoring the dignity of the White House.

One other thing troubles me, though, and I hope we're not hearing the end of it. Why was CNN so quick to pull the rug out from under Eason? Does Rathergate have the media quaking that much in their boots? Or was something else in play here? Inquiring minds want to know.