Monday, February 21, 2005
Gannon & Eason
What do Jordan Eason and Jeff Gannon have in common? Not much, first initial aside. Until recently Jordan Eason was the respected chief news executive of CNN and Jeff Gannon a.k.a. Jeff Guckert was a prostitute turned propogandist for a republican shill known as the "Talon News Network". Jordan Eason was a Davos man, one of those few hundred who come closest to running the world. Gannon had traded being a military-fetish man-toy for selling his word to the current administration.
They do share the same downfall. They have been hounded into resigning due to pressure from online activists. In each case the story that destoryed them started in the blogosphere. Eason was brought down by a man listening to a panel discussion at the most recent World Economic Forum. Gannon fell after a soft-ball question in the white house press room. Both cases sparked blogstorms, frenzies of interconnected web logs both probing and regurgitating the stories until only the darkest interpretations on the victims actions could be accepted. Gannon was now an example of the corrupt depths to which the Bush administration would go to paint itself in a positive light. Eason was an America-hater and an ally of islamic terror. Gannon's mistake was to try to pull himself out of the escort business by working for a conservative propaganda website, and Eason's mistake was poor word choice when responding to the sanitization of the killing of journalist by american soldier in Iraq.
Neither man should have been hung by the blogosphere. These were witch-hunts. Bloggers smelled blood and ran for it. And in both cases they have succeeded in destroying careers. I hope those responsible have the dignity to be ashamed of their actions. It is exactly th is sort of bullshit blood sport that is driving the cultural rift in the US (the one both sides are losing, but we'll dicuss that another time). Gannon's case is an interesting story, but is it an actual scandal? Is Eason not allowed to challenge the use of euphenisms that gloss over the deaths fifty or so journalists (and tens of thousands of ordinary people)? The scandal here is the lynch mob mentality of the blogosphere.
Scoundrels.
They do share the same downfall. They have been hounded into resigning due to pressure from online activists. In each case the story that destoryed them started in the blogosphere. Eason was brought down by a man listening to a panel discussion at the most recent World Economic Forum. Gannon fell after a soft-ball question in the white house press room. Both cases sparked blogstorms, frenzies of interconnected web logs both probing and regurgitating the stories until only the darkest interpretations on the victims actions could be accepted. Gannon was now an example of the corrupt depths to which the Bush administration would go to paint itself in a positive light. Eason was an America-hater and an ally of islamic terror. Gannon's mistake was to try to pull himself out of the escort business by working for a conservative propaganda website, and Eason's mistake was poor word choice when responding to the sanitization of the killing of journalist by american soldier in Iraq.
Neither man should have been hung by the blogosphere. These were witch-hunts. Bloggers smelled blood and ran for it. And in both cases they have succeeded in destroying careers. I hope those responsible have the dignity to be ashamed of their actions. It is exactly th is sort of bullshit blood sport that is driving the cultural rift in the US (the one both sides are losing, but we'll dicuss that another time). Gannon's case is an interesting story, but is it an actual scandal? Is Eason not allowed to challenge the use of euphenisms that gloss over the deaths fifty or so journalists (and tens of thousands of ordinary people)? The scandal here is the lynch mob mentality of the blogosphere.
Scoundrels.
