For those of you who have been following the Eason Jordan imbroglio (not Jordan Eason as some dyslexic blogger who shall remain nameless had it on this site last week) and wondering perhaps whether his offense should really have caused him to resign at CNN, PowerLine lays out Jordan's options and shows succinctly that he didn't leave CNN much choice but to force the issue, if, in fact, that's what they did:
Now that Eason Jordan has resigned, folks are eager to defend him instead of trying to ignore his situation. The defense comes in two forms: first, that he made a mistake but that the mistake should not have cost him his job; second, that he is the victim of McCarthyism, sacked for expressing unpopular views.
The answer to both defenses is essentially the same. Once strong evidence emerged that Jordan had accused the U.S. military of systematically murdering journalists, his legitimate options were the following: (1) he could try to show, through the tape of his remarks, that he made no such accusation, (2) he could present evidence to support his charge, (3) he could retract his charge and apologize, or (4) he could modify his charge and present evidence to support the new charge.
Jordan opted for none of the above. At that point, the question became whether CNN would be led by a monger of vicious and unsupported anti-American rumors. CNN, hoping to remain distinct from Al Jazeera at least for the time being, apparently answered that question in the negative. Where's the injustice to Jordan in this scenario?
Of course, this assumes that Jordan's resignation was demanded by CNN. If it was purely voluntary, which we doubt, then the decision to resign was his and there is no question of injustice done him by CNN or anyone else.
