2
Publié le 10 février 2005 à 17:57
Voici une histoire qui illustre l'influence grandissante des blogs sur les grands médias. J'écrivais, ici même, ma surprise à Davos à l'écoute du patron de CNN dénonçant les agissements de l'armée US à Bagdad. Quinze jours après la clôture du World Economic Forum, la polémique fait toujours rage : Eason Jordan, le patron de l'information chez CNN a-t-il oui ou non laissé entendre lors du Forum de Davos que l'armée américaine tirait sans état d'âme sur les journalistes en Irak ? Du moins ceux qui ne sont pas incorporés avec les boys. Depuis deux semaines ces propos, jugés forcément anti patriotiques par les partisans de Bush, provoquent la fureur de dizaines de blogeurs de la droite américaine. Comme d'habitude ils accusent CNN de dérive gauchiste. L'intérêt de cette polémique n'est pas seulement de connaître le fond de la pensée - un peu ambiguë - du patron de CNN. Cette affaire montre une fois de plus comment les blogs commencent à imposer des sujets dans les médias traditionnels. En l'occurrence cette affaire commentée aujourd'hui par des centaines de blogs a fini par être relayée, il y a deux jours, par le puissant Washington Post. Et certains comparent déjà cette polémique avec celle qui avait fait chuté le présentateur de CBS Dan Rather. Une affaire de reportages "trafiqués" qui avait été d’abord dénoncée dans de nombreux blogs. Décidément le « journalisme citoyen » fait son chemin. Tous ceux qui veulent suivrent les développements de cette polémique CNN peuvent d’ailleurs se rendre sur le... blog ouvert cette année au World ecomomic forum.
Commentaires
Hello Bernard!
Your comment is correct about the growing power of the blogs and especially their impact on the so-called "mainstream media" (or "MSM" as the blogs often say). However, I disagree with your précis of the Eason Jordan story. The blogs were not complaining that he - and by extension, CNN - were simply being "unpatriotic" by accusing the US military of deliberately targeting journalists. That was not the issue. The blogs were outraged by the fact that Eason Jordan made this statement without an iota of evidence to support it. Within the session (which you yourself attended), he was even asked to produce some "proof" that his accusation should be taken seriously, and he immediately began to back down, finally saying that "some people believed that there were people in the Army who perhaps had negative feelings for journalists...." (or words to this effect).
Do you, or any of your journalist colleagues - or even any of your readers - believe that if CNN truly had evidence of the deliberate murder of 12 journalists by the US military (yes, Jordan was exact and said there were 12 such instances), that this would be the biggest "story" to emerge from the war - bigger than Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib put together? Why would CNN not have assigned reporters to investigate it? Jordan said they had not. What - ignore the most scandalous issue of the war?!? CNN??
Bernard, the blogs were upset that a senior executive of CNN - a news service that to many people around the world represents America (even though there is no offical link, of course)- would have the wish, the audacity, and the bad judgment to tell such a whopping big lie in front of a largely anti-US audience at one of the foremost gatherings of leaders in the world. What was he thinking? That he could say such a thing without any consequences? Instead, what he has accomplished is a huge furore of bloggers demanding an explanation. Yet, even after all these weeks of noise and fury, Eason Jordan has not stepped forward and explained himself - and CNN remains utterly silent on the subject. Could it be that he knows he has been caught out lying, and is hiding from the public, hoping it will all just go away? That is what it looks like to me.
So, to come back to your comments on the blogs' influence, the Eason Jordan case is an excellent example of how the blogs will exercise their power in the future. Yes, they are "citizen journalists" but the more important point is that they are extremely well-networked and can call upon experts and witnesses almost instantaneously. If the "MSM" publishes something that is not true, the blogs have the collective global resources (people, time, interest, investigative skills, wide-ranging expertise, writing talent) to do their own research, reveal the truth to the world - and demand that the MSM retract or correct their misleading statements. The blogs act as a huge global editor and fact-checker for the MSM. And in my opinion, this means that the MSM will never be the same.
Rédigé par : Helveticus | 12 fév 2005 13:26:46
Sorry for the 2nd post within 2 hours, but I just learned that Eason Jordan has resigned, claiming he had been misunderstood. Eyewitnesses at Davos insist he was very clear , and apparently it was not the first time he had hinted at the murderous intentions of US soliers. More info at:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050211/ap_en_tv/tv_cnn_jordan_2
Rédigé par : Helveticus | 12 fév 2005 14:03:59
L'utilisation des commentaires est désactivée pour cette note.