Behind the News — February 08, 2006 10:45 AM

Eason Jordan Shoots From the Hip, Again - and Misses, Again

The former CNN exec wrote Monday that two organizations that track media deaths in Iraq are undercounting those fatalities. He’s wrong.

By Paul McLeary

• Single Page
• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Digg Facebook Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

• Single Page
• Print
• Email
• Digg Facebook Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

Subscribe to the Columbia Journalism Review at our special Web rates.

Comments Post a Comment

Mr. McLeary,
In response to your comments on my IHT op-ed, you apparently miss the key point of my op-ed, you take an unwarranted swipe at me, and you erronenously allege that I tried to convince op-ed readers that the CPJ keeps no record of media workers' deaths in Iraq. The key point of my op-ed: that the news media should report the overall media death toll in Iraq, just as the media report the overall military death toll in Iraq. Too often the only Iraq media death toll cited in news reports in the CPJ's tally of 61. Many news consumers believe, wrongly, that the 61 is the whole number of journalist losses in Iraq. That misunderstanding is not the CPJ's fault. Despite your suggestion to the contrary, I noted in my op-ed that the CPJ maintains multiple tallies, explained why, and made clear the CPJ excludes certain deaths from its tallies, while the INSI in its tally includes them all. Unfortunately, news reports rarely mention the CPJ's media worker tally, leaving the impression the 61 is a whole, all-inclusive number. I have no issue with the CPJ, which I admire. My issue is with news reports citing the 61 number while often overlooking the other two categories of deaths that bring the total, all-inclusive death toll 101. If military deaths are counted and presented in news reports in all-inclusive numbers -- they should be and are -- then journalists and media workers deserve the same consideration.
Eason

Posted by Eason Jordan on Wed 8 Feb 2006 at 02:40 PM