"I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me." -- Eason Jordan's "statement" in the New York Times explaining how CNN sold its soul, looking the other way as Iraqis were killed and/or tortured, in exchange for the privilege of maintaining a "news" bureau in Baghdad.

Sometimes I just don't know what's parody anymore. This piece here on Jordan and Daniel Pearl's widow should be parody . . . but it isn't. This is the same Eason Jordan who wrote that self-absolving, ethically- and logically-challenged confession published in the New York Times following the Iraq invasion last year. In it he attempted to exonerate the deal CNN cut with Saddam to not report what it wasn't to report (including unspeakable atrocities he regularly witnessed there) IN EXCHANGE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN A "NEWS" PRESENCE IN THE COUNTRY. It is perfectly arguable that CNN in fact served more as a propaganda tool of Saddam and his Baathist dictatorship than as an "independent" news organization. CNN's non-Iraqi reporters and staff weren't in any danger, as long as they understood what they were and were not to report. Their Iraqi employees on the other hand got tortured and killed because they were ACTUALLY REPORTING NEWS.

In stark contrast to Jordan and the Baathist government's CNN apparatus, Daniel Pearl was doing his job, some very dangerous reporting indeed that got him brutally murdered on camera. He wasn't sitting on the real story while collaborating with the enemy just so he could get access in Pakistan, that's for sure. In fact, as I recall, among his last words were, "I am a Jew." (Note that he didn't opt for, "I am not a Jew.") I believe the technical term is "integrity."

Daniel Pearl was the real deal! Why his widow would be shacking up with a guy who help cover up for and broadcast the propaganda of the same kind of scum that murdered her husband is incomprehensible.

Jordan argues his hands were tied. But CNN could have decided having a bureau in Baghdad wasn't worth being a facilitator of murder and torture and rape and helping Saddam spin (or hide) information. Instead, Jordan was merely making a smart business decision -- CNN just had to have a presence in Baghdad. Ratings. Sure he felt guilty. Enough to want to spin it one more time in the hopes of being rewarded with reassurances that "there was nothing you could have done, Eason."

God bless the soul of Daniel Pearl -- a real journalist and a real man.

-- btw, you can read Jordan's conscience-salve for yourself here:

http://essaysfromexodus.scripting.com/stories/storyReader$1991

Throwing stones indeed.

Mariane Pearl's decisions are her own.

Her husband is tortured and beheaded, and everyone all of a sudden has a say in how she should run her life?

She's suffered enough. Leave her alone.

Barry: I believe the stones were being thrown at Jordan.

My main target was the CNN journalist's argument that the ethically significant consideration was the significance of Mrs. Pearl as a source. Of course I do think adultery is immoral and Mr. Jordan, who betrayed his family, is especially culpable. But even if I thought adultery was OK, I would think that the journalist who cares only about the effect of the adultery on his business was selfish and partial.

Regarding Mrs. Pearl, sympathy for her loss is mingled in my mind with the judgment that it was wrong of her to become involved with a married man. Perhaps I shouldn't have discussed the case at all?

Being a victim of a horrible crime not only gives you carte blanche to wrong a family, but it also gives you complete immunity from criticism. Barry, you are living in a movie on the Lifetime Channel.