Seppuku

In an article in the LA Times, David Shaw doesn't defend Eason Jordan, he attacks the "angry" bloggers who created a "firestorm of criticism", and Jordan's CNN bosses who "caved in" and eventually "gave him a not-so-gentle push toward the door". Okay, Shaw doesn't actually attack anyone, he fires off a few unaimed shots from his journalistic scattergun but fails to draw any blood.

Some 21 paragraphs into the article Shaw arrives at a conclusion that makes all the waffle preceding it irrelevant:

What I don't understand is why they — and he — caved in so quickly. I wish he'd asked — begged, demanded — that the organizers of the Davos forum release the videotape of his panel. I can only assume that he said what he's accused of saying and that he doesn't want those remarks in the public domain, even if they were followed by his quick backtracking.

So what really happened was Jordan said something indefensible and decided to do the honourable thing and fall on his sword. It was the only dignified thing he could do.

Unfortunately, Shaw just can't drop it, he has to fire off a parting shot at bloggers:

But bloggers appear to have achieved almost mythical power these days.

Bloggers can be useful. They did a good job, for example, in bringing the Rather/CBS screw-up to public attention. But some bloggers are just self-important ranters who seem to wake up every morning convinced that the entire Free World awaits their opinions on any subject that's popped into their heads since their last fevered post.

Unfortunately, when these bloggers rise up in arms, grown men weep — and news executives cave in. That's much more alarming than anything Jordan said.

Sure, some bloggers are insignificant – self-important – nobodies. Others deserve to be listened to. I take it Jordan and his CNN bosses listened to the latter, not the former.


Via Tim Blair, who links to Instapundit's round-up.