Eason gone, but not forgotten

Peggy Noonan doesn't seem to agree with the infamous WSJ editorial chastising bloggers for "hounding" Eason Jordan.

Bret Stephens appeared on Hugh Hewitt's program to discuss the editorial, the Jordan "kerfuffle" and his own snarky remarks about bloggers.

Having read the bloggers and Mr. Stephens' Opinion Journals piece, I can't really see any reason for the touchiness of the WSJ. The story about Jordan's assertion would have been off the blogs by now if he had answered it and released the video, but he fell into the Nixon trap, trying to stonewall the people asking questions. Bret Stephens has shown a pretty thin skin and a touch of paranoia on the whole thing. What I don't understand is why he or CNN feels so threatened by blogs? I sense more than a little irrational fear in his email to Hugh Hewitt:

But you and I both are in this media business, and you and I both are liable to have our every word scrutinized, and potentially distorted. And one day, it won't be the Eason Jordans of the world the blogosphere comes after; it will be the Hugh Hewitts and Bret Stephens's. It's at that point that we'll be very grateful indeed for the better standards and decent instincts of civilized, serious journalism.

It seems to me that Stephens' big complaint is that he was falsely accused of writing the editorial dismissing bloggers efforts to find out what Jordan really thinks and said. That brought out some criticism of him that, in my opinion, he should get used to if he wants to stay in high-profile job where he supervises the work of others. I'm not really interested in gossip about him, but I think it's pretty weak to dismiss serious questions and a serious story with "you're not real journalists, so shut up."

I'm pretty bored with this story now, except for the curious fallout. Why did Jordan really resign? Do bloggers really have that kind of power? And what is it with journalists who think that they're the only ones qualified to decide what news the public is allowed access to? This snotty "professionalism" bit ill becomes anybody who claims to believe in the people's right to know.

One blogger has suggested that the Valentine's Day editorial was written by Best of the Web's James Taranto. Taranto's response sounds like an admission and a follow-up tweak:

Isn't this a perfect example of how bloggers are amateurs (amateur: "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession")? If David enjoys puzzling over the authorship of newspaper editorials, more power to him--but it's hard to imagine anyone making a living that way.

There's also something sweet in how the bloggers have taken such offense at the editorial. Rather than bask in their victory, they are focused on letting the world know how much they crave the approval of the big boys at the Journal.

Anybody who reads Best of the Web knows that Taranto likes to twist noses, but this reaction strikes me as pretty arrogant. The Eason Jordan remark at Davos wasn't the first time he had made such outrageous statements, and the fact that he was in a position with a lot of power over a major news organization makes it a story that deserved more attention. I don't know why the WSJ wants to shield him, but it suggests that the "Good Ole Boy" syndrome extends even to big conservative papers.