More on Eason Jordan

Duane Patterson fisks this handwringer by James D. Miller on Tech Central Station entitled "Will Blogs Produce a Chilling Effect?"

I also thought Miller's article was fatuous. The claim that bloggers "brought down" a number of prominent figures is itself overstated. If bloggers are so ignorant, such salivating morons and such lynch mob of Lilliputians, why did anybody pay attention to them? Where's the courage, if Jordan thought he was right? He tried to back away from his remarks, but he had too much of a history of saying stupid things. His problem was that too many people familiar with his previous remarks saw this "targeting journalists" assertion as less a misstatement than a Freudian slip, exposing his true feelings.

Bloggers only have the power that comes from being read. The complaints of Jordan's friends about him being lynched, don't make sense. The credibility of certain bloggers and the loss of credibility of the MSM aren't due to some vast right wing conspiracy. They're due to the fact that the former have a track record of making sense and the latter are reacting to criticism like powerful people have always done.
I tend to agree with Jay Rosen:

I don't think he should have resigned. I don't know why he did. Neither the public overlooking this sad event, nor the participants in it know why Eason Jordan quit. No reasons have been given, beyond saving CNN the trouble of a controversy.

That's not a reason. If CNN is a real news network, why shouldn't it have the trouble of a controversy now and then? I think anyone interested in serious journalism would agree that what are called news values come out during times when the network is criticized, called to defend itself, attacked by political interests, or otherwise under pressure. No executive can succeed in news who is not nimble in public controversy. Eason Jordan knows that.

So who's to blame for this fiasco? What do the media say when some politician blames them for covering some scandal?

Is there a "chilling effect" by blogs? Does it threaten free speech? I'm reminded of this prophecy delivered on November 1, 1831:

For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated.

And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.

That's pretty chilling, but it's being fulfilled in our time. And I don't think there is any way to roll it back. But note that only those with something to hide need worry. As is frequently noted, it's the stonewalling and attempts at covering up that do the real damage.