Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Do you ever notice how just saying, "I'm sorry. I was wrong." or "I'm sorry. It was wrong of me to say that." will kill the tension, anger, frustration or heartbreak and the event causing it will, given a little time, float to the deep recesses of the mind? If what was said wasn't truly meant, apologising actually can make one feel better. For those honest about things they say, an apology usually comes quickly, sometimes right after the offensive remark is uttered.

However, if you actually meant what you said, if you have a considerable stakehold in, say, an opinion, it usually takes days or weeks of tongue lashings to drive you to Apology's Door and, even then you do not enter willingly. If you are there and you meant what you said, often you won't bother to take off your muddy boots, a sign to others that more visits can be expected.

Eason Jordan is going to Apology's Door kicking and screaming and, from the looks of it, his feet are more mud than boots. If he gets to the Door, I am sure he will have no intention of being polite when, and again, if, he enters. Anyone who reads this knows what I am talking about. If, perchance, you don't, go here; that should get you elsewhere and, it is hoped, everywhere this is being covered.

One of the reasons Jordan is kicking and screaming is because he, I believe, he meant what he said but did it poorly and at the wrong time. He also wants it out there and exposed but he doesn't want to carry the message, at least not as a public leader. So he's priming the pump, if you will, and wants it investigated. The trouble is he has, for all practical purposes, no evidence; he just has his biases, his employee's biases, his professional acquaintences' biases. No one else will bite the bullet (no pun intended) without evidence.

I just want to touch on one aspect or I'll never get this posted. That part is his enablers; Jordan is dodging furiously because The World Economic Forum won't release the evidence revealing his remarks and the context. The World Economic Forum is one and the main one, for they have the clear cut, 'there is no argument' evidence whether Jordan even need take the walk.

WEF's efforts to supress the evidence of Jordan's offense take the form of preparing for an announcement. It's just that they haven't decided what to announce yet. They think they have laid the groundwork for helping Jordan with two options - 1) they can't find the tape or 2) we can't release it (The Chatham Rule.) Both are transparent dodges, but folks at that level of society are so used to winking and nodding, it is quite possible they actually believe this nonsense.

Let's take the first "potential" dodge. They haven't unpacked from the annual meeting and have not found the videotape of the session, yet. Maybe that is an honest answer to correspondence. Let's hope so. Anyone that has sat through a probability course, even those who failed it in train wreck fashion, can tell you the odds the that the tape was lost nudges out, take your pick a) Intelligent Design, b) Evolution, as astronomically improbable.

So let's go to the good ol' boy reason under consideration for not yet releasing the tape - The Chatham Rule. First, let me say it is a good rule under certain circumstances but this is not one of them. Let me summarize the general circumstances under which Jordan made his remarks:
- The widely publicized World Economic Forum.
- Programme listings of all the Sessions - over 160 sessions (I stopped counting)
- Open Forum for 9 Sessions
- Webcasts for 38 of the Sessions
- Weblog covering the Annual Meeting and Forums
- DVD's for 37 Sessions/Special Remarks
Some of the special circumstances:
- Reporters were invited
- Session was taped
- Official Weblog covered Session with participants' remarks attributed
- Weblog Disclaimer does not note anything wrt revealing participants remarks
- Weblog notes anything sent to WEF website is not considered confidential.
- Session Summary made atttributions.
- Participants have revealed remarks

These sites are covering some of this side of the story, or hold up to the story, as the case may be. The former does note a blanket notation that some sessions were intended to be off the record, though the specificity to when it applied was somewhat ambiguous, at least in the case of this session. And the session was videotape recorded. What's with that if the seesion is off the record.

Lastly, as with all "off the record" forums, conferences, meetings, etc that I know of, this is announced at the beginning of the event. David Gergen was the moderator. Michelle Malkin noted that Mr. Gergen said he was under the impression the session was off the record. My question to Mr Gergen is "Did you announce at the beginning of the session that the session was off the record?" I didn't think so! Then "Did anyone announce it?" I didn't think so!

The WEF has a terribly flimsy basis for withholding the tape. They ought to release the tape so this story can continue to it ultimate conclusion which will be either Jordan's appointment with the door or an investigation. There are better things to get on with, such as making sure democracy survives the media, not to mention world leaders acting to address global issues and engaging particularly its corporate members in global citizenship. (Sorry about the parting shot, I watched the School of Rock last night. Really, I didn't mean it! :-)

Update: Kausfiles throws open the curtain Howard Kurtz tried to pull on the The Jordan Affair. Stay tuned, folks.


0 Creaks:

Post a Comment

Trackbacks:

<\$BlogItemBacklinkCreate\$>

Email Me


Home Page



This page is part of CSS LAYOUT TECHNIQUES, a resource for web developers and designers. Does it VALIDATE? (Ha! Not likely.)

Template Credits::
Eric Costello at Glish for the base templates; Glenn Roveberg at Roveberg for the archives menu; and Ken Ward at Trans4mind for menu open window coding.


Powered by Blogger TM


Subscribe with Bloglines