Michelle Malkin has a valuable round-up: “Easongate: A retrospective.” Hugh Hewitt provides a review and recommendations here. What Hugh says about the Los Angeles Times applies to the Minneapolis Star Tribune as well:
The Times is not alone for demonstrating again a “news judgment” hopelessly skewed by liberal bias. Some big papers got a “just-in-time” treatment of the story into their pages, but most of those gave no hint that a real opinion storm had developed around Jordan, and none of them pushed the story along. It was new media’s work, and only new media’s that brought accountability to Eason Jordan and CNN.
Captain Ed notes the rest of the story here. See also Jim Geraghty’s links and quotes (including Rocket Man’s forecast of Jordan’s demise) here.
Howard Kurtz’s story for the Washington Post tomorrow is here. Kurtz frames the story around the role of the blogs and notes:
As of yesterday, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and USA Today had not carried a staff-written story, and the CBS, NBC and ABC nightly news programs had not reported the matter. It was discussed on several talk shows on Fox News, MSNBC and CNBC.
As of today, Kurtz himself has yet to report Jordan’s earlier libel of the American military in Lisbon last November that Captain Ed reported and that is in fact an essential element of this story.
HINDROCKET adds: If, like most people, you relied on the conventional media for your news, you would not only be late to the party, you would have no idea what is going on–your first knowledge of anything out of the ordinary would be Jordan’s resignation. Assuming even that will be reported. It would be an interesting assignment: trying to write a story on Jordan’s resignation for a paper that has not heretofore covered the controversy. If Jordan had just announced he wanted to spend more time with his family, he would have made their task easier.