Bret Stephens, formerly with the Jerusalem Post, is a terrific writer with a commanding knowledge of the Middle East and a decidedly non-idiotarian editorial bent. We’ve linked to many of his pieces at LGF, and I’m sure we will again.

But when I read his op-ed about Easongate at OpinionJournal earlier today, I detected a faint air of “circling the wagons.”

Did Eason Jordan, chief news executive of CNN, actually say the American military has deliberately killed journalists covering the conflict in Iraq?

It’s a serious question, at least to judge by the heat it’s generated. Google “Easongate” and you get 2,500 results. There is an Easongate.com Web site, on which more than 1,000 petitioners demand that Mr. Jordan release a transcript of his remarks—made recently in Davos—by Feb. 15 or, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, face serious consequences. Sean Hannity and the usual Internet suspects have all weighed in. So has Michelle Malkin, who sits suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.

There’s a reason the hounds are baying. Already they have feasted on the juicy entrails of Dan Rather. Mr. Jordan, whose previous offenses (other than the general tenor of CNN coverage) include a New York Times op-ed explaining why access is a more important news value than truth, was bound to be their next target. And if Mr. Jordan has now made a defamatory and unsubstantiated allegation against U.S. forces, well then... open the gates.

As one of the hounds who snacked on Rather’s liver (with some fava beans and a nice Chianti thpthpthp!), and who has posted several articles about Eason Jordan (he was an Outrage of the Day in April 2003 when he admitted CNN had covered up evidence of Saddam Hussein’s atrocities), this description rankles. After all, isn’t it news when a top CNN executive makes a charge that the military of the United States is deliberately murdering journalists, in a forum where his words could easily become grist for the enemy’s propaganda mill?

Of course it’s news, for many reasons, and people who read blogs can see this; I was puzzled why Bret Stephens, of all people, apparently didn’t.

The Dinocrat points out a possible reason:

Mr. Stephens says this in his WSJ piece: “By chance, I was in the audience of the World Economic Forum’s panel discussion where Mr. Jordan spoke.” Well, whether he was in that particular audience by chance is not the story. Stephens has a relationship with the World Economic Forum that he did not disclose in his op-ed. He is a newly minted member of one of the world’s most exclusive clubs, the Forum of Young Global Leaders, a kind of YPO on steroids, featuring precisely 1111 men and women under forty worldwide. The Forum is affiliated with, though governed separately from, the World Economic Forum:

The Young Global Leaders have their own distinct autonomous governance structure but act in close cooperation with the World Economic Forum. The Forum of Young Global Leaders was created and endowed by Professor Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.

Mr. Stephens was named a member in 2004. Therefore, he just passed through the nominating process:

The Nomination Committee, which is chaired by Her Majesty Queen Rania of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, is composed of the world’s most eminent media leaders.

We have absolutely nothing against exclusive clubs, and we wish Bret Stephens well as a designated global leader. But we believe that Stephens had an obligation to disclose his special relationship with the World Economic Forum, whose young leaders club is peppered with CNN employees, joint venture partners and frequent contributors, including Lisa Caputo, Zain Verjee, Arzuhan Yalcindag, and Fareed Zakaria. Most importantly, the World Economic Forum’s website lists Eason Jordan as what appears to be a board member of the “World Economic Forum’s Global Leaders of Tomorrow Programme.”

If you’ve just been admitted to one of the world’s most exclusive clubs (check out the membership list here and the nominating committee here), and you are writing a somewhat exculpatory op-ed about one of the board members, don’t you have an obligation to your readers to disclose this relationship?

Indeed.

UPDATE at 2/11/05 9:12:54 am:

There seems to be some misunderstanding of my point; as I wrote above, I consider Bret Stephens a terrific writer who’s normally on the right side of issues. But I do think that, given his extensive connections to the WEF, and given that this same WEF is refusing to release their videotaped record of the discussion, these connections should have been disclosed in a piece that—while critical overall—is somewhat apologetic on Eason Jordan’s behalf.

Power Line and Captain Ed were also struck by the odd tone of the piece.