February 10, 2005
A Conflict of Interest?
The portions of thie post referring to Mr. Stephen's conflict of interest with the WEF have been retracted.
Dinocrat.com, in a well documented post, reveals a potential conflict of interest between Eason Jordan and Bret Stephens:
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.
It turns out Eason Jordan may have sat on the board that just admitted Bret Stephens as a member:
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?
If true, Mr. Stephens should have revealed his relationship with the World Economic Forum in the Op-Ed piece. This relationship may go far to explain his open contempt for conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, "the usual Internet suspects" as well as this website, which he mentioned specifically and derisively:
"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."
However, Mr. Stephen's account of the conference in Davos merely confirms what other witnesses have already stated. Mr. Stephens just doesn't see a problem with Eason Jordan's remarks; slandering American troops is merely "defamatory innuendo" unworthy of consequences. The Staff of Easongate disagrees wholeheartedly and will continue to demand the release of the tape so we can make our own judgment.