Eason Jordan outrage is recreational.

A couple of posts I wish I'd taken the time to make:

• The birth of outrage
• Eason Jordan and the names of 12 journalists "deliberately targeted" by US troops

Each documents instances of troops killing reporters.

I note that a number of outraged critics say that what Jordan said was that the military targets journalists as a matter of policy. It may have sounded that way at first, but he's clarified what he's saying:

Most importantly, I do not believe the U.S. is trying to kill journalists in Iraq. To the contrary, the U.S. military has worked hard to protect journalists in Iraq. Nevertheless, there have been several tragic episodes in which U.S. forces killed journalists in what turned out to be cases not of collateral damage but of mistaken identity.

I think what we have here is real evidence of exactly what Jordan is saying, and no evidence of what Jordan isn't saying (i.e., there's no evidence that journalists are killed as a matter of policy, and no one says otherwise). The only way this is an outrage is if Jordan believes something he hasn't said. It's an outrage out of thin air.