Take a look at the Washington Post article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17462-2005Feb11.html
Three years ago, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan made a comment which implied that U.S. troops in Iraq killed journalists intentionally. This caused waves and waves of attacks from bloggers, so much so that it led to him resigning from CNN soon after. In fact, the bloggers found out about Jordan's comments a week before major newspapers like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe even knew about.
There's no doubt that a good number of those bloggers that attacked Jordan are journalists. Is it right for journalists to affect the outcome of news, like they did here? Perhaps they are under the impression that on blogs, there are no standards to uphold. And what about the news organizations that reported this story about Jordan's comments? Since many of them found out about the incident only after they read the blogs, it is entirely possible that the information they reported are bias and inaccurate.
One article I read said this: it's unfair that Eason, after 23 years of good deeds for CNN, loses his job because of one bad one. Jordan's comments, although offensive to some people, did not cause any direct harm to others. So its it fair that he lost his job because he said something stupid, when in fact all of us say stupid things everyday? I get the impression that bloggers sometimes are too eager to look for fresh meat and not eager enough to think about the consequences.