The fundamental basis for the success of Western society is, I believe, the rise of reproducible empiricism – the notion that assertions are provable and must be proven by others. It doesn’t matter what the King says, because every assertion must be checkable in some way – no matter what the source.
The Associated Press today announced that no such rules apply to it. From Editor & Publisher Kathleen Carroll of the AP:
Their assertions that the AP has been duped or worse are unfounded and just plain wrong.
No organization has done more to try to shed light on what happened Nov. 24 in the Hurriyah neighborhood of Baghdad than The Associated Press.
We have sent journalists to the neighborhood three different times to talk with people there about what happened. And those residents have repeatedly told us, in some detail, that Shiite militiamen dragged six Sunni worshippers from a mosque, drenched them with kerosene and burned them alive.
No one else has said they have actually gone to the neighborhood. Particularly not the individuals who have criticized our journalism with such barbed certitude.
The AP has been transparent and fair since the first day of our reporting on this issue.
We have not ignored the questions about our work raised by the U.S. military and later, by the Iraqi Interior Ministry. Indeed, we published those questions while also sending AP journalists back out to the scene to dig further into what happened and why others might be questioning the initial accounts.
The AP mission was to get at the facts, wherever those facts took us.
What we found were more witnesses who described the attack in particular detail as well as describing the fear that runs through the neighborhood. We ran a lengthy story on those additional findings, as well as the questions, on Nov. 28.
Some of AP’s critics question the existence of police Capt. Jamil Hussein, who was one (but not the only) source to tell us about the burning.
These critics cite a U.S. military officer and an Iraqi official who first said Hussein is not an authorized spokesman and later said he is not on their list of Interior Ministry employees. It’s worth noting that such lists are relatively recent creations of the fledgling Iraqi government.
By contrast, Hussein is well known to AP. We first met him, in uniform, in a police station, some two years ago. We have talked with him a number of times since then and he has been a reliable source of accurate information on a variety of events in Baghdad.
No one – not a single person – raised questions about Hussein’s accuracy or his very existence in all that time. Those questions were raised only after he was quoted by name describing a terrible attack in a neighborhood that U.S. and Iraqi forces have struggled to make safe.
Simple question, Ms. Caroll. What’s his phone number? Because “We’ve checked, and yes – we’re right.” isn’t an acceptable answer.
Why not? It’s what journalists are supposed to do right?
But you want his phone number? Incredible! Why not insist on a lie detector test?
Tell ya what AL, post your phone number here. I don’t think you really exist. And look on the bright side. You don’t live in a city where hundreds are found dead daily. The odds are posting your phone number here will simply be an annoyance. I seriously doubt any reader would, say, use a reverse lookup to find your home address, follow your kids to school, offer them a ride home, etc.
This bash the media stuff has gone beyond crazy. From the cozy confines of home you attack people trying to do their jobs in the worst possible circumstances that YOU PROUDLY CHEERED FOR.
Give it a rest.
And let me add one thing AL.
If you had been one tenth as critical in your consideration of the evidence of WMD’s in Iraq and the reasons for starting this war in the first place, you wouldn’t have to insist daily that you don’t give mea culpas here.
Brutal, Davebo, brutal…but right on target.
Phone number? I think it would be unethical, and against every journalistic standard, if they did publish his phone number. Besides, are you really suggesting that the AP is deliberately lying about all of this?:
These critics cite a U.S. military officer and an Iraqi official who first said Hussein is not an authorized spokesman and later said he is not on their list of Interior Ministry employees. It’s worth noting that such lists are relatively recent creations of the fledgling Iraqi government.
By contrast, Hussein is well known to AP. We first met him, in uniform, in a police station, some two years ago. We have talked with him a number of times since then and he has been a reliable source of accurate information on a variety of events in Baghdad.
No one – not a single person – raised questions about Hussein’s accuracy or his very existence in all that time. Those questions were raised only after he was quoted by name describing a terrible attack in a neighborhood that U.S. and Iraqi forces have struggled to make safe.
That’s a pretty serious charge. You would not be alleging bias, or the omission of inconvenient facts. You’d be saying that the AP is outright lying.
That’s a bit much.
Uh, Davebo … lots of people know and can confirm independently that I exist. Even before I dropped the pseud.
No one but AP knows that this guy exists.
I’d think you’d want to have better data about Iraq – since I’ll agree that a big part of our problem is that we haven’t had much up until now.
Oh, but wait – is it only bad data that supports your positions that’s OK? So it’s not having good information, is having ‘right’ (or ‘left’, in this case) information.
Sorry, can’t help you there.
Andy X, if you think that was devastating, you need to get out more. And when you see monkeyboy, remind him that he owes me money.
A.L.
Um, Eric – I’d be happy if they gave his phone number to a trusted third party. And yes, at this point, the evidence suggests that they are lying (see the NY Times cite in my post below).
A.L.
What’s his PHONE NUMBER???
Why don’t you put a target on his back when you are at it?
Effin hell, man.
And Davebo is right – Mr “No Apology” Armed Liberal, sure had no problems with cheering or ignoring the lies that came out of the Bush administration on a daily basis. Those were fine.
Oh no, but posting for the 3rd time about an AP story, that they claim to have vetted three times – THAT’S important.
It’s all about priorities, right?
“What is his phone number” – Christ, what a stupid post this is.
AL, the New York Times piece you cited below does not suggest that the AP is lying about the existence of this police official.
The Times piece (or better yet Ed Wong’s missive) suggests that the AP got the story wrong and/or was fed misinformation from their source.
But then, this is based on Ed Wong’s judgment concerning expectations for a story like this, and not a thorough vetting of the story.
But let’s assume Wong is, er, right. I have no reason to doubt him. But that doesn’t mean that the Capt. Jamil Hussein source is a fictitious character invented out of whole cloth as a sock puppet.
The AP might disagree that they were fed a bad line by their source, but that’s not a lie, it would be just bad judgment – if true.
See the difference?
Eric, we’ve got one point of evidence for the story – the AP story, and the continued support of AP for the story.
Ditto, We’ve got one point of evidence for the existence of Jamil Hussein.
There is other evidence – the lack of wide reaction, corroborating photos, etc – that strongly suggests the story may be false.
The answer is simple – produce other evidence, or priduce Hussein. They could bring him to a blinded interview with a Fox journalist, or Bill Roggio, or … anyone.
Instead, we get chest-beating about how hard they looked, and how hard their jobs are. Sorry, no.
And, since this event was a kind of Karen Toshima moment for many, knowing the truth behind it is particularly important.
A.L.
THis story is important because it shrieks of fabrications.
CNN admitted it sat on anti-Saddam stories to maintain access to Saddam. Reuters ran faked “fauxtographs” from a Hezbollah propagandist.
The stringer (was it AP or Reuters I forgot) who took the photos of the murders of the Election Workers in Baghdad’s Haifa Street was later arrested by Coalition forces in the company of an Al Qaeda leader and is charged with being part of Al Qaeda.
Much of the reporting out of Lebanon, Gaza, and the Westbank is done by Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Aqsa stringers working for various news agencies AND terrorist organizations.
Simply put the News Media ESPECIALLY AP lies all the time by running unchecked and unedited fabrications of Al Qaeda stringers in Iraq.
AP’s denials are not credible since they’ve already been caught in a lie; the supposed “air strike” that killed 30 women and children recently in Ramadi never happened. Instead 11 Al Qaeda terrorists were killed in ground combat operations with no air strikes whatsoever.
Jamil Hussein is not credible … his quotes by AP always in each instance have Shia or Americans killing “innocent” Sunnis. If he is so well known how come NO OTHER NEWS AGENCY was able to find the man, or the incident he is quoted on most recently?
The NYT could not find ANY reporting of the set-on-fire incident, nor any evidence of Hussein.
Bad things happen in Iraq. What exactly is happening is completely unknowable since news agencies rely completely on stringers who all work for various militias or terrorist organizations and play to ignorant Press biases that “evil Bushco is bad” and “things were better when Saddam made the trains run on time.”
WMDs? Saddam had plenty over his regime’s lifetime. At the time of the invasion most of his remaining stocks had been hidden (Iraq’s a big country) or shipped to Syria.
It all comes down to trust. We were not (NYT, Dems, everyone else was on board with Bush on this) willing to trust Saddam after he’d been caught with WMDs in 1991 and again in 1996 and kicked the inspectors who were in Iraq OUT in 98-99 which resulted in a the ineffectual and weak Clinton bombing (Desert Fox).
If Saddam had nothing to hide why refuse to comply with the inspection regime he’d already agreed to under pressure?
[Little noted by the Press was Saddam’s extensive ballistic missile program uncovered in the invasion, which he was explicitly forbidden to have according to the terms of the Cease-Fire).
Libs, Dems, the media make the point that “trusting Saddam’s Word” was the way to go in 2003, the way they trust Ahmadinejad, Syria, Putin, and every other tyrant and dictator.
At a time when Putin is poisoning people with Polonium (to nary a peep) and Syria’s Assad killing journalist and politicos who espouse Lebanese independence and Iran is marching towards another Holocaust …
It’s the evil deceptive Bush that’s the menace.
AL, you didn’t really respond to my comment.
AL:
There’s no better measure of how ridiculous your comments are than the uncharacteristic volume of your defensive postings. Usually, you’re “too busy” to stick around to defend your assertions.
Be honest with yourself, for chrissakes, man…you got nothin’. Never have, never will.
And sorry but I can’t help you find monkeyboy…did you look on your back?
Pretty much every commenter here is ripping you a new one, chief…I’d suggest that you get out more, but from your last post I see that you entertain yourself by watching half-naked fat guys sing karaoke in a wig….if this is your idea of “getting out”, I’ll stay home!
Davebo, Andy X, hypocrisyrules,
Your responses have just been to introduce another non sequitur, to just attempt a diversion from the substance. The issue is that AP’s response to criticism is to just insist that they have to be trusted.
We’ve got an ever-growing series of incidents where the major news reporting organizations are found fabricating news, compromising news with enemies of the United States, distributing obvious forged news and more. Their only response is to act indignant for being questioned. That’s not acceptable.
“Did you look on your back.”
Hehehehe… nice one, Andy. I still think you’re a little soft in the head, but you do come up with the occassional chuckler. BZ.
#13
Well, it’s perfectly acceptable to me, RR. What is NOT acceptable is when politicians act this way….I won’t go any further than this because I think you know where it leads.
#14,
A little soft in the head…..
Actually, I’m proud to say that I’m completely soft in the head.
Well, for the “Pile on Marc” crowd, the AP ran a story based on quotes from a named source whose existence now can’t be independently verified.
The named force supposedly worked for the Iraqi government.
Why the hell not ask for a telephone number?
But now no one who isn’t an unnamed AP reporter can vouch for the man’s existence. And this doesn’t bother you.
Turtles all the way down, man.
OMFG, Andy – if I defend myself, it’s evidence of guilt and if I don’t I’m rumning away – and hence guilty. And if I float, I guess I’m a witch.
Eric, I thought I had. I’m in the lobby waiting to go hear Aimee Mann, so another response’ll have to wait until morning.
A.L.
So the AP has used as a regular source a named, high-ranking Iraqi police official whom AP reporters first spoke with two years ago, in uniform, in a police station.
The first time anyone outside the AP questions the source’s credentials, it turns out that nobody in the US military can place him.
It turns out that the Iraqi Police says it has no record of this IP Captain.
It turns out that nobody besides AP reporters or stringers know anything about the guy.
But the Kathleen Carroll says, “Our critics are, as always, wrong. We say we’re right. Trust us.”
No pay stub, no video interview, no statement from a higher-up at the Hurriyah police station that, yes, Capt. Hussein is one of my shift commanders, no interview with a non-AP reporter.
Nothing.
Trust us. We’re always right.
Instead of being prone to believing suspect stories that accord with our pre-existing views, why not be skeptical of these sorts of tales, whichever way the story spins? Isn’t this what critics of the posters and commenters at Winds were recommending a few short days ago?
*”Where is this Jamil Hussein guy anyway?”*
“We have top men working on that right now.”
*”Who?”*
“Top. Men.”
Life imitates cinema.
Even if we allow that an independent verification of Hussein’s identity might at least be awkward to arrange, why couldn’t the AP produce verifiable evidence for other aspects of the story? Addresses and photos of the several burned mosques, for example?
The New York F–king Times:
Nice of Ms. Carroll to tell everyone what they’re allowed to write and ask questions about, but I love the word rabble. It’s so snot-drippy kiss-my-Columbia-School-of-Journalism-ass elitist. A gem of MSM reactionary spleen.
Oh heck, with all this chatter the message is being systematically diverted from “peace with honor” to some version of “what the deuce is actually going on”. There’s a pause in the continuity of the defeatist narrative that’s like an invitation to blitz the quarterback. The void is being filled by constructive questions that look suspiciously like: “How do we win?”, plus a few vapid suggestions from the ISG about turning back the clock to 1983, when we believed evil was just good with a toothache.
The issue isn’t so much that we can’t verify this elusive Sunni cop, but that the whole notion that the newly elected majority has some traction is slip-sliding away. Anybody can win a majority in any given year. And anybody can sustain any sort of false impression for the few months it takes. Being both coherent and consistent is another thing altogether.
#20:
Good point.
Er, how do you ‘prove’ an assertion? Ever heard of the problem of induction? Falsify, yes, but prove? Nobody has argued that since the ’30s…
_We’ve got an ever-growing series of incidents where the major news reporting organizations are found fabricating news, compromising news with enemies of the United States, distributing obvious forged news and more. Their only response is to act indignant for being questioned. That’s not acceptable._
The coverage of foreign news is simply shameful. For instance, CNN lies each time it links the Madrid Train Bombings with Al Qaeda, since THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, not even in the Judicial Summary of the case, of Al Qaeda involvement in the attack.
They simply take advantage of the ignorance of American citizens on each country’s internal politics, which usually are very complicated, to portray a simplified and biased vision of the world, as it should be, for them.
Michael Totten’s articles, published here, were far more instructive than international mass media special programms on the middle east.
article out yesterday that neglected to give the state country or any relevant details about the woman who had three dead fetuses in her refrigerator! Whatever happened to who, what, when, where, etc.?
More serious, the Iraqi government and the U.S. Army have long warned the AP about
Bizarrely, it seems that not even Iraqi Sunni politicians believe the AP story; even the radical Association of Muslim Scholars hasn’t embraced the account. But we here are supposed to anyway. After all, AP doesn’t make mistakes.
The AP has a number of executives, including Kathleen Carroll, who are simply giving disinformation and false sourcing in their stories. For that, the CSJ, whose students nowadays cheat on take-home ethics exams to practice for their Pulitzer scams, are predictably taking notes on just how to Mau-mau the flak-catchers, Kathleen Carroll style
Don’t question Armed Liberal. He’s always right. Just three years too late.
AL…guess what? Both can be true.
Mind-blowing, isn’t it?
Running a controversial story with a single, unidentifyable source is just bad journalism.
You guys can argue the politics or the “bias of the media” or whatever else, but bad journalism is bad journalism, plain and simple.
“Unidentifiable source” isn’t quite correct. The AP’s source is identifiable; heck, they named him.
The problem is that nobody else can figure out if he’s real or an invention, and that the AP refuses to substantiate his existence or his role with the IP. More exactly, the problem is that the AP–and some of those who agree with the AP’s editorial position on Iraq–can’t see that this is unethical journalism.
Even if Capt. Jamil Hussein wrote in tomorrow with “I agree 100% with everything Armed Liberal has written and will write!”, the AP would still be practicing bad journalism.
AMac — I used the term “unidentifiable” by which I mean he is impossible to locate. Not that he wasn’t named. A named source that cannot be located is in essence impossible to identify, separate, or otherwise verify.
This reminds me of the the movie “Mystery Men”, where each person had an odd collection of super powers. The invisible boy was invisible, but only when people weren’t looking at him.
Likewise, APs source has a name, but seems to be invisible. AP claims that to identify their source wound endanger him. I believe there are plenty of ways to vet a source that do not involve endangering them.
If AL and others want to insist on the empirical method, why don’t they apply it and simply go to Baghdad and check for themselves. I’m sure that a video of the author of, say, Flopping Aces, flying into Baghdad’s International airport, clearing customs, catching a cab into town, checking into one the city’s many hotels, enjoying a drink at a local cafe, then walking down to the Sunni mosque in question and talking to witnesses who would assert the nonexistence of the police captain and the falsehood of the AP reports would clear everything up.
Mr Quiggin: a less radical question than yours, still of the “why don’t they” stripe, is why don’t the AP do something that actually might make it possible to verify their repeated claim, beyond repeating the claim?
Burdens of evidence are funny things. You’re clearly not laboring under one. Good for you!
You might just shortcut things the next time. I think the W3C is working on a {chickenhawk} {/chickenhawk} tag specifically intended for the blogosphere. {/sarcasm}
There have to be better defenses of the AP’s decisions than the ones that have been floated in this thread.
“Attack the blogger raising the question” seems to be the S.O.P. for the partisans who believe that, this time, journalists’ conduct aids our side.
If we can see that this reasoning is slipshod when right-wing organs are being critiqued, it shouldn’t be so hard to apply when the shoe is on the other foot. Consistency and all that.
There have to be better defenses of the AP’s decisions than the ones that have been floated in this thread.
The AP really needs no further defense. They issued a report based on a witness whom they had worked with in the past, and when that account was questioned they went back and did their best to verify that the report was correct.
I don’t know if the report is fully accurate, an exaggeration, or made up of whole cloth. Neither does anyone else who is discussing it here. The problem being that newgathering and fact-checking in Iraq is not exactly the easiest thing to do under current conditions — and the only people seriously disputing the accounts don’t exactly have the best records for credibility (the Iraqi government and the US military).
What is really bothersome, however, is the attempt to take a report over which the facts are in dispute and turn it into a full-scale attack on the AP in particular, and the media in general. Its not the media’s fault that Iraq is descending into chaos — nor is it the media’s fault that Iraq has degenerated to the point where its entirely believable that six people could have been burned alive outside a mosque.
In other words, its not the AP that needs to come up with a better explanation—its those who are attempting to discredit the AP in pursuit of their own agendas that need to justify their actions.
luka I find your reasoning strained and your argument quite emotional.
Whether fact-checking in Iraq is difficult or not, the job of the reporter remains the same. This is true whether Iraq is peaches and cream or whether it’s all going to heck.
I admit I’m not on top of this story like some are — AMac brings up an interesting point in that we can’t be hearing the entire story on this thread. It just doesn’t add up.
If I name a source that cannot be questioned by any other media, then I am just quoting anonymous sources. That was the first mistake. If I run a story that is denied by people in that region, I have to either pony up solid evidence to back my reporter up or apologize. That was the second mistake. You don’t get to whine about how your story was really true and you checked it out, so phtttt! (sound ofbronx cheer) News sources that insist their word is gospel and don’t allow cross-checking are basically crap. From a quality control standpoint, an apology is owed for allowing this practice in the first place. That was the third mistake. In the future, heck, run the same story with “several anonymous sources” being quoted, or don’t run it at all.
I mean, think this through logically. I could run a story that says that I have a mysterious source that says Osama is planning to attack that Disney park. You could say “That’s not true! You don’t have a friend and the park is not in jeoprady!” For which I could just reply, “Yes, I asked him and some other anonymous people, and they confirm I was correct” — You are left with no recourse and no way of fact-checking my material. Might as well call Mrs. Cleo on the 900-psychic hotline or start reading tea leaves.
For purposes of this discussion, I could care less how the war in Iraq is going or whether the press leans one way or another. Those are red herrings. I would encourage pro-war supporters not to fall into this trap — it’s a bad story, it was badly sourced, and AP’s response to the controversy was bad. Bad, bad, bad.
Lets see now …
AP: We have several first-hand witness reports
AL: I don’t believe it
Who has the more empirical evidence for their claims?
Running around shouting and blocking your ears is NOT empiricism.
luka and FKiwi,
Lets see–
Who has the more reasonable stance at this point?
AP: “We’re AP, bitch! So STFU!”
It’s not just “Who is Jamil Hussein?” Since the storm broke, Jamil Hussein has not appeared with a single quote, after having appeared in 61 stories in seven months. In those two weeks of missing Hussein, one would have expected him to appear in at least one story, if not four or five. Yet he has not.
So he’s such a reliable and believable and dependable source that AP ceased using him as soon as his existence was questioned. He’s so real that they won’t produce him. Instead, they send anonymous “reporters” back into the area to find some more anonymous “witnesses!”
How could we ever doubt?
Who has the more reasonable stance at this point?
I’d say Ms Carroll, given that the only people who are making a fuss about this are nutjobs like Michele Malkin and her dittoheads….
and especially given that Ms Carroll did not say “We are under no obligation to show that our work is correct, even when circumstances place our assertions in serious question. ” Indeed, she said quite the opposite… that the AP did have an obligation to check the story when it was questioned by the government, did so, and has confirmed it to its own satisfaction.
luka,
You should really reconsider how silly it looks to be making those kind of ad hominem arguments in place of any really logical ones.
> … and has confirmed it to its own satisfaction.
I think everybody who has commented on this thread would agree with luka on that point!
On luka’s preceding sentences: one plus one still equals two, and the materiality of nutjobs, Michelle Malkin, and dittoheads to what AP ought to do is still… zero.
one plus one still equals two, and the materiality of nutjobs, Michelle Malkin, and dittoheads to what AP ought to do is still… zero.
the AP did what it is supposed to do… that’s the point. When the story was questioned, they sent out reporters to verify it, and did so (the fact that it did not do so to Michele Malkin’s satisfaction is what is truly immaterial.) The AP isn’t supposed to supply phone numbers of their sources to anyone who asks.
Lets face it, this is all about misdirection and distraction — its a non-issue. You read any newspaper on any given day, or watch any cable news network, and find falsehoods being repeated as facts — but usually those falsehoods are favorable to the right wing agenda.
AL would be providing a much more useful service were he to obsess about the findings of the ISG when it comes to the reporting of factual information
In addition, there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count. For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.
That is the reporting that needs to be questioned, because American taxpayers are the ones paying for it….
luka, in this specific thread A.L. also didn’t write about Global Warming, or about a possible Islamist nuclear attack, either of which is arguably more important than a faux IP Captain.
If that is the correct standard to hold bloggers to.
If it’s not, then … well, any reader who has reached this point in the thread already knows what I think.
luka, in this specific thread A.L. also didn’t write about Global Warming, or about a possible Islamist nuclear attack, either of which is arguably more important than a faux IP Captain.
this discussion centers around the credibility of an AP report based primarily on claims made by the US military and the Iraqi government. Those questions about the AP would have a great deal more force if the US military and the Iraqi government were reliable sources of information — and thus I don’t think that raising that particular issue within this thread as an alternative that serious people should be focussed on is the least bit off-topic or inappropriate.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
luka,
The Associated Press is a reliable source of information? Evidently you have not been paying attention to events of the past year such as when AP was caught flogging staged photographs from Lebanon, have you?
AP claiming that they satisfied themselves is a hilarious non-serious response.
Shorter luka: it may be fake, but you can be sure it’s accurate!
ROFL, Rob.
Evidently, Luka does not recall how often AP has been caught citing to fraudulent sources. I just recalled another a few minutes ago – AP’s story about Korean War era massacre of civilians at No Gun Ri that turned out to be based on a “source” who was not there.
The real problem here is that people don’t generally want to have to verify the information presented in a news report – that’s the job of the news organization, one of the main justifications for HAVING a news organization. That’s why people get pissed when a news organization runs a story with information that may be easily discounted; if the AP gets facts I -can- check wrong, there’s no reason to believe them on facts that I’m not able to check (and, in fact, reason to suspect that I especially shouldn’t trust them on those facts.)
Of course, there’s no reason to believe that there will be any fewer mistakes in the news media than in any other human endeavor, so occasionally they’re going to get snowed by someone with an agenda to push. That’s okay, I don’t expect perfection. But if somebody shouts “hey, bullshit!”, I expect them to take a good second look, and I demand that they be honest about what they find. If I see a mea culpa, okay, no problem, I don’t demand a hair shirt or anything.
But if you’re going to quote a source, and then that source’s bosses come out and say “this guy you’re quoting, he doesn’t seem to have EVER EXISTED,” that’s extremely not good. It’s even worse if you’ve been quoting him over a number of stories. Did he -ever- exist? Or is he a convenient tag for the journalist to attribute his own opinions to someone in authority? Frankly, I don’t have any time for news if I have to parse the intentions of the journalist to find out whether the events I’m reading about ever took place or not; if I can’t trust ’em, I ought to ignore ’em from the start.
I’m not asking for the guy’s phone number, but I would like to see an explanation. Is there a reason that the US and Iraqi forces are telling me this guy doesn’t exist? Is he using a pseudonym? Did he get “disappeared”? These are things I’d like to know, if true! Sending people in to say “yes, we’ve found additional anonymous sources that confirm our story” is worse than useless at this point, because it’s not about the events of the story, it’s about the integrity of the AP’s news.
Amazing. We have the Monty Python version from Andy X, and now someone posting as John Quiggin (God, I hope it really isn’t him because the real John Quiggin is a really smart lefty academic) replies with the full ‘chickenhawk’ bawk.
“John”, I don’t do my own nuclear physics – can I still use the electricty? I don’t do my own molecular biology, but I still take medicines. That’s because the engineering and medical communities are pretty good about validating their assertions.
Not so much in journalism, it appears.
This is a vastly important point, which means I need to do a post on it when I get some time.
And I’ll answer the suggestion that those of us who question media accounts ought to get on a plane and go by noting that Noam, and the other leading lights of the progressive left have somehow avoided giving up their cash in an effort to end poverty as we know it.
A.L.
I see it as not either a problem of mistakes or a problem of validation. I think it is simply “outsourcing”. That _imaginative_ approach to news-covering cannot be carried out in the States due to their free news _market_ and virulent public opinion.
Therefore, the journalists who want to inoculate ideological laden news, better go to a place where there is, de facto, no freedom to inform (due to insecurity for reporters, for instance), and where the American public opinion, in general, may not understand or is not interested in what is really going on there.
Thus, you now have your own place to freely produce your scum, and export it, unchecked, to the U.S.
If this was bad, now gets worse. The BIG problem is not that some western reporters do this, the problem is that, increasingly, more and more factions in any conflict, are learning to use those reporters to manipulate the American (and International) public opinion.
That is, they create a _Joint Venture_ in a remote place to produce scum and flood the international news market. Their production is unchecked because only a few reporters are allowed by those factions to cover news there.
This happens also in developed countries. For instance, a foreign journalist that is not allowed to stay in any government news conference is not useful for its media company. Some countries simply do this, they limit the presence of foreign media, arguing even that the room has not place for all of them. The journalist that does not tell what the government wants, soon becomes unuseful for his employer. You only have to play with press acredittations, it is a children game!
Empiricism is distinguished from the philosophical tradition of rationalism, which holds that human reason apart from experience is a basis for some kinds of knowledge.
Anybody else find it funny that the same people who would never in a trillion years accept these obvious ducks, deception, and ad hominem messenger killing if it came from our elected government, is perfectly willing to stand for it from an unelected beurocracy of the capitalist media industry. Heck, if it was the CEO of GM peddling this crap guys like Davebo and Andy would be screaming bloody murder and erecting the village scaffold.
But since the entity in question happens to share an ideology, apparently they can basically do what they want, say what they want, and anybody that questions the fact that they are wildly violating the ‘industry standards’ of journalistic rules that _they themselves_ helped craft must be some sort of Iraq holocaust denier.
_”and especially given that Ms Carroll did not say “We are under no obligation to show that our work is correct, even when circumstances place our assertions in serious question. ” Indeed, she said quite the opposite… that the AP did have an obligation to check the story when it was questioned by the government, did so, and has confirmed it to its own satisfaction._”
Doing an internal audit is not SHOWING your work is correct. It is claiming your work is correct. Showing, by definition, would mean producing evidence. Again, if it was our own government making the claim that they were perfectly capable of wholly internal auditing… oh wait Bush has tried to do that, and the opposition is ready to burn him at the stake for it. But at least the executive branch is nominally under the oversite of the legislative branch (if they bother to use that power, which far rarer than the complaints of not being kept in the loop). Who has oversite of the AP?
Among the many problems I am having concerning the legitimacy of this issue is this: The fairness of the expectation that AP be required to demonstrate that the source of a quote exists seems to me to be depend entirely on whether the allegations that the source does not exist are “serious.” Thus far, I have to say that those allegations do not appear serious enough to merit any further demonstration by AP. “Trust us” does indeed seem sufficient response at this point. After all, “Trust us” is the very basis of all news gathering and reporting. As far as I can tell, no one in this room has yet offered any reason to doubt AP’s claim beyond the Iraqi government & US military’s claim that they do not have the source’s name on any lists. AP seems to have done due dilligence by going back to the police station and reporting the belief that yes, in fact, there is a police man who claims to be so and so and this is what he says happened. AP also reports the claims by the gov’t & military that there is no independent confirmation that it happened. We, now, are free to make up our own minds. We know the claims and the counterclaims.
But to expect AP to do more to satsify those who doubt them is unrealistic. Anyone who does doubt them is perfectly free to go and investigate his or herself and produce whatever evidence might exist to support their doubts. But, again, to expect AP to do so, when there is good reason to suspect that those doubters are grinding a particular ideological axe–that they begun with a conclusion and then carefully chose facts to support that conclusion–is to live in a fantasy world.
There may be truth to the doubts. AP may have made up this Capt. Hussein. It is entirely possible. But the burden surely rests on the shoulders of those who have these doubts to provide the evidence bolster their claims, not on AP to disprove them.
Mark,
Explain again how CENTCOM and the Iraqi MOI prove a negative, that is the non existance of Hussein. I missed it in your comment.
We know how AP can prove Hussein’s existance, produce him.
when there is good reason to suspect that those doubters are grinding a particular ideological axe
There are those of us who suspect the AP, or at least its stringers, of grinding an axe, too.
But if Capt. Hussein is worried about retaliation, and thus using a fake name or hiding from the cameras, I’d be satisfied if some other news organization–say, the NYT or Fox News–were permitted to chat with him (a real reporter, not a stringer). Can’t the AP go that far?
As for “serious” questions, I’d say “We don’t know of any cop by that name” from an Iraqi ministry is about as serious as it could possibly get. What could possibly be more serious than that?
mark #54 —
bq. [Nobody] has yet offered any reason to doubt AP’s claim beyond the Iraqi government & US military’s claim that they do not have the source’s name on any lists.
Fair enough, mark. As long as you apply equivalently negligible standards to sourcing of stories you’d otherwise disbelieve.
For example, CBS’s sourcing on its Killian Memos passed the network’s due-diligence and internal vetting processes with flying colors.
Likewise, the group of Swift Boat officers around John O’Niell found their work on Kerry’s combat performance to be impeccable.
So I take it that outsiders’ criticisms of either effort are equally unwarranted, and that you believe the veracity of both of these accounts with equal fervor. If one group substantiated none of their charges, and the other group verified some, there’s really no conclusion to be drawn from either episode. Or should we condemn those who doubted and demanded fact-checking in both instances?
After all, in the current case, “Questioning [AP’s Iraqi journalists’] integrity and work ethic is simply offensive.” Quote from Carroll’s statement.
bq. AP seems to have done due dilligence by going back to the police station and reporting the belief that yes, in fact, there is a police man who claims to be so and so.
Actually, reading the linked E&P article, that’s not what she claimed. She said (1) We went back to neighborhood, and (2) “Hussein is well known to AP. We first met him, in uniform, in a police station, some two years ago. We have talked with him a number of times since then.” I’d conclude from her weaselly phrasing that AP did not ask him, “Jamil, demonstrate to us that you really are a Captain with the IP at the Hurriyah police station.” And it might well have been dangerous to have posed that particular question.
The AP seems to have found a new set of journalistic standards. Instead of named or anonymous srouces, they have a new “named but un-findable” category. It’s kind of like having an imaginary friend. Nobody else can see him or talk to him except you, yet he has a name and gives you lots of great scoops on the competition.
I’m not dissing the story — I know nothing of the details — but the AP as an organization needs to have higher standards than that. There are ways to run unsourced or anonymously sourced material. It’s called editorializing or gossip pieces. Both are respectable forms of journalism. Just be honest about what you are doing, AP!
There are ‘serious’ questions about this story.
1.Besides the illusive Capt Hussein,the second named witness of the original story, Imad al-Hasimi, recanted. The AP claims he may have been pressured by the Iraqi government.
2.The original story claimed there were 4 mosques burned to the ground. Later it was quietly admitted that only 1 mosque was partially burned. There was demonstrably hyperbole at work since the beginning of this story.
3.Most importanly, even if i accept the APs position that they needn’t name witnesses or prove the ones they do name even exist, WHY CANT THE AP PRODUCE THE NAME OF A SINGLE VICTIM?
6 people were said to have been dragged out of a mosque (unnamed mosque of course) and immolated in the middle of the street, yet no-one has been able to produce a body, a gravesite, a family member, _or a name._ That is entirely fantastic. Where are the mourners holding up pictures that we see in every other murder in the region? Why arent these legitimate martyrs being given huge demonstrations in Sunni areas and on Sunni televsion? In short, where are the victims?
SPQR, I do not hold the expectation that Centcom or MOI prove a negative or need to further comment on or prove the existence of Hussein. They have made their beliefs clear and they have made the foundation of their beliefs clear. (As has AP) Now that you and I know the foundation for APs claims and for Centcom & MOI’s claims, we are free to chose between them.
I think you missed my entire point, which may have been my fault for not expressing it clearly enough. I did not say AP cannot prove their claim by “producing” Hussien. I said that I thought it was unrealistic to expect them to do so simply because a handful of people on the internet think that they ought to do so. I said that those who are making the claim that AP is lying have the burden of proving it. The substance of the accusations does not rise to the level of an indictment as the evidence offered is extremely weak.
Rob Lyman, yes, I would say that an Iraqi ministry’s claim (especially Interior) hardly constitute’s a serious allegation. And yes, I am well aware that many of you believe AP has an ideological axe to grind. However, that is an opinion that I believe has not been well demonstrated and one that is, moreover, born out of an ideological creed and of which, therefore, I am deeply suspicious and of whose conclusion’s I am deeply skeptical.
Mark Buehner,
I’d like to draw a distinction between two aspects of this issue.
One is the question of whether or not the incident took place.
The other is the question of whether or not AP is making up a source who claims the incident took place.
AP has never claimed the incident took place. It claims that certain witnesses, among them a police capt named Jamal G. Hussein, claim the incident took place. To it’s credit AP has always also reported that the Iraq gov’t and the US military cannot confirm the incident as having happened and that both institutions doubt the veracity of the claims that it did happen.
Some people, based upon this information, accept the doubts of the Iraqi gov’t and the US military. For me, I simply have no idea whether the witnesses are lying, or the gov’t is incompetent. Both seem equally possible to me. AP is just reporting what others are saying.
As to their making up the source, I have heard no reasons for believing so other than Capt Hussien’s name, according to gov’t claims concerning gov’t records, fails to appear on either of two alleged lists. How accurate those lists are is something I cannot judge. But the evidence seems too weak to substantiate an accusation of lying.
_”I said that I thought it was unrealistic to expect them to do so simply because a handful of people on the internet think that they ought to do so.”_
But that isnt the case. There are serious and well respected journalists that have called for the AP to corroborate its story, including:
“James Crittenden”:http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=170263&format=&page=1 editor of the Boston Herald
“Mark Tapsoctt”:http://www.examiner.com/blogs/tapscotts_copy_desk/2006/12/5/How-to-end-APs-60-Minutes-Moment-on-Iraqi-Sources of the Washington Examiner
“Robert Bateman”:http://www.nypost.com/seven/12082006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the__not_so__infallible_ap_robert_opedcolumnists_robert_bateman.htm?page=0 of the NYP
Even “Tom Zeller”:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/business/media/04link.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1165858160-0tfq/AR4XisuWGtmP9EJ1g of the _NYT_.
It is entirely inaccurate to portray this scandal as blogger based- there are major journalists noting the inconsistancies and calling on the AP to provide answers.
mark.
No matter how you slice it, the AP reporter was not present at whatever did or did not happen. So the initial question is: did something newsworthy actually take place? With sourced material, the answer is obviously yes: so-and-so told our reporter he witnessed blah-blah-blah. That’s a story, even if the details turn out to be false, because the story is that SO-AND-SO said it.
With anonymous sources, it’s a gossip story: we hear from anonymous sources that blah-blah-blah happened. If the AP wants to cross-check multiple independant anonymous sources, then the prevailing standard is that you can run it as a legit news story. Or if there was some sort of physical evidence. This standard was not met. The basic story the AP ran was “mystery man makes claim of massacre!” which on the face of it suggests something less than sterling journalistic practices.
They got called on it by people with ideological skin in the game. So what? It’s still bad practice.
22 50 48 have excellent points. I may be thinking in excessively broad terms, but I see the core issue to be this: many of these sad “third world” groupings of humanity see that the only weapon of any potency for them to use to fight “us” is actually our own media. In this they are correct and realizing this they are committed in the way human beings only can be when they know that they must do or die. They are committed to “winning” with the media as their secret weapon of mass destruction. We must also realize that “they” can only achieve this with the support of deluded individuals who through either some form of greed or naive niceness empower them and their sad values system. AP is the most obvious example and leaves me considering whether anyone else thinks this is the obvious core issue here.
I would say that an Iraqi ministry’s claim (especially Interior) hardly constitute’s a serious allegation.
OK, fine, maybe you’re right. Now answer my question: what would you say constituted a “serious” allegation? I can’t think of any counter-evidence that anyone could produce here other than “We’ve never heard of this guy.” What, is CENTCOM supposed to say “We have an eyewitness, he says that nobody has ever been burned anywhere in the country at any time”?
What is “serious” enough for you to justify insisting on more from the AP than just their say-so?
Mark Beuhner,
First of all, I appreciate your providing the links to bolster your claim that it is “inaccurate to portray this scandal as blogger based” (which I have done) and that “major journalists [are] noting the inconstistancies and calling on the AP to provide answers.” [post #62].
However, 3 of the 4 links you provided are not examples of what you say they are. The 4th link (James Crittenden editor of the Boston Herald) is inactive and I could not access it.
“Mark Tapsoctt of the Washington Examiner” is not, in fact, “of” the Washington Examiner. He is an author promoting his new book in an op-ed piece IN the Washington Examiner. Moreover, he is quick to point a decades-long hostility to the AP. He is hardly a major journalist calling the AP to provide answers.”
Robert Bateman of the NYP is a blogger of all bloggers and his inclusion in the list hardly refutes my claim that this is blogger-driven.
Tom Zeller of the NYT seems to accept AP’s version of the story and was writing a story about the bloggers who don’t accept AP’s integrity.
I continue to be of the belief that this is a blogger-driven issue, and a blogger of a particular stripe-driven issue.
Daniel Markham,
Of course, I agree with you that AP was not present at whatever did or did not happen, as I made that very point myself. I also agree that if AP did what some are claiming it did, it is bad journalistic practice. However, my claim has always been that there is no good proof behind that claim.
If, as AP claims, there is a captain Hussein who did claim the incident happened, then AP has done nothing wrong in reporting that fact along with the govt’s refutation of his claim. That there is not a captain Hussein is itself an unproven, unsubstantiated claim. Gov’t says he’s not on a list; AP says he is in uniform at the police station. Who to believe?
_”One is the question of whether or not the incident took place.”_
_”The other is the question of whether or not AP is making up a source who claims the incident took place.”_
Mark, I get your point, but to me that is just a question of intent. This is a serious matter whether someone in the AP intentionally is manufacturers quotes or if they are simply so slipshod in their journalism that they are systematically publishing false allegations.
I would argue that in the big picture, it is pretty much irrelevant which one of these is true. Its kinda like drunk driving- you may not have intended to kill someone but your blatantly wreckless actions had that ultimate effect. Except in this case potentially many more people could end up dead. Demagoguing in a Civil War zone is equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
“If, as AP claims, there is a captain Hussein who did claim the incident happened, then AP has done nothing wrong in reporting that fact along with the govt’s refutation of his claim. That there is not a captain Hussein is itself an unproven, unsubstantiated claim. Gov’t says he’s not on a list; AP says he is in uniform at the police station. Who to believe?”
It’s not a question of whom to believe. It is a question of using a source that is anonymous in a manner that you would use a named source. If there is a Hussein, then there is one — we can talk to him, he can be interviewed by other reporters, he wrote a book, he’s going on Oprah, whatever. If there is a person who wishes to remain anonymous, the he ain’t Hussein — Hussein is a named source. You can’t have it both ways. Otherwise, my invisible imaginary giant rabbit friend Bob is going to start telling me about some really cool stories, and that’s not any good, ’cause he lies a lot.
It’s not a question of whom to believe. It is a question of treating one AP story as credible as another, which you cannot do if the standards are haphazardly applied. That’s what leaves them open to all of this criticism.
That there is not a captain Hussein is itself an unproven, unsubstantiated claim.
Which is logically impossible to prove, or even to substantiate beyond “we can’t find him.” Since you reject “we can’t find him” as somehow not “serious” evidence, there is, logically speeking, no possible way for anyone to convince you that the AP did anything wrong.
Rob,
You ask a good question. I will try to answer it. But first, I would like to point out that you are confusing several issues. I think it would be helpful to untangle them.
First Centcom is not making the allegations that I am questioning. Centcom is very direct and clear. They say they have no reports to confirm the incident. Nor do they have any information regarding the existence of any Capt. Hussein. My skepticism is not directed at them. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of their claims on either count. I am reasonbably sure that they do not have confirmation of the incident.
I believe that a few bloggers are using Centcom’s statements to bolster their allegation that AP is lying. Some are inaccurately claiming that AP reported the incident as having happened (as opposed to quoting self-described witnesses); Some are claiming that the existence of Hussein is in question and calling AP to “produce” him.
What would be a serious allegation? I would say that if Centcom or a reporter asserted that a someone went to the police station in question and, after interviewing several witnesses there, said there seems to be no trace of Capt, Hussein, that would be an allegation AP would have to answer. But to suggest that because Hussein isn’t on a list in a war-torn, curfew-imposed, recently-occupied, 6-month-old gov’t-ruled city, that AP needs to produce or prove its witness’s existince is just plumb silly. I would imagine that there are plenty of innacurate lists floating around the capital city of Iraq these days.
_”Mark Tapsoctt of the Washington Examiner” is not, in fact, “of” the Washington Examiner. He is an author promoting his new book in an op-ed piece IN the Washington Examiner. Moreover, he is quick to point a decades-long hostility to the AP. He is hardly a major journalist calling the AP to provide answers.”_
I think the ad hominem just went up a notch. Why a journalist critical of the AP cant be an authority on the AP seems suspect to me. Tapscott does happen to be the Editorial Page Editor of the Examiner, for the record.
_Robert Bateman of the NYP is a blogger of all bloggers and his inclusion in the list hardly refutes my claim that this is blogger-driven._
When did it become a rule that a journalist who blogs is no longer a journalist, but a blogger? I think you _potentially_ have an arguement that ‘bloggers’ arent the best group to just journalism, but that is because they generally arent journalists by trade or training. But when you have a well known indidual who _is_ but who’s medium happens to include the blogosphere, how does that diminish their relevance? He taught at the US military academy, has written books, he writes for MSNBCs online columns, Bateman is a historian, author, and columnist, he isnt some guy ‘in his pajamas’
_”Tom Zeller of the NYT seems to accept AP’s version of the story and was writing a story about the bloggers who don’t accept AP’s integrity.”_
Tom Zeller:
_Whatever the agenda of the bloggers most interested in debunking the article, it somehow seems important to figure out why this incident — in the face of all the killings in Iraq — remains in such dispute._
He’s interesting because he doesnt believe the bloggers, but he is honest enough to think the AP should be held accountable anyway, if just to clear the air. Wise.
Im sorry you Crittenden link isnt working, you might want to try it again (its working for me), because he is perhaps the most vocal:
_When a company defrauds its customers, or delivers shoddy goods, the customers sooner or later are going to take their business elsewhere. But if that company has a virtual monopoly, and offers something its customers must have, they may have no choice but to keep taking it._
_If newspapers don’t have an alternative, readers do. It’s called the Internet. That’s why newspapers, if they don’t want to be dragged further into irrelevance and disrepute, have to tell The Associated Press they are dissatisfied with its product._
mark,
Thanks for your answer. I suppose we will never agree, because I think it’s easy and virtually cost-free for AP to back up its story, but expensive and troublesome for others to try to poke holes in it. So I’d put the burden on the party that can settle the dispute most cheaply. And I regard their refusal to do so as evidence in and of itself of some sort of malfeasance (whether lying or just stupidity, I can’t tell).
Daniel Markham,
“It is a question of using a source that is anonymous in a manner that you would use a named source.”
Your premise assumes your conclusion. Capt Hussien is NOT an anonymous source unless you arleady believe AP has fabricated him.
Unless there is some reason to think Capt. Hussein does not exists, why on earth should AP have to produce him for you. How could any news organization function if they had to report every story twice.
I also disagree with you that annonymous sources, in general, should not be used. I would say that overwhelming mass of evidence supports the view that most things reported in the MSM that are sourced annononmoulsy are as true or false as named-sourced reports.
Rob,
But wouldn’t that put AP in the position of having to refute every claim made on its veracity or integrety simply because it can afford to? That wouldn’t be a slippery slope, it would be a fast and sudden descent into the abyss.
mark,
I did not miss your point. You say that you don’t expect CENTCOM to prove a negative … but then get around to putting the burden of proof back on them.
It is not consistent on your part.
“Your premise assumes your conclusion. Capt Hussien is NOT an anonymous source unless you arleady believe AP has fabricated him.”
Yikes! Logic alert! Logic alert!
Isn’t the frame of reference the reader? I mean, if you are a reporter and talking to somebody, even if they don’t want to go on the record, they are not an anonymous source TO YOU, they are an anonymous source TO THE READER. Reporters usually don’t talk to _anyone_ unless THEY know who it is, the point is what is the policy in regards to THE READER. Ugh.
And I didn’t say Capt. Hussein was an anonymous source, I said that the problem was that the AP is trying to have it both ways: quoting somebody who appears to want to go on the record, while for all intents and purposes is speaking anonymously.
I’m not sure, but I believe you are engaging in circular logic — “Unless there is some reason to think Capt. Hussein does not exists, why on earth should AP have to produce him for you.” So if the AP doesn’t have to provide Mr. Hussein unless I have reason to doubt he exists, which I shouldn’t because I should always trust them?
Norman coordinate. (Star Trek reference)
I’m talking about how you write and publish a news story, ANY news story. AP let down it’s standards. I hope they take a graceful bow, apologize, and continue keeping up their normal high standards. I’m not about to disparage the entire organization because of what some stringer did out in the boonies. But geesh! This is getting silly. There are rules to these things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ. Is that so hard for folks to understand?
mark,
It’s up to them to do as they wish, but I think it will prove very much more expensive, long run, to arrogantly assert their infallibility than to offer some cheap reassurance to the public. All they have is their reputation, why not do what it takes to maintain it? Most stories aren’t subject to this kind of questioning, but if the few that are go unverified, then why should I trust anything else they do? (Hint: I already don’t)
I mean, suppose I tell you I have a vintage Corvette in my garage. When you doubt that I could afford one on my salary, I walk back in, take a look, and come out to say yes, I have just confirmed that I have VIN whatever and it is a vintage Corvette. (Suppose further, if you wish, that the VIN I give you doesn’t match normal Corvette VINs) When you ask if I’ll open up the garage and take a look, I say no, you haven’t cast any serious doubt on my claim, and if you want to cast serious doubt, you should break into my garage while I’m asleep and take photographs.
Now, if I tell you next week I’ve just acquired a classic Mustang, will you be inclined to believe me?
Mark Beuhner,
The errors were mine. I mixed up the association’s of Bateman and Tapscott. Bateman is the author writing an op-ed piece; Tapscott, as you correctly pointed out, is on the editorial page editor.
I don’t see the ad hominem nature of pointing out the association’s of people who make arguments. Bateman’s hostile feelings toward the AP do not invalidate his argument. I never claimed that they did. They do, however, disqualify him as an example of what you were using him as, which I think can be fairly described as an independent, “neutral” major journalist voice calling AP’s veracity into question. This is a guy who–rightly or wrongly–gets out of bed each morning allready believing AP is full of crap. I’m not saying he’s wrong. Just that I wouldn’t use him as an example of what you use him as.
As for Tapscott, I do believe that as he is very much a blogger—and that is not to say he cannot therefore also be a “regular” non-blogger journalist—he remains a poor choice to use as an example of how this is not a blogger-driven story.
I think you have taken the quote from the Times writer out of context to the extent that he is not actually calling AP into question. He is curious about how such divergent views came to be so. In fact, I would say that his overall views replicate mine as well as any I have ever read.
I can still not access the Boston reporter. Blame it on Safari.
To all,
I must concede defeat and retire from the field as I can no longer keep up against the onslaught of so many voices. I have not done a lick of work this day and it is half way through.
The AP reports from a war zone that Police Captain Jamil Hussein of the Hurriyah station told them X.
The Interior Ministry states it has no record of a Captain J.H. in the police force.
The AP’s editor states that:
* certain AP stringers and/or reporters have been dealing with Capt. J.H. for two years;
* these AP stringers/reporters re-entered Hurriyah and confirmed event X (albeit in diminished form);
* prior to this event, nobody had ever challenged the credibility of Capt. J.H.
On the basis of these three developments, the AP editor concludes that AP has now confirmed the existence of its source (J.H.), confirmed J.H’s position (Captain of the IP at the Hurriyah station), and assured itself of the reliability of the information he offers the AP.
I still don’t understand why many of the commenters on this thread think that the AP’s performance in any way satisfactory.
[mark, if you’re running Mac OS 10.4, try downloading Firefox (I did last week).]
mark #79, fair enough!