In a display of clueless arrogance unmatched since the Black Knight refused to yield to King Arthur, the AP replies to its critics on l’affaire Jamail Hussein:
NEW YORK A long-running dispute between The Associated Press and critics over one of its Iraqi sources show no signs of abating, despite at least two lengthy rebuttals by the news organization. The new IraqSlogger web site, founded by former CNN news chief, Eason Jordan, is out with a fresh challenge, after failing to resolve the issue in its own detective work. This has not set off a new round of examination by the AP, apparently.
Kathleen Carroll, AP executive editor, told E&P today that she had not read Jordan’s latest item, posted Monday, and likely would not. But she stood by the news organization’s previous statements backing the existence of an Iraqi police captain, Jamail Hussein.
“I’ve been pretty public about what we have done to get to the crux of the criticism we have gotten about it,” she added. When asked about critics’ demands that AP produce Hussein to prove his existence, she said “that area [where he works] has pretty much been ethnically cleansed, it is a nasty place and continues to be.”
Carroll said that Hussein “is a guy we’ve talked to for years,” adding that “we don’t have anything new to say about it, nothing new to add.”
Linda Wagner, AP’s director of media relations and public affairs, said she had just seen Jordan’s post, but did not expect to have more to say about it. She said “it would be highly unusual for any news organization to provide sources on the demands of critics.”
When asked about the fact that no other major news outlet appears to have been using Hussein as a source, Wagner said, “whether he might be used as an anonymous source by someone else, I don’t know.” She added that having a source that is not used by others may not be unusual in a war zone.
Here’s the problem, Ms. Carroll. We don’t believe he exists. If he doesn’t exist, much of your reporting from Iraq is subject to dispute. If your reporting from Iraq is subject to dispute, your credibility is pretty much blown apart – and I don’t know what else you have to sell.
Because we (individuals) aren’t customers of AP, they can afford to ignore our unhappiness. But as we transfer our discontent with their poor professionalism to the newspapers that are their customers – and, for example, cancel our subscriptions in large part because we don’t see the value of subscribing – the AP will be called to account. If you take a look at the share prices of major media properties who own AP – they’ve lost about 20% of their value in the last few years – I’ll bet there will some interesting discussions when it comes to pricing AP’s services over the next few years. So, Ms. Carroll, our views do matter – or more accurately, your ability to publicly defend the value of yours do. You used to be able to do so as casually as you chose because you owned the press.
Not so much any more.
It’s truly sad that they can’t get ahead of the issue. I’ll point out a major media example of someone who has:
From: Kevin Anderson-Washington XXXXXXXXX@bbc.co.uk Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:30:18 -0000
To: XXXXXXXXX@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: RE: Best of Both Worlds ContinuedOK,
I’ve been meaning to contribute to this discussion because I come from the mainstream media world – the other world so to speak. And the editor of the programme I work on at the BBC World Service, Mark Sandell, has been following this discussion.
Our programme has asked several of you to join us to talk about what is going in your part of the world, and we use Global Voices as a way to broaden out our agenda. What stories are you talking about that we should be aware of?
I still am considering my thoughts about the ways in which blogs and traditional media complement each other. I definitely am not of the view of an adversarial relationship between bloggers and traditional media although being from the US, I have definitely seen this in action.
But, I just wanted to flag up a little note from our editor Mark Sandell, about our thinking in covering stories. We had a discussion yesterday about the mining tragedy in the US, although we expanded this to deal with mine safety elsewhere, including China and South Africa. We had a lot of e-mail comments about why we weren’t covering the landslides in Java or returning to cover the plight of quake victims in South Asia.
Mark posted his thoughts here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/world_have_your_say/4584506.stmRight now, it’s at the top of the page, but it will shift to the middle after our day-end update. Look for the Note from the Editor. Let me know what you think. We’re trying to be more open about why we do what we do.
best,
kKevin Anderson
BBC World Service and Five Live
“In a display of clueless arrogance unmatched since the Black Knight refused to yield to King Arthur, the AP replies to its critics on l’affaire Jamail Hussein:”
Hmmmm. Just who is playing which role in this Python reference? I don’t see any evidence of AP being hurt in this outside of the perceptions of those who already have a negative opinion of AP.
AP’s ability to wholesale news and their credibility among the general public remain undamaged.
Yes, AP has refused to yield to its critics, but does anyone really believe any blood has been spilled?
If a politician, especially a conservative one, had put out information which was challenged by another politician, the press would be flailing about in a most unsavory fashion. But since it is in-house so to speak, well, what would you expect, consistency?
Is it just me, or do the MSM in general fail to learn from their past mistakes? The countless media scandals of the last few years (Glass, Blair, Rather, just to name a few) almost all share the same MO where the agency in question denies, denies, denies then just hopes and prays that it will go away. Then when their peers finally wake up and are forced to cover the story, some convoluted half assed non-apology is released and a few minor players are demoted or shifted to another media group.
Public trust of the media in my view is at an all time low, and its this kind of Reno-esque stonewalling is one of the chief reasons why.
mark – AP is a coop of the major newspapers (primarily US, AFAIK). Via “Jeff Jarvis”:http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/01/02/paper-losses/ we get this post by “Alan Mutter”:http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2007/01/vaporized-135b-in-news-stock-value.html
Does that help?
A.L.
AP has ceased using the sources described by the Iraqi government and CENTCOM as “questionable” as named sources. Including Jamil Hussein, who is reliable they haven’t used him as a named source at all since the flap broke, after using him 60+ times in seven months. I’d say that’s at least a scratch!
They’re reduced to nothing but unnamed sources. WHich is where they should have begun–but reports carry so much more credibility with VERIFIABLE named sources…without them, they’re rumor, dependent on the credibility of the reporting agency. Which in this case is somewhat less than credibile at this point.
While the place of newspapers as information sources appeared to come under question, stock values of caged bird retailers soared.
No, Mutter didn’t write that. But he should have.
Really funny post, especially since it’s all-too-true. I always liked the Black Knight. He’s such a lovable fool. The AP isn’t lovable but it definitely plays the fool.
Mark,
It’s not the AP’s refusal to yield to its critics that harms it. It is its refusal to practice within even the most limited of journalistic standards. Something even Eason Jordan recognizes. Or is your position that fake but accurate is okay as long as the market share remains acceptable?
This isn’t a debate about the economics of the newspaper business. It is a more central question by far. Should reporters be expected to tell something as mundane as the simple truth…what actually happened, not what they hope happened.
In this case the AP’s reporting is appearing more and more wishful and less and less factual. But it is not alone. Take a look at the NYT story regarding the lady imprisoned in South America for strangling her child. The NYT claims the woman was imprisoned for having an abortion even though the evidence and the charges raised in court do not reflect it, even though their won ombudsman called them on their bias and sloppiness. Likewise the report that Saddam cursed the evil Americans before he was hanged. Likewise the LA Times story regarding American air strikes that Patterico exploded. Likewise The Mary Mapes documents, which Dan Rather to this day claims are fake but accurate. Likewise the Katrina baby raping stories. Likewise the Katrina bodies in the freezer stories. Likewise the Katrina roving bands of killers (that weren’t New Orleans Cops) stories.
Look, one can claim that the media’s market share hasn’t declined and that they are a financial institution brimming with promise all one wants. (It’s not true but one can claim it.) But all that is completely beside the point. The point is this. Even if the media’s market share isn’t plummeting, they are still be spinning false stories left and right. That should stop. Unless of course, one is in favor of that sort of thing.
So no one has actually died in Iraq then?
That’s a relief.
Un-freakin’-believable! I added an excerpt and link to “CENTCOM says AP’s ‘Iraqi police source’ isn’t Iraqi police — Part 27”:http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/2007/01/eason_jordan_ca.html
“So no one has actually died in Iraq then?”
No one but the spirit of Ernie Pyle, it seems.
RIP Ernie
This is hardly anything new. On a much smaller scale, I pinned a St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalist to the wall on his reporting of the concealed-carry debate in Missouri a few years back. He had ventriloquized the local FBI outpost, claiming they had all kinds of analysis (which they had passed on to him) showing CCW was a Very Bad Thing. I asked for his source, which he refused to cite, so I checked into his claims and discovered that the FBI makes no such analysis. I posted my findings on his forum at the STLPD, and he went bananas.
As someone who has had words put into his mouth by “reporters” in the past, I rarely take what is printed or spoken at face value. I’ve found that such reporting is rarely even remotely accurate and more often says more about the reporter than the subject. The MSM is seriously broken.
Martin Morgan would appear to be one of those who are in favor of false stories, so long as they express the correct viewpoint, of course.
#8 corvan:
You wrote, “they are still be spinning false stories left and right.”
I’m unaware of any case of the MSM spinning a false story to the right, are you?
(I know, I know, it’s just a figure of speech. But of even greater concern to me is the fact that all the errors are in one direction. Why should we expect that even the “true” stories don’t show the same bias. )
Jeffersonian,
That’s a very interesting story you relate in #12. Any chance that any of it is either still available online, or that you have saved and can repost somewhere? As someone who seriously follows CCW and similar issues, I’d love to see the particulars.
If it hasnt occurred to the AP that Eason Jordan was trying to prove her right, someone should let her know. Jordan isnt some kid in his jammies, his name may be mud in many parts of the nation, but i suspect he is still well respected in newsrooms and has plenty of media friends on speeddial. It may have occurred to him by now that blowing up the AP could regain him his credibility back in the national media. He went to Baghdad to defend the AP, but when that position proved untenable he let it be known. If these AP sources continue to treat him with disdain he may well take up the crusade.
AP is not citing Hussein any more; instead, they have replaced him with a new Iraqi source who is evidently continuing the practice of making up sources but removing it one step from AP. Flopping Aces reports on Muhieddin Rashad, who is evidently a real person in Iraq. However, the folks he’s citing in his stories appear to be made up.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/01/the-ap-changing-its-ways/#more
Thanks to Antimedia for doing a more indepth search of Lexis-Nexis in which we found the following about this Muhieddin Rashad:
He has written 32 stories for the AP
First story appeared in January 2002 from Baghdad. He was a reporter in a Saddam ruled Iraq.
He contributed for 11 stories, ALL of them included Qais al-Bashir as a contributor also.
6 of the stories he wrote had contributors attached to them. Qais al-Bashir and Sameer N. Yacoub we’re on all six. Both of those writers used “Jamil Hussein” as a source.
For the reports written by Rashad he used the following from the Centcom suspected fraud list:
He used Lt. Bilal Ali as a source for two stories
He used police Col. Khalaf Abdel-Karim as a source for one story
He used Lt. Maytham Abdul-Razzaq as a source for four stories
He used Lt. Muataz Salaheddin as a source for four stories
He used Police Brig. Sarhat Qader as a source for one story
Finally, for those articles that he did not write but did contribute to the AP writers were Steven R. Hurst, Kim Gamel, David Rising, Patrick Quinn and Sinan Salaheddin.
So far we have Qais al-Bashir, Sameer N. Yacoub, and Muhieddin Rashad as reporters who have used and are continuing to use suspect sources.
See further a story cited in the same Flopping Aces profile filed by this gentleman in 2003 which reveals very clearly where his sympathies lie and how he is prepared to spin reality to get his message across. No wonder AP loves him.
#_120 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 4:29 am on Dec 23, 2006
Les, maybe the AP is satisfied with its stories. After all, they have people actually in Iraq and the right-blogosphere doesn’t, although that hasn’t prevented you guys from all sorts of authoritative pronouncements. Not everything is going to turn out to be the coup fourré of Rathergate. (Hasn’t Rove told you that was a setup job?_) *In the new post 11/7 narrative your complaints don’t merit the attention they used to*
And I guess that was the point all along for many Lefties: getting back into power is the most important thing, if the media has to lie to do it, so be it. Mission accomplished.
#15 Kirk – The exchange occurred back in 1999 in the midst of the “Proposition B” campaign, a referendum on CCW in Missouri. I misspoke when I called the gentleman in question a “reporter;” he was, in fact, a columnist for the P-D. His name was Greg Freeman, and he was otherwise a nice guy with whom I had pleasant exchanges. He passed away a few years ago, but the website still carries his forum here:
http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=74737ba8f4dbf3417d4fac90f8a30364
The P-D doesn’t have accessible forum archives that go back that far, regrettably. I didn’t archive the exchange, either, but I do remember the name of the FBI agent I spoke with to debunk Mr. Freeman’s claims: Virgil Johnson (might have been Johnston) and I posted the agent’s phone number so my assertion could be verified by any and all.
A.L.
regarding #4: Hang on a minute, now. If you are going to play, at least try to play fair.
Your original post suggested tht AP’s critics were inflicting life-threatening damage over the Jamal Hussein scandal–or at the very least, severe cuts. Expressing my belief that these critics seem to have landed hardly a blow, you then incredibly respond that the newspaper industry as a whole has suffering economically over some recent 2-year period.
Yes, newspapers are in decline and have been for some time. They are sinking fast. However, I don’t think the Hussein scandal is among the weights around the industry’s neck.
You can do better than that, surely.
Well, first, the cuts are to the AP’s credibility, which is suffering even outside the right blogosphere in the world of folks like Jordan.
Those cuts will certainly have an institutional impact, as the second-order effects of the shocks felt in newsrooms and boardrooms today will be transmitted to vendors – including AP, which is, as noted a coop.
So yeah, I’ll stand on my point. And yes, I think the Hussein scandal – which you correctly name – is a classic example of the weights draging the industry down.
Like the American car industry, which forgot how to make good cars back in the 1970’s the core is good product. It’s very hard to start doing good work after years of eating Krispy Kremes instead of exercising, and it’s douibly hard to convince anyone that you’re now doing good work.
A.L.
“Les, maybe the AP is satisfied with its stories. After all, they have people actually in Iraq and the right-blogosphere doesn’
Apparently someone has never heard of Bill Roggio or Michael Yon or Bill Ardolino? What about those guys at Iraq the Model? Do they count?
Simply astounding level of ignorance.
A.L.
Well, your point seems to be more of a prediction on the future effects of this scandal. And, of course, we shall see. But as an accurate description of current effects…it seems more like wishful thinking to me.
mark, are you seriously suggesting that in 90 days when this percolates through the system that the AP will suffer no loss to it’s core capital stock – it’s credibility?
A.L.
If they can’t produce him because it’s such a “nasty place”, why on earth did they give out his name, rank, and where he works in the first place?
#22: The word I would use is arrogance. And the reference to the post 11/7 world only confirms it.
The American Revolution didn’t require a majority to support it either.
I happen to think things like Easongate, Rathergate, Jason Blair, etc are quite a large factor in Big Media’s decline over the years. This isnt something that happened over night, but on the other hand every nail in the coffin inflicts that much damage to a ship already taking on water.
We all know there are new media outlets that people get their news from, and that is certainly the biggest factor in the decline, but the loss of credibility makes that fact all the more corrosive. When the product is information, trust is the goldstandard. Why should anyone bother to pay for what the AP is selling when they cant get the same from independant sources for much less, and perhaps with greater reliability?
Plus something in this story is whispering in my ear that there is a much bigger house of cards at stake than Jamil Hussein, or even just his 60 odd stories. The point has always been, if the AP has one source that they are _positive_ about who proves false, _all_ of their sources come into question. Suddenly the entire structure of AP foriegn journalism is left in doubt. It is the AP that has leveraged their credibility on this story to the hilt, they bear the responsibility.
Mark,
I notice you have strenously avoided stating whether you think the Jamil Hussein story is true, or whether a news oragnization should feel free to publish untrue material. Yet, you accuse AL of playing unfair pretty sad, that.
A.L., I am saying that it remains to be seen. So far, the story has had zero traction outside a very tiny band of people who are way way above average in their concern about and attention to a) the inner workings of the media; and b) this particular story. Will it catch on more in the next 90 days? Perhaps. Anything is possible. I am inclined to think not, however. I think the discussions that go on in forums such as these tend to fail to see the forest for the trees, if, as Cheyney might say, you will.
In the context of the greater information world, in the thousands of stories that AP has written out of Iraq in the past 3 years, of the 100 of thousands it produces each year, this one particular mistake, if it is a mistake, will not be seen to be an example of what you seem to think it is, and will not damage APs repuputation. It may result in the firing of one or two stringers, and one or two editors. But, in the end, it doesn’t matter all that much. And it certainly is not and will not be seen as symptomatic of anything other than what it is, if it is: an instance of journalistic malpractice of concocting a source, or of over-disguising a source.
Corvan,
I have no idea whether or not Jamail Hussein exists. I assume he does, in some form or another. But I could be wrong. I am not privy to any patricular pieces of information that seem conclusive to me one way or another.
My description of AL’s playing unfarily had to do with what to me was an inadequate–for him–rebuttal of my views by changing the original subjec.
Mark B.,
Why, if one stringer, or one editor has fabricated a source, must all other AP sources be called into question? If one painting in a museum, say a Leonardo, is discovered to have been a forgery, would you then assume that all the paintings, say all the Delecroix’s, are also forgeries? Does not every year of your life, every moment of your existence back up the general idea that while people make mistakes, that crimes get committed, these tend to be individual instances and not the exposed faces of otherwise hidden conspiricies and dark malevolent forces?
“_Why, if one stringer, or one editor has fabricated a source, must all other AP sources be called into question?”_
For the simple reason that instead of voluntarilly investigating the discrepancies in their story, the AP instead made an argument of authority and stood by their reputation. Since they have refused to be accountable to anyone but themselves, they have only their reputation as their defense. If the story doesnt eventually check out, that reputation card cant be played again any time soon.
_”If one painting in a museum, say a Leonardo, is discovered to have been a forgery, would you then assume that all the paintings, say all the Delecroix’s, are also forgeries?_”
Bad analogy. If the curator of a musuem was presented credible evidence that a painting was a forgery, and responded that by his expert opinion it was certainly not but that he wasnt going to show you why, if it turned out by conclusive evidence that it _was_ a forgery what does that do to that persons credibility and professional standing?
_”Does not every year of your life, every moment of your existence back up the general idea that while people make mistakes, that crimes get committed, these tend to be individual instances and not the exposed faces of otherwise hidden conspiricies and dark malevolent forces?”_
As almost always, its not the mistake that gets you, but the coverup, and make no mistake if the APs story doesnt check out this has been a coverup. Ineptitude is also a deadly sin for a professional, and ineptitude protected with vanity and hubris almost never goes unpunished.
So-called reporters, editors, and publishers of the Associated Press are liars. “Police Captain Jamail Hussein” never did exist. War-zone incidents attributed to him are enemy propaganda, knowingly and wilfully encouraged by leftist ideologues in newsrooms openly dedicated to America’s defeat, to the demoralization and eventual slaughter of the Iraqi people by another degenerate sadist of Saddam’s ilk.
Over forty years, this pattern has proved inviolable: The worse the tyranny, from Ho Chi Minh through Pol Pot, from Castro and Ortega to Kim Jong-il and even Ahmadinejad, the better a certain smirking mass-media consensus holds. In their virulent ant-American –read anti free-markets, free speech, free anything– France and Germany are as bad or worse than sneering elites in the United States. Where such attitudes originate is an open question, but they are uniformly juvenile, self-serving, destructively ignorant to the last degree.
Quite possibly, in these late days the Enlightenment has failed, and with it Franklin’s “American experiment”. It turns out that, in line with history, we could not “keep a Republic”. When our Supreme Court itself actively subverts every principle of representative democracy, beginning with Free Speech and moving on to ludicrous Commerce Clause aggrandizement, we can trace destructive seeds at least to Marbury… to “say what the Law is” has become equivalent to making law. When these jerks “decide” that kleptocratic international gangs may levy U.S. taxes, just who will dump the tea?
“Good government” is not complicated. But when political positions carry enormous influence, and State Legislatures no more stand proof against carpetbagging freak-shows like MzBill’s, the corruption battle is forever lost. Now Mrs. Frum/Pelosi is on-track to make “no law” the Law. When anyone professing literal disgust is accused of “partisanship”, you know that our next generation will have been emasculated to the point where, like Chinese court eunuchs, nothing of importance will be worth defending.
If and when large polities float off Planet Earth, we may find groups that hold to democratic republican principles in self-defense. Meantime, I tell my daughter that if she personally does not take action soon, her herka-jerka-burkha’s out there, waiting for a fitting.
#16 from Mark Buehner: _If these AP sources continue to treat him with disdain he[Eason Jordan] may well take up the crusade._
Oh great. “He’s an S.O.B., but he’s _our_ S.O.B.”. Not sure if I like that or not. No one died when Rather lied.
Mark B., your stance seems to be that A’s failure here is a failure to meet its obligation to respond to its critics. You continue my museum analogy saying that if the director were confronted with evidence of the forgery but relied only upon his own expertise to refute that evidence, his judgement would be suspect. But in the AP’s case, there has not been any evidence put forward. Simply suspicions and questions. Are they obliged to produce all quoted sources anytime someone doubts their existence. Your doubts do not amount to evidence. There is no evidence. Only unsubstantiated allegations.
The reason it’s a general problem is that much of the AP’s value is tied up in its trademark, its ‘good name’, if you would. Having that symbol in the byline is supposed to mean something in terms of timeliness and veracity of what follows.
AP started as a consortium of newspapers that agreed to pool their reporting to economize on everything from field reporters to telegraphic charges (the original ‘wire’). It made sense even before geographic monopolies by newspapers made news reportage nearly noncompetitive.
As the financial and field resources of the print media have dwindled, more and more of what’s carried on the AP and other wires is by ‘stringers’, who have no direct ties to the participating newspapers, compared to their non-trivial ties to the matters on which they’re reporting. That makes the role of a branded wire service in vetting the provenance and consistent accuracy of the material they are carrying essential. Even more so when both stringers and sources are cultural participants in a war, and may have much to gain or lose based on the outcome.
If Jamail Hussein and other named and unnamed sources are eventually shown to not exist, or to be providing bogus or spun content, then depending on one’s degree of cynicism, if might be appropriate to conclude (in descending order):
1. The AP’s Iraqi sources have been suborned by those with an interest in exaggerating the level of violence / perpetuating sectarian violence / discouraging the American public
2. The AP has been incompetent in checking facts and provenance
3. The AP has been turning a blind eye and been willfully ignorant
4. At least some portion of the AP has been complicit in at least the goal of discouraging the American public
You don’t need to presume any hidden conspiracy to get to step one, given that the motives and opportunities of warring Iraqi parties are right out there in the open. (Information ops are not a fantasy, or else I don’t understand the bleating when we try it.) If that’s true, step two follows immediately. Steps three and four take you down the road to conspiracy.
You don’t need to assume conspiracy to reach a concluson that is absolutely corrosive to the brand value of the AP, at the level of shown incompetence at the checking the provenance of the material they vet, and that reaches beyond the particular story or territory.
Is one affair like this going to bring down the AP? No. Will it exacerbate a potential death spiral of diminishing resources, capabilities, and perceived value? Yes. And as a coop of newspapers, the AP isn’t exactly backed by a healthy industry sector that could come up the capital to rebuild a wasted asset.
Mark,
Assuming that Jamil Hussein exists at this point is pretty problematic given the facts, and I suspect evidences a certain amount wishful thinking on your part. It also seems that you argue that Jamil Hussein’s nonexistence is inconsequential so long as no one notices, even sadder that.
Andrew Lazarus has been arguing that fake but accurate is okay, a ruinous position to be sure, but one that at least presumes some sort of truth somewhere, even if it’s the pretend kind. You seem to be arguing that truth is completely inconsequential. It’s all just words, man, right?
_Why, if one stringer, or one editor has fabricated a source, must all other AP sources be called into question?_
Roman law had a phrase for it: _falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus,_ meaning “false in one thing, false in everything.” When one utters a falsehood or conceals the truth, others are entitled to presume further falsehoods and demand additional confirmation.
You know, I think there are some valid, legitimate criticisms of the AP.
For example, today I read a piece about how the war in Iraq will become a Democratic problem because they’re in control of congress and, well, Americans will forget who was controlling the government when it was launched and blame the Dems.
They think we’re all idiots.
However, in the case of you pro-war folk, I cannot escape the thought that your criticism is based largely if not entirely on the flimsy idea that the “MSM” is somehow complicit in the Mess-o-potamia that Bush created and will forever own.
I think you’re looking for as many scapegoats as you can to diminish the thought that the man you elected and the policies you support have proven to be a disaster of unprecedented proportions.
BTW, Happy New Year….here’s to another long year of me reminding you of this.
1. Isn’t the more important question whether the stories in which Jamail Hussein (either as an individual or composite) was used as a source true? If he exists, but the stories are bogus, than AP will have egg on its collective face; if the stories are true, than the issue becomes the rather trivial one of whether AP’s correspondents are violating journalistic ethics by inventing a source to back up the information they’ve obtained. If Deep Throat been a Woodstein invention, it wouldn’t have made their articles about Watergate any less true, or exonerated the Nixon White House.
2. Stats about the decline in newspaper readership are rather meaningless, don’t you think? It may matter to those who got suckered into purchasing shares in media corporations, but to suggest that people aren’t buying newspapers anymore because of some journalistic scandal, or because of the perception of political bias, is laughable. Newspapers were even more biased and lax in their standards one hundred years ago, or even thirty years ago, and their readership was much greater. The decline in subscribers is entirely due to print newspapers being an outmoded form of technology, with more people getting their news from other sources, such as TV and the internet. It’s no different than the decline in the percentage of people who watch the TV networks, or who attend feature films, or who purchase their music or videos at brick-and-mortar stores.
Steve Smith #40,
1. That is the question if you subscribe to the “fake but accurate” school of journalism. If, however, your view of an informed populace requires that journalists provide information that is both truthful and accurate, your supposition is downright dangerous. No intelligent person would rely on a reporter who fabricates proof to support a point, no matter how “true” the point may be. Unlike the years before TV when news came from local newspapers, editors, and reporters, today we don’t know the people who bring us the news. The only way we can trust the information they publish is if we have verified assurances that they adhere to professional journalistic standards such as known sourcing and corroboration. They don’t, so we can’t.
2. The decline in newspaper subscriptions is meaningless if newspaper people are willing to do the same work for far less money. If, on the other hand, newspaper people want to be paid more than minimum wage and newspapers want to hire competent personnel and support fully staffed foreign bureaus, then every newspaper better worry about its bottom line.
Will this go to the MSM?
Yes because it’s too good a scandal to ignore and competitive rivals will use the information to destroy the rival.
Andy X — Iraq is a sideshow of little importance now. Iran’s nukes, Pakistan falling slow motion into Al Qaeda, the nuclear race in the ME to keep up with Iraq, and the ability of Al Qaeda to use any manner of WMDs from aerosol Polonium 210 on the subway to anthrax or plague in a stadium.
Compared to a nuclear blast in NYC Iraq is trivial indeed. And Bush has hardly addressed that in any manner, positive or negative. Unless you are fool enough to believe if we are just nice to Muslims they will stop hating us for forcing modernity (and their manifest failure) upon them.
Iraq can certainly get WORSE if we cut and run (and believe me Al Qaeda will take that defeat and press onwards with even greater mass casualty attacks here at home, what makes it worse is that we will be seen as losers and have nothing to work with in intimidation of places like Pakistan or Sudan).
In such a struggle the ability of the ordinary joe and jane to sort out what’s going on devoid of stupid and useless partisan spin or really ideological garbage (peacenik “peace in our time” fantasies) from deadly reality (how close is Ahamdnutjob to nukes on ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US, or how willing is he to help Al Qaeda use nuclear materials as a weapon ala Litivenko on a mass scale)???
ONCE it becomes clear that “AP LIED” etc on Jamil Hussein and reporting from Iraq (making stuff up for Al Qaeda) NOTHING they say will be held in any regard and by extension the press.
A more open invitation of vigilante action could hardly be imagined.
Think about what happens when Fox or ABC or whatever organization runs the Jamil Hussein story as a scandal, and shortly after Al Qaeda poisons a subway with Polonium 210 or something equally nasty. Killing thousands in slow motion in hospital beds with ample photo ops.
Since people prefer living to being murdered ala Litivenko, expect mass vigilante action that will be EXTREMELY UGLY.
Institutions throw away credibility with the people for partisan / ideologue advantage at their peril. Americans trade homes, spouses, religions very quickly. Don’t think they won’t drop the Press and hold to rumor as truth as they become new night riders.
Steve Smith,
re:#40
In support of DRJ’s comments let me add…
1. If the stories were indeed true then why would the AP have needed to resort to the creation of fictional characters to support their case? Were the AP reporters in questions so lonely that they needed the companionship of imaginary friends? If so then why should we not suspect that their grip on reality is too fragile to allow them to write accurate stories? o_O
2. While it is legitimate to point out that the role of technology as an enabler for the decline of newspapers it is hardly wise to presume that it is *the* reason of their decline. The reason that the existence of the Internet has facilitated their fall comes from the fact that their comfortable, venial and lazy oligopoly is no longer in a position to play gatekeeper to information and allows us to know of such things as the Jamil Hussein scandal. But if newspapers themselves were what they should be they would never be hemorrhaging their readership as badly as they are. The ability to take the time needed to do an accurate report was precisely the edge that newspapers had over television news. When they throw that away then they have nothing left and they have no one to blame but themselves when their readers reject them and walk away.
– S.P.M.
mark:
You think that only a tiny minority of people care about the inner workings of the media, or whether the stories the media carries are true?
That would make a pretty good one-line editorial policy for the AP. They could print a little disclaimer on all their wires: “The following is a work of fiction, but what the f–k do you care?”
_”Your doubts do not amount to evidence. There is no evidence. Only unsubstantiated allegations.”_
You obviously arent following the story or are intentionally obfusticating. As with the AP, i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume incompetance. The amount of resources that have failed to find a _named_ source in 60+ articles (including those that actually _want_ the source found) are clear evidence that something is terribly wrong with this source. All the AP needs to do to keep E&P, Eason Jordan, Michelle Malkin, AL, and everyone in between off their backs is to _PROVIDE A FREAKING PHONE NUMBER._ This isnt splitting the atom- something very, very simply is being asked of the AP and it is extremely telling that not only can they not do it they are taking on a very defensive air even in response to their erstwhile defenders like Jordan.
> Are they obliged to produce all quoted sources anytime someone doubts their existence.
They’re not obligated to do anything. However, they may have some interest in being believed.
> Your doubts do not amount to evidence. There is no evidence. Only unsubstantiated allegations.
Likewise, your unsubstantiated faith does not amount to evidence. You have no evidence that a significant fraction, if not the vast majority, of their coverage is true.
Why, given the absence of specific evidence, do you believe any AP story? Why, given the absence of evidence, do you believe that AP generally gets it right?
Shorter Andy X,
The media exists to influence politics, period. Having to report what actually happened just gets in the way.
Here’s to another long year of me making myself look dishonest, power hungry and stupid all at the same time.
Andy X;
bq. For example, today I read a piece about how the war in Iraq will become a Democratic problem because they’re in control of congress and, well, Americans will forget who was controlling the government when it was launched and blame the Dems.
p. Why not, it worked for Vietnam (launched by Dems, blamed on Nixon). Makes your “They think we’re all idiots” comment have interesting implications.
Mark B., We’re just going around in circles. We’ve been through this before.
You think AP has an obligation to respond to the five or six people demanding they provide proof that their source exists. I don’t. You believe AP’s failure to meet this obligation legitmizes your suspicions and/or complaints. I don’t.
AP’s response has been “we are satsified.” You don’t want to accept that. Fine. Don’t read or believe AP stories out of Iraq any more. There are plenty of other outlets.
What I object to, however, is the attempt to use this scandal to make larger claims about AP or about the US media in general. The reason I object is because there is a lack of suffient evidence to believe that if Hussein is a fabrication it is something other than an isolated instance of journalistic malpractice. This notion that the AP is somehow deliberately exaggerating the level of violence in Iraq in order to erode US public support of the war is preposterous.
But then, I should point out where I am coming from. I find equally preposterous the idea the US media suffers from liberal bias. Yes, it is true that the bulk of the US media does not try to advance the conservative agenda. But that’s no sin.
_”What I object to, however, is the attempt to use this scandal to make larger claims about AP or about the US media in general._”
The larger claim against the AP is obvious. They refuse to validate their work, that is apparently an institutional decision, even in the face of questions from a fellow media organization of incredibly high regard such as Editor and Publisher. This is exactly equivalent to a scientist who refuses to provide his data to fellow scientists for peer evaluations, notwithstanding your mischaracterization of the requests as only by a handful of nobodies.
_”The reason I object is because there is a lack of suffient evidence to believe that if Hussein is a fabrication it is something other than an isolated instance of journalistic malpractice.”_
Those are 2 seperate questions- does Hussine exist and is that a larger symptom. The point i’ve been trying to make is that if Hussein does not exist (and again, despite your protestations there is a pile of negative evidence against his existance and _NO_ evidence to corroborate) the fact that the AP has actively refused to cooperate and indeed staked its reputation _makes_ it a larger symptom. If it was a mistake and they fessed up or at least launched a public inquiry and revealed what they knew, then you would be right, it would be isolated. The AP has created the larger issue, nobody else.
_” This notion that the AP is somehow deliberately exaggerating the level of violence in Iraq in order to erode US public support of the war is preposterous.”_
Again, YOU are the only one connecting those two issues (at least as far as you and I). It is equally preposterous to argue that if the AP has a fake source in 60+ of its Iraq articles that we should ignore that because political hacks will make hay of it. That is just as bad. It is pretty clear that the only reason YOU want this to go away is precisely because of this dynamic. Doesnt the truth have any weight in this? Who is being political now?
Go back to the museum curator analogy, because it is perfect. The AP is the curator and has selected many of the paintings in the museum. Nobody else on the planet can authenticate one of the paintings he bought- but the curator simply says its real, and no you cant see the sales slip, cant talk to the seller, cant see any evidence whatsoever of its authenticity, and you shouldnt even be asking because as an expert curator he is 100% standing by the authenticity. Now other experts are called in and have questions and want to see the evidence, which he still refuses to provide or even discuss. Further investigation by multiple parties can find no evidence of the seller or anything else. At some point, you have to wonder about that paintings authenticity, and worse YOU DO have to worry about the other paintings he selected. Of course you do. The man is behaving irrationally and defensively and refuses to provide the incredibly simple act that will solve the issue one way or another. Now maybe if you were the Chairman of the board for that museum, you would be perfectly fine with this kind of bullshit, but in the real world once the guys peers start piling on you know there is serious trouble and eventually it will come to a head.
Mark,
We don’t go in circles at all. Your position becomes clearer the more you write. You are in the process of joining the Andrew J. Lazarus school of thought on reporting, in which reporters exist not to tell us what happened, but to tell us what to think.
The fact that by all accounts, even Eason Jordan’s, Jamil Hussein cannot be located, the fact that no one has been able to turn up the names, grave sites or bodies of the burned Sunis, the fact that Jamil Hussein, who seems not to exist, has been the linchpin of some forty AP stories, the fact that the AP has been stonewalling (Eason Jordan’s words) investigations into the veracity of the story, the fact that other major news outlets, including the New York times for heaven sake, suspected the report to be bogus from the beginning, the fact that both the Iraqi government and Centcom maintain that Jamil Hussein is not who the AP says he is…none of that matters.
The AP should be free to print out right falsehoods, even encouraged to print out right falsehoods so long as Mark and Andrew agree with them.
And the rest of us? The rest of us should be free to decide whether we believe the outright falsehoods or not. How very laissez-faire. Welcome to the dark side. I suppose you will be penning a heartfelt defense of supply side economics next, eh?
And here’s a twist, the AP is obstructing efforts to get at the truth (Easons Jordan’s words) and Mark and Andrew J Lazarus both approve of the cover-up…loudly. Makes one wonder about the seriousness of the protestations tossed about during the Plame affair, and the NSA affair and the sixteen words dust up doesn’t it? It really is all about who is in power isn’t guys?
DRJ/SPM:
1. Since I’m not a Media Watchdog, I really don’t care how the sausage is made; I just want to know if the story is true, and if they put a little rat poo in the meat, so be it. Whether “Jamil Hussein” (or Deep Throat, for that matter) is real, a composite, a name-change, or a completely fictitious character, that is less important to me than whether what “he” is saying actually occurred. I’ve always followed a rule of thumb whenever I look at an article that is based on the hearsay account of a source: I always assume the source is an invention, a fictitious alter ego of the journalist that is being used to give credence to events or phenomena that the writer knows occurred, but can’t get official backing. Saying that a story is bogus just because the journalist fudges his sourcing is like saying that OJ was innocent because Mark Fuhrman lied on the witness stand at his murder trial. It may not make me feel very highly about Fuhrman, but there’s still the bloody glove.
2. Subscription rates aside, newspapers remain very profitable. It’s publicly-traded media companies that are taking a hit, since they require a continuous rate in the increase in profits to be attractive to shareholders. Clearly, we’re in a transitional period for print media, and the decline in newspaper subscriptions is going to continue, and that has nothing to do with whether people trust the LA Times (a paper that has become more conservative over the last five years, btw, and was pretty much a GOP fansite in the last election) less than they do Atrios or Powerline.
_”Whether “Jamil Hussein” (or Deep Throat, for that matter) is real, a composite, a name-change, or a completely fictitious character, that is less important to me than whether what “he” is saying actually occurred._”
First of all, what you just said flies in the face of every facet of journalistic ethics. Deep Throat was an anonymous source, his credibility was entirely based on whether what he was saying ended up being corraborated by evidence his leads revealed. This Hussein story is the exact opposite. He is a named source. He _is_ the evidence. We are supposed to believe this story because someone in a position of authority with access to the event is saying it. If he doesnt exist _there is no story._ That isnt journalism, its fiction. AP is welcome to use anonymous sources, but they cant invent them or let their employees invent them. Once you invent a source, whats to stop you from inventing facts? Hell, a source _is_ a fact. Thats how we get to this Orwellian argument that as long as the story fits what some political agenda expects out of it, its ok to invent the story. That is a crazy position, its totally at odds with having an informed public. Truth is important.
_”I’ve always followed a rule of thumb whenever I look at an article that is based on the hearsay account of a source: I always assume the source is an invention, a fictitious alter ego of the journalist that is being used to give credence to events or phenomena that the writer knows occurred, but can’t get official backing.”_
That is insane. First of all named sources arent hearsay, they are witnesses. Second of all whats the point of being a whistleblower if we get to the point where we are supposed to assume sources are invented whole cloth on a regular basis? I right for the Times, I soundly believe Dick Cheney is a crook, I invent a source saying he’s been embezling money, whats the problem? I know in my heart something is true so i can invent evidence to support that? Thats supposed to be journalism?
_”Saying that a story is bogus just because the journalist fudges his sourcing is like saying that OJ was innocent because Mark Fuhrman lied on the witness stand at his murder trial.”_
Saying journalists routinely fudge sources is like saying the cops _did_ frame OJ. If that is true we’ve got a much huger problem on our hands than the evnet in question.
does anyone really believe any blood has been spilled?
All “big scandals” start out small, and the cover up is always worse than the original crime. Ask Nixon.
We’re only a couple of months into this one.
Yes, private newspapers are doing great. Does anybody want to buy my local newspaper? Its for “sale.”:http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2006/11/01/news/01copley.txt Circulation is dropping. The average reader-age is increasing. Profits are maintained by firing employees, increasing subscription rates and dropping stories for advertising. The future looks great.
Deep Throat was an anonymous source, his credibility was entirely based on whether what he was saying ended up being corraborated by evidence his leads revealed. This Hussein story is the exact opposite. He is a named source. He is the evidence. We are supposed to believe this story because someone in a position of authority with access to the event is saying it. If he doesnt exist there is no story.
Sorry, but that just isn’t the case. Either what Hussein said was true, or it wasn’t. The story isn’t that someone Iraqi bureaucrat has alleged something, it’s whether something took place, for which the bureaucrat is a source. If Hussein exists, but he was lying, then AP has a real credibility problem. If he doesn’t exist, or if they changed his name to protect him, or if he’s a composite of several anonymous sources, but the events did happen, there is a story, whether the AP has obeyed journalistic tenets or not. If Dick Cheney is a crook, or if Nixon covered up crimes, or if OJ murdered his ex, all are allegations that are either true or false, regardless of whether a witness is lying.
Steve Smith,
I am disheartened to hear you are a media watchdog. If your views are characteristic of that profession, no wonder the media has run aground.
Previous comments have responded to your specific points but I want to address your OJ/Fuhrman example. I suspect you know it’s not a good analogy but, in case you don’t, let me point out that we would have a disastrous justice system if the goal is the “truth” rather than a fair process. Most tyrannical regimes seek the truth and, as a result, they justify procedures that refuse to let defendants hire attorneys or put on witnesses. In those regimes, if the prosecution offers the truth, case over.
On the other hand, the US and most democratic nations employ justice systems that promise a fair opportunity to be heard according to equally applied standards – due process and equal protection. Sometimes truth will not be the result and an injustice will be done, but it is far more likely that we will find justice and the truth in a system that “only” promises due process and equal protection.
Come to think of it, maybe you were right. Perhaps journalists are only concerned with the truth (or their version of it) and are unconcerned with reporting more than one side of a story. If so, I think that’s where journalism has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
It astounds me that so many, such as Mark, do not understand or refuse to understand the extent of the damage. The product AP sells is information, and there is an implied warranty that the material being provided is accurate to the best of AP’s ability.
The problem AP has isn’t that they were snookered by a flim-flam artist (although that should trouble them and everyone else). That is embarrassing, but not life-threatening. The problem they have is the denial. That will go right to the heart of the product’s reputation, that gut that implied warranty of accuracy. The denial that there is a problem, tells the consumer – the newspapers, radio stations, magazines, etc. that AP is not concerned about the quality of the product. Yet the quality of that product from AP affects the reputations fo their customers. Auto companies are very hard on their suppliers because they have to be. The quality of the supplied part affects the quality of the finished product. Poor fuel pumps can doom an entire model and can doom an entire company. Look at where General Motors is now, where Ford is now compared to where they were in 1965. Take a good, hard look at Flint, Michigan and see where the loss of a business reputation can lead you.
If I am the publisher ofthe Washington Post and I thought AP didn’t care about the accuracy of the information they were selling me why would I continue to buy from them when I can buy from UPI? Or find other sources? Why would I buy a Ford Maverick when it will just rust to nothing in a couple of years when a Toyota was a available?
Not taking corrective action when the first warning signs came out – CENTCOM and the Iraqi government saying they didn’t know who Capt. Hussein was – an exercise in deial and arrogance and it will cost Ms. Carroll and AP. Pride goeth before the fall, as it were.
_”Sorry, but that just isn’t the case. Either what Hussein said was true, or it wasn’t.”_
That is patently absurd. Do you think they listed him as Captain Jamil Hussein of the Iraqi Police for no apparent reason? Are you suggesting if his words were from Joe Q Citizen Hussein they would carry the same weight? Thats ridiculous. Why then would the AP bother? Why bother using named sources at all?
_”The story isn’t that someone Iraqi bureaucrat has alleged something, it’s whether something took place, for which the bureaucrat is a source._”
EXACTLY. But how pray tell do you find out if something happened if you cant locate the source that told you what happened? Isnt that why we have cross examinations in court rooms?
_” If Dick Cheney is a crook, or if Nixon covered up crimes, or if OJ murdered his ex, all are allegations that are either true or false, regardless of whether a witness is lying.”_
As DRJ noted, process is damned important! Look, if we all were omniscent, then fine, people can lie or mislead or propogate lies all they like and indeed it wouldnt matter. But we arent and we all require filters, news gatherers, and news dispensers. Their credibility IS IMPORTANT. Maybe you can know the truth via cosmic rays or something, but for the rest of us it is extrememly important to know if the people who are giving us information are both competant and honest. Isnt that a pretty obvious fact?
This just seems another way of saying, “The story is fake, but accurate”.
I assume that the AP’s supporters have no problem that Captain Jamil Hussein has confirmed the presence of an active nuclear weapons program that was secreted to Iran on the eve of war.
He told me so.
Who am I?
PD Shaw, that’s who.
DRJ:
I think you misunderstood. I explicitly said I wasn’t a Media Watchdog. I happen to find sites that pick apart the front page of the New York Times or whatever to be dull, and on my own blog I try to steer clear of counting how many liberals are on the Sunday talk shows. In terms of importance, the news media generally, and the print media specifically, are just not that important in terms of priorities for me. There’s a war going on, Americans and Iraqis are dying needlessly, and I’m much more concerned about the routine lies the Bush Administration tells on a daily basis than whether the AP is practicing good journalism.
MB:
[how] pray tell do you find out if something happened if you cant locate the source that told you what happened? Isnt that why we have cross examinations in court rooms?
If this were a trial, you’d have a point. Without a witness to cross-examine, anything he says outside of court would have to be excluded, and a jury could give no weight to what he said. But this isn’t a trial, for which someone could lose their freedom or property, but a reporting of a purported fact. Either the incident occurred or it didn’t; the existence of Hussein is irrelevant. It might be embarassing to the AP, but as a consumer of news, I don’t really care, no more than I care whether Mark Fuhrman lied on the witness stand in deciding whether I believe OJ killed two people. Process is important, especially to newspaper editors and ombudsmen, but I’m neither. If a story is “fake but accurate”, the accuracy is more important to me, since the truth is ultimately paramount.
_”If a story is “fake but accurate”, the accuracy is more important to me, since the truth is ultimately paramount.”_
Which goes back to my point- unless you have some sort of special powers the rest of us dont share, how exactly do you divine what is accurate and what is not? Or is information and data (or at least their accuracy) not important to your world view?
So do you or do you not rely on the media when determining what the truth is? Particularly overseas in a combat zone where you cannot be?
Steve Smith #62:
Thank you for correcting me. I’m glad to learn you aren’t a media watchdog, and it’s interesting to learn you aren’t even a media consumer – except, presumably, for what you learn on the internet from non-AP and other media sources. Most people who are interested in the AP and Capt. Hussein have an interest in reliable journalism. What, then, is your interest in this subject if you don’t rely on the media for your information?
Steve Smith,
By the way, even the AP’s infamous Kathleen Carroll believes the AP should do more to explain how it covers the news, “stating”:http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/11/ap_executive_editor_praises_katrina_coverage/?city_local *We need to show how the sausage is made.*
Shorter Steve Smith,
It’s only a lie if it is is said by people that don’t agree with me politically. The AP, since it seems to agree with me politically, should not be bound by ill conceived norms like truth or honesty. I have an agenda to push, damn it. What actually happened is the last thing I want to hear. May the Stonewall stand forever! Oh and death to Rethuglicans…yada, yada, yada.
Steve Smith (#62)
bq.”There’s a war going on, Americans and Iraqis are dying needlessly, and I’m much more concerned about the routine lies the Bush Administration tells on a daily basis than whether the AP is practicing good journalism.”
Well, if the media you’re reading isn’t accurate – how do you know that?
A.L.
From Mark: _”So far, the story has had zero traction outside a very tiny band of people who are way way above average in their concern about and attention to a) the inner workings of the media; and b) this particular story.”_
Just a reminder on that score. The very first mention of the Eason Jordan situation in the paper of record, the New York Times, was on the day he was fired from CNN. Apparently the story, to use your phrase, had “zero traction” among the editors of the New York Times even though it had been percolating, and in some cases boiling, in blogs and other media outlets for 15 full days. I thought it made them look silly to be that far behind the curve.
Surely they knew about the story. How could they not if they are in any way tuned in to the national scene? Yet they kept their readers completely in the dark until forced to report the story because of Jordan’s firing. People who relied on other media outlets saw the story developing (including Congressman Barney Frank speaking out as a witness against Jordan, like that’s not news in itself) and had a context in which to judge the firing, but the hapless readers of the Times were presented with a _fait accompli_ like a bolt from the blue. I still don’t know what the Times was thinking. It makes me wonder about their judgment.
It also makes me skeptical of the “zero traction” argument. Judging by the Times the story had zero traction, and yet Eason Jordan was fired nonetheless.
kcom, (& also Mark B.)
I think you misunderstood my post–probably my fault for not being sufficiently clear.
My “zero traction” remark was neither an argument nor a prediction. It was simply an observation about the present that was meant to counter AL’s stated belief that this scandal has been damaging to the AP.
I can’t predict the future. Perhaps, as you say, someday it will. But so far, whenever I search the web for information on the current state of the scandal, it’s always the same 5 or 6 blogs that turn up. No one else seems to be discussing it. I’m not passing judgement here, just making an observation.
Obviously, I am interested in the story and so I think it is important. But what I am most drawn to is how some (Mark B. excluded) are using it to draw larger conclusions which are not, in my opinion, justified.
Many in here, accuse me of being politically motivated or believing the truth doesn’t matter. These, I believe, are willful misreadings of my oft stated stance.
I agree with most of Mark B.’s points. Where we don’t agree is primarily over the the amount of weight the AP can realistically be expected to give to a relatively small number of people’s accusations that a source of theirs doesn’t exist. At a certain point, obviously, if the evidence was strong enough, or the clamour loud enough, one would expect the AP to offer more than “we are satisfied.” By the same token, obviously, if it was just some half-baked political hack out there making accusations, no one would expect AP to “produce” Hussein. Somewhere between those two points, we each make a judgement about when a line is reached, where AP can be called to account. Mark B. believes that line has been well passed. I don’t believe it has yet been reached.
I certainly believe the truth matters and I would expect all media to be as truthful and accurate as possible. I also understand that people, being people, and organizations, being run by people, will make blunders from time to time. To turn a mistake into a conspiracy, though, requires a certain amount of evidence to be credible, in my opinion.
Shocking twist on Hussein!
“He DOES exist!”:http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528028
_Khalaf offered no explanation Thursday for why the ministry had initially denied Hussein’s existence, other than to state that its first search of records failed to turn up his full name. He also declined to say how long the ministry had known of its error and why it had made no attempt in the past six weeks to correct the public record._
_Hussein was not the original source of the disputed report of the attack; the account was first told on Al-Arabiya satellite television by a Sunni elder, Imad al-Hashimi, who retracted it after members of the Defense Ministry paid him a visit. Several neighborhood residents subsequently gave the AP independent accounts of the Shiite militia attack on a mosque in which six people were set on fire and killed._
So what does Hussein get for this? An arrest warrant.
Nice work A.L. – get the guy arrested for reporting what al-Hashimi, and other neighborhood residents independently verified. And why?
Ah, but watch this site SHUT UP about this now, right?
“It’s Just A Scratch” indeed…
Hmm crow, tastes good!!! More ketchup, please!!
Of course, it is still imperative that Mr. Hussein be spoken with. We have to know if this story is true and if the sixty other stories he told are true.
And here’s the odd thing. The AP article seems to indicate that the Iraqis will be asking the AP to identify the man they believe to be Jamil Hussein. Which seems to indicate that this man is denying that he was the source for the stories.
So do we have a situation where the man that the AP names as the source for the stories claims not to be the source, and at the same time the AP refuses to identify him as the source? If that is the case how does it help the AP? what they are in effect saying is that we have reported a story. The facts on the ground challenge the stories veracity. The man who is supposed to be the source for the story says he isn’t and we won’t identify him. That’s pretty awful journalism, and not very reliable.
On the other hand, for the Iraqi police it is even worse. Is this Jamil Hussein the source? Why haven’t they spoken with him? Why did they deny he exists? The sheer incompetence of it all is unbelievable.
And of course there is another possibility. This is Jamil Hussein, he was telling the truth, and the Sheik that originally reported the matter was telling the truth and was intimidated into changing his story by Iraqi officials who visited him. If that is the case we, By God, need to know it, and right damned now. If the Iraqi government has become some sort of mafia we sure as hell shouldn’t be supporting it. Either way, no matter whose cause it hurts or helps politically, we have to find out.
Interesting…I’ll follow up with some folks as well.
A.L.
Heh.
Heh heh.
Good thing you don’t need credibility to run a website.
Actually, Geek, if you read the article you will see that the Iraqi police are asking the AP to identify the man they believe to be Jamil Hussein. That would seem to indicate that Mr. Hussein is denying that he was the source. If he says he’s not the source and the AP won’t say that he is there is still no basis for the article, and still no source named Jamil Hussein.
Of course there is the alternative, I out lined in my previous comment. This is Hussein and the Sheik who reported the burning Sunis was right, but changed his story due to intimidation. Either way we need to know. If this guy claims he never gave the story to the AP, the AP still has a lot of explaining to do. (I.E. is this guy really Jamil Hussein? Why won’t he cop to telling the AP the stories? Why haven’t any of the victims been found. Why weren’t four Mosques torched as they originally story indicated?)
If he is Jamil Hussein and he was telling the truth then we have a grave indication of really thuggish behaviour on the part of the Iraqi police. behaviour no American should support.
There is a lot more work to be done here. This isn’t something that should be used to sweep this story away. It is a signal that the story is coming to a head. Soon we’ll be able to discover who Jamil Hussein is and what he said. The results will be disastrous for the AP or for the Iraqi government…maybe for both. I would argue that it has all ready been disastrous for the Iraqi Police.
corvan,
sorry to disappoint you, but if you read the article carefully, you will see that it claims that the Iraq police are not asking AP to identify the man as Hussein, but to identify him as the SOURCE of previous articles. Do you understand the distinction there? They know who he is. They seek verification, or proof, or evidence, that he is the leaker.
of course, there is no way to know if the AP article is true or if this Iraq Gov’t spokesman actually exists or not. Also, why we are at it, I read an AP story that quoted a guy they described as “President Bush.” Perhaps he is a fabrication. If only we were so lucky!
So if his name is Jamil Hussein but he is not the source that makes everything hunky dory? Sorry to disappoint you Mark, but that’s pretty dumb.
Let’s say the AP said a President George W, Bush said he ate kittens and nuns for lunch, but it just happened to turn out that the George W Bush they quoted wasn’t the one that works at the White House. That means their story is accurate. Since there is in fact a GW Bush all is okay?
If this guy whether his name be Barney the Dinosaur or Jamil Hussein says he ain’t the source, and the AP won’t claim him as the source how does that make their story accurate. Are you honestly arguing that if there is in fact a Jamil Hussein any where in Iraq we should all be satisfied with the work the AP has done, whether Jamil Hussein happened to say the things the AP said he did or not?
Corvan, your analogy is wrong. A correct analogy would be something like a reporter in New York hears about a fire on a cruise ship docked in Miami. He obviously can’t witness it himself so he contacts a reporter he knows in the neighborhood who relays several eye witness accounts of what happened. he then calls a fireman he knows who confirms what the eye witnesses say. He then calls the Miami police and fire depts as well as the mayor of Miami who all say there is no fire and the fireman he talked to doesn’t exist. Also, we all know Bush eats kittens and nuns for lunch. We dont need AP to tell us that.
There was only one Jamil we are talking about and the Iraqi government finally confirmed his existence which it chose to hid till now. All of you critics who claimed he didn’t exist, therefore everything the AP prints is a lie, are all wrong. This is the same Jamil Hussein the AP said was the confirmation of the story, not the original source of the story. The original story was told by Imad al-Hashimi on Iraqi TV. The AP checked with local unnamed sources to confirm the story and then talked with Jamil as a named source who also confirmed the story. The AP did more than any of it’s critics at getting at the truth.
This has ceased to be about whether the AP’s source was real. Now it’s a story about the US and Iraqi officials trying to control the media in Iraq in a similar manor that Saddam did. All of the AP’s named sources in this story have either retracted their story after a visit by the defense ministry, face detention for talking to the press, or wound up dead. Now when all their named sources run into trouble, it forces them more and more to rely on unnamed sources. I dont see how this hurts the credibility of the AP. It instead hurts the credibility of the US and Iraq officials. When they allow only their side of the story to be told, you have to wonder what they are hiding and why. And critics like Milken never had any credibility to loose.
Gnuorder,
Odd. Jamil was known as Jamil Gualim not Hussein, which might throw the one Jamil theory out the window. If the man wasn’t going by the name Hussein the MOI wouldn’t know.
There is some indication that he says he ain’t the source. Has the AP said he definitely was? You’d think the AP and Jamil’s boss discussed the fact that Jamil claims he’s not the source. Why else would the MOI ask the AP to identify Jamil Gualam as the source. Is it possible the AP left the fact that their source was denying he was the source out of their report? Did they leave out the fact that Hussein was known as Gualim out of their reports? Really, I’m asking. I honestly don’t remember. Is Jamil Gualim the Jamil Ghalim that the MOI talked with earlier and who claimed that he was not the source?
No, I’m sorry the question here is still whether the AP was accurate. Considering al-Hashimi recanted, and that the unnamed sources have never materialized, and that the four burned mosques became one, and that the burned Sunis’ families and bodies have never turned up, and that other news agencies found the report incredible the issue is very much in doubt.
Still it could be that the story is accurate. It could be that Shia forces in the Iraqi government leaned on al-Hashimi. We won’t know if we don’t ask. Of course it could also be that this Jamil Guliam character misled the AP, again we won’t know if we don’t ask.
Honestly no one has any objection to simply asking, do they?
Here’s the address at flopping aces.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/06/new-twists-in-the-jamil-hussei/
Corvan, I have no problem with asking but that is not what has happened. Because the US and Iraqi officials denied the existence of Jamil, critics of the AP jumped all over the story and accused them of making it up. I have never read that Jamil went by Gualim and not Jamil Hussein. Maybe someone speculated about that but I didn’t hear it from the AP, US, or Iraqis. At any rate, his full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein and he is a police captain at the Khadra police station exactly as identified by the AP before the MOI and US said he didn’t exist. The MOI now admits he does exist but that initial searches turned up no one with that name. We can speculate why they couldn’t find him before but the fact they now want to charge him “having contacts with the media” makes me believe they knew who he was all along. Since his existence is confirmed, there is no evidence at all that the AP made up the story. Jamil was Milken’s smoking gun but it was her that pulled the trigger and it was at her temple that the gun was pointed.
As for why the MOI would ask the AP to confirm Jamil is their source, that is because they want justification to lock him up. If he were to wind up missing or dead, the MOI is smart enough to know that the AP may have more contacts in the police station who would know what happened to him. All the unnamed sources in this story may be police for all we know, and they want their identity concealed because they know what will happen if they are caught talking to reporters. As the article states the AP would be called to identify Jamil as the source. If they identify him, he goes to jail. If they dont identify him, his charges are dropped. No where does it say the AP has denied he was the source but if they do, who could blame them? They are being put in the position of convicting their source. That puts a chill on all the others who are currently or considering being a named source. Then we would have to reply on only official government media sources who couldn’t find this guy, we are to believe, despite being given his full name and place of employment.
Now if it is the contention of the MOI and US officials that the story is untrue, why are they not charging this Jamil with something along the lines of issuing false statements to the press. Why haven’t they gone to the sites to take video of the mosques themselves and released that for us to see? Why would the AP want to make up such a story when there are thousands of attacks a day they can report on? If they want the AP to retract the story, they should offer some evidence that it’s not true. Until they do, it looks like they are just trying to suppress this story.
Gnuorder,
Your claiming that since there is a man named Jamil Gholaim Hussein the story is true. Even though Jamil Gholaim claims he’s not the source, even though four mosques weren’t destroyed, even though no bodies have ever turned up in the burning Sunis story, even though no relatives of burned Sunis have turned up, even though other news agencies found the report incredible.
Further you seem to claim that US and Iraqi governments are in some conspiracy to do Mr. Hussein permanent harm (or perhaps kill him) even though the MOI says he won’t be disciplined.
You’ve jumped to an awful lot of conclusions there, something you’ve accused Michelle Malkin of doing. (And for that matter something Andy X and Davebo have accused everyone who doesn’t agree with them politically of doing)
You are saying that he is not the source, not I, not the AP, not him. I did not read anywhere in that article that anyone claimed he is not the source. Can you enlighten me as to where you read that? Why would relatives of burned victims be concerned with defending with the accuracy of the story told overseas while they are in the middle of a civil war? At any moment they have to figure they are next. Maybe they have already fled and do not even know their relatives are dead. Where is your evidence that the mosques were not burned? I have seen no photos or reporters account of the area where this is supposed to have taken place confirming they are still standing or burned down, have you? Again, you have not provided any proof the story is false, only speculation.
Also where did you read that they will not discipline Hussein because the article I read said that he would be arrested and put on trial.
bq. Hussein told the AP on Wednesday that he learned the arrest warrant would be issued when he returned to work on Thursday after the Eid al-Adha holiday. His phone was turned off Thursday and he could not be reached for further comment.
bq. Khalaf said Thursday that with the arrest of Hussein for breaking police regulations against talking to reporters, the AP would be called to identify him in a lineup as the source of its story.
bq. Should the AP decline to assist in the identification, Khalaf said, the case against Hussein would be dropped. He also said there were no plans to pursue action against the AP should it decline.
Now you may claim that if he does go to trial and claims he is not the source and the AP also denies he is the source, that he must not be the source but you and I know that is BS. The AP named him using all three names well before this story took an ugly turn. The AP also Identified him as a police capt at the Khadra police station. The MOI now confirms this is the Police capt at Khadra police station named Jamil Gholaim Hussein. Do you really think there are more than one police capt named Jamil Gholaim Hussein at the Khadra police station especially since the MOI couldn’t find any a month ago? If they later claim in court that he is not the source, it’s only to save his ass. The have not made that claim yet.
All that I am claiming is that those who offered the lack of a police capt named Jamil Gholaim Hussein in the police department as proof that the AP made up the story are wrong. They didn’t have proof even when they thought they couldn’t find him. They jumped to a lot of conclusions based on that to confirm what they already decided was true and now that he has been found, they owe an apology at the very least. His non-existence has been the only thing offered as proof that the AP story is false and they were wrong. The US and Iraqi officials were the first to discount the story and in the best position to gather such evidence but they have not. They have instead attacked the AP on the supposedly made up source. Their credibility has been hurt by this. The critics such as Milken never had any credibility to start with. I have no reason to doubt the original AP story or any of their other stories. FOX news must not either because all of the headline news articles on their website are from the AP.
You were wrong when you said you don’t believe he existed. You were wrong. Because he does exist, much of your reporting from Iraq is subject to dispute.