Per hypocrisyrules, E & P is reporting that the Iraqi police have found Jamail Hussein.
I’m buried until Sunday when a project is delivered, but have sent a few emails and will chase more down early next week.
I’ll note that AP (who delivered the “he’s found” story) obviously hasn’t been ignoring the complaints, and that had they simply said “That’s weird, give us a week and we’ll have some kind of explanation” and continued – with some transparency – to explain what they were doing, I’d have spend less time in High Dudgeon.
There’s still the issue of whether he’s telling any kind of truth that anyone would recognize…but let’s take it one step at a time.
Actually, according to the report I read, all the AP has is someone in the Iraqi military claiming that Jamail is a real person and that they’ve issued a warrant for his arrest because he’s been illegally speaking to the press. That doesn’t seem like the strongest proof that Jamail actually does exist, and as you point out, even if he does exist it’s awfully weird that no one else seems to have seen the burnings that Jamail did. The AP’s not off my “s” list yet…
hmmmmm, that is weird. didn’t the AP do just that after the first volley of complaints. They looked into it and came back and said, why yes, by golly, he does in fact exist and works at the police station, which, by the by, they identified. Anyone could have gone there and looked them up who doubted his existence. What more could or should they have done?
what if he exists and is telling the truth?
But what, of course, there is no way to know if the current AP article is true. Suppose this alleged Brig. Khalaf is another fiction of the AP. Come to think of it, I read an AP story this morning that quoted a guy the AP described as “President Bush.” Perhaps he is a fabrication. We can only hope.
There’s also the issue of whether the dust-up in the Right-wing blogosphere, which you contributed to, Marc, has led to the warrant for the arrest of this man.
I cannot imagine that you could be proud of this. If so, you are not quite the person I thought you were.
mark – quickly (on a call) a bunch of people did go by the police station – if you’ll recall some folks I know found a Sgt. jamil Hussein there, but no Captain by that name. So lots of confusion – which is typical.
My stance on AP’s position remains. Note the difference between the BBC journalist (here’s what we’re doing, how do we make it more transparent) and the AP (we like what we do, so lump it). That’s as large an issue, I’ll suggest. And the fact that the Ap went and pursued the issue – while telling us they wouldn’t is a good step.
A.L.
AL
appreciating your on a call, I’ll try to be brief. I’m not so sure they were pursuing this beyond hoping the MOI would finally fess up or get their act together or whatever was keeping them from denying what was, apparently, in plain sight all along.
the confusion of others you mention is hardly the fault of AP. They gave his full name and place of employment. From their point of view, to give more would have been to give in to the demands of a pack of relentless hounds.
Your whole argument about AP’s behavior could only have been legitimate if they were hiding something. If they weren’t, they really did all they could be expected of them. He’s there. We saw him. Go look if you doubt.
Andy X – oh no, someone who quite possibly did something illegal and immoral might be arrested because of Marc.
Oh, the humanity. I don’t know how he will ever sleep at night.
In case you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic.
Nicholas, I’m a little confused, What did Jamail G. Hussein do that was illegal and immoral? If talking to the press is illegal in Iraq, what the hell have we accomplished over there?
Added a link to your post at “CENTCOM says AP’s ‘Iraqi police source’ isn’t Iraqi police — Part 29”:http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/2007/01/jamil_identifie.html A short excerpt from my post:
You know where this is going, people. Check out this paragraph from the AP piece Michelle linked to:
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.
What we’re going to be hearing by Saturday is:
bq.”Jamil’s afraid of getting arrested so he’s gone so deep underground that even his old AP contacts can’t find him. But we really did talk to him last week. Really we did. _Really_!”
Illegal AND immoral, Nick? How so?
I can tell you’re trying to be sarcastic, pal, but obtuse? Not sure yet.
Andy X, mark, when he signed up with the police he signed a contract which said he would not talk to the media. He broke that contract. As I understand, that is why he is being arrested – for breaching his agreement with the government and overstepping his bounds.
As for immoral, don’t you think telling the press false stories is immoral? I do. I wouldn’t talk to a newspaper and make up a story, or report rumor as fact. I think it’s immoral.
In order to clarify: reportedly, a warrant has been issued for his arrest.
I don’t know exactly how the Iraqi justice system works, but assuming it isn’t too dissimilar to ours, an arrest warrant is issued by a judge, once he or she has seem some evidence that the person or people who is named in the warrant may have committed a crime.
Where did this arrest warrant come from, if he is not suspected of doing something illegal? This does not mean, of course, he is guilty, but there must be some reasonable suspicion or else the warrant would not be issued. So ask yourself this: if you don’t think anything he did could be illegal, how are they going to arrest him?
As for immoral, breaking some laws require immoral action, some do not. I believe making a contract with someone and then unilaterally breaking it to be immoral, let alone what he actually did. The evidence we have (or, if you prefer, the lack of evidence we have) points to his having lied to the press, and by extension, to us. You don’t see anything wrong with that?
Nicholas, were did you get this contract information from. According the to the AP story, so far the only source on this matter, Hussein was a police officer before the present gov’t was formed. Also, there is mention of a pledge for new officers, although this is from the same department that previously claimed the man they are arresting didn’t exist, so perhaps we should take what they have to say with a small grain of salt.
As for his furnishing AP with false information. that’s merely an allegation on your part. As far as I know, it hasn’t been substantiated.
If telling the press something one knows to be false is immoral, then our dear president is immoral, along with every politician and well, just about everyone. Liars deserve to be arrested now, is that your belief?
Mark-right on the money about Nick’s contention that is is “immoral”.
Nicholas;
He signed “a contract”? Really? And this contract makes it illegal to speak to the press?
Does this sound like a Democracy to you?
Either you’re a fool or are attempting to hijack this issue with troll-talk. Put up or shut up.
On the other hand, I think it must be taken into consideration that this is a political arrest and the Right wing blowhards in America who are capable of making a BIG, PUBLIC stink, Danziger included, may be partly if not largely to blame.
I wonder if this man has a wife, children? I wonder how Danziger feels if he thinks his actions helped to put a man into the custody of the Iraqi police force…especially after what happened to Saddam.
I doubt he cares…people who advocate so vociferously and mindlessly for war rarely do.
Oh, I get it, the “someone else did something bad, therefore it’s OK for me to do something bad” defence.
I find that repugnant.
And why do you equate “immoral” to “should be arrested”? Just because I pointed out that what he did is immoral, and he’s being arrested, it does not therefore follow that I’m claiming that everyone who does something immoral ought to be arrested.
I don’t see how “democracy” implies free speech. I support free speech but I don’t assume, just because a country is democratic, that they have it. England doesn’t, for example. Are you saying they aren’t a democracy?
Your responses are so full of fallacies, I honestly don’t know where to begin. If I come across the article explaining about the contract, I’ll post a link. But I honestly don’t know why I should bother trying to respond to you seriously when you won’t respond to me seriously.
You know, I’m getting awfully sick of these double standards.
Illegal things it’s OK to do:
* Tell lies to the press, despite the MOI rules saying people in your position aren’t allowed to speak to the press in an official capacity.
* Not show up to be deployed to an overseas theatre of operations.
* Hire illegal immigrants
* Go to a foreign country and become a terrorist, fight against your country of citizenship. In this case you should be let off scott free.
* Keep large amounts of bribe cash in your freezer.
“Illegal” things it’s not OK to do:
* Depose a dictator who has killed millions of people, when you have U.N. and congressional approval to do so.
* Anything else a Republican does.
Nice double standards. And I’m a troll? Well I did just use reductio ad absurdum. But I think my point stands.
Nick;
Wow, great, thanks for playing, buddy. Better luck next time.
I should finish that thought.
Better luck next time….trying to construct a coherent response to simple challenges to your factual claims.
_There’s also the issue of whether the dust-up in the Right-wing blogosphere, which you contributed to, Marc, has led to the warrant for the arrest of this man._
Way out of bounds. Here’s a piece from wikipedia:
bq. Some Associated Press reporters allegedly used fake sources, in particular a purported police captain Jamil Hussein, for their reporting of sectarian violence in Iraq. *Recently, it was reported that a Jamail Hussein may have been located in the Yarmouk police station, as originally claimed by AP* but this claim was withdrawn when it was found he was not the AP’s source.
“Here”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press (as of 1/4/07)
Who is cited with reporting the potential location of Hussein? “Marc”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009297.php
Here is the AP story where they say:
In case you’re going to quibble about the difference between a “pledge” and a “contract”, let’s take a look at Roget’s Thesaurus:
Andy X : I’m sorry you couldn’t comprehend my response. Still, I’d rather post an incoherent response than a fallacious one.
I grow tired of your ranting. If you want to continue you’ll have to find someone else willing to play your game. I’ve been tired of “I’m-always-right-you’re-always-wrong” since primary school.
Andy X:
Sounds exactly like our democracy, where secrecy agreements and gag orders are commonplace even in peacetime.
I’m touch by your concern for this police captain, though. I’m glad there’s one Iraqi besides Saddam Hussein that you care about.
Mickey Kaus summed it up nicely:
“Capt. Jamil Hussein, controversial AP source, seems to exist. That’s one important component of credibility!”
Corroboration of his “eyewitness accounts” would be another important component.
So, six people were torched. What were their names?
Seems a simple question, now doesn’t it?
As a general rule, if you want to know what’s going on in Iraq, all you need to do is see what the folks at Winds of Change are saying.
Because the exact opposite is true.
Imagine the AP being dismissive of a bunch of rightwing bloggers who haven’t had a clue about the reality on the ground in Iraq.
Imagine news consumers who are skeptical about a news organization that has repeatedly handed them unsubstantiated or even fabricated information, and you’ll know what life is like on our planet.
Imagine a news organization – that relies so heavily on public trust – responding to public inquiry into their stories with arrogance and elitist contempt, and it will dawn on you that it will take a hell of a lot more than a Captain Jamil Hussein to repair the AP’s credibility problems.
Names, Geek.
The AP wants to silence critics? Just name some names that aren’t pulled out of a hat. And the human interest stories around those six supposedly crispy-fried Sunni’s families would probably earn some nice bottom-line dollars, and possibly a Pulitzer or two.
Easy peasy. Or so you’d think.
“Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, told the news agency that Capt. Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station.”
Well, imho this shows that the most important rule is: Don’t trust ANY Iraqi sources. You have been wagging the wrong dog all the time. Btw, who were the sources for your reporting here that there is no Cpt. Hussein in Khadra?
“So, six people were torched. What were their names?
Seems a simple question, now doesn’t it?”
An even simpler question would be:
“So, two guys filmed Saddam’s execution. What were their names?”
In today’s Iraq, plagued by sectarian violence and political power play, there are no easy answers.
#21
Here’s what else that link says, Nick:
“He said police officers sign a pledge not to talk to reporters when they join the force. He did not explain why Jamil Hussein had become an issue now, given that he had been named by AP in dozens of news reports dating back to early 2006. Before that, he had been a reliable source of police information since 2004 but had not been quoted by name.”
So my point still stands that the Right wing lynch mob/101st Fighting Keyboardists may have taken out another enemy in the only way it knows how to…
Furthermore, the definition of what a “pledge” means under these circumstances has nothing to do at all with what Webster’s says. Is that an Iraqi legal document now? You’ve got no leg to stand on in your argument, but I am impressed that you at least provided the link, even if it did completely undermine your claim.
#23
Glen.
Gag orders are imposed by judges. So that example is meaningless.
As far as “secrecy agreements”, clearly this is so vague as to also be meaningless for the purposes you advance it. See the complete statement above that I reproduced from Nick’s source. Now tell me that they’re following some Iraqi law in issuing a warrant for his arrest.
You both are illustrating perfectly the Rightwing definition of “Law”….it’s whatever you say it is, bent to suit your purposes whenever necessary.
Nicholas,
“Oh, I get it, the “someone else did something bad, therefore it’s OK for me to do something bad” defence.
I find that repugnant.”
That’s not what I said. I wasn’t offering a defence. I was pointing out that something as common as lying to the press shouldn’t be considered a jailable offense, as you seemed to indicate you thought it was.
“And why do you equate “immoral” to “should be arrested”? Just because I pointed out that what he did is immoral, and he’s being arrested, it does not therefore follow that I’m claiming that everyone who does something immoral ought to be arrested.”
Well, Nicholas, go back and read your first post. You are the one who brought up the immoral issue and directly connected it to his arrest warrant.
“I don’t see how “democracy” implies free speech. I support free speech but I don’t assume, just because a country is democratic, that they have it. England doesn’t, for example. Are you saying they aren’t a democracy?”
You don’t see how democracy implies free speech? Really? I’m sorry but the connection is so self-evident that I cannot explain it any better. Direct cause-and-effect. England does have free speech. In fact, libel laws are even more lax than here. What England does have is an official secrets act, which means that classified information cannot be published, rather like in the USA. There are some secrets one cannot leak to the press, such as the identity of a CIA agent, but one is perfectly free to talk to the press about all other matters—indeed, I would say, most matters, such as who you saw getting shot down the street yesterday morning.
Someone might pledge to their employer that they will never speak to the media as a condition of their employment, but—c’mon’—arrested! Good effing grief, is that the kind of Iraq our kids our dying for? Here we all our debating the behavior of AP and the extent of its transparency and accuracy and suddenly half of us our supporting this notion that it’s legitimate for the gov’t we are supporting with blood & bucks to prevent its employees from speaking to the media!–and this just to save face because some guy you hoped didn’t exist in order to reinforce your entrenched but unsubstantiated belief that the US media wants America to lose a war may turn out to exist after all. It’s just getting childish at this point.
Mark P.
“So, six people were torched. What were their names?
Seems a simple question, now doesn’t it?”
Yes, Mark, it seems a very simple question. However, are you going to try to tell me that you believe the answer is just as simple?
Tell me also, please, that when the AP runs a story such as “Seven insurgents were killed in an airstrike today, according to US military spokesman. Villagers claimed the dead were civilians” you require the AP to provide the names of the dead and proof that they were insurgents. No, of course you don’t.
There’s a war going on in Iraq. AP reports claims from others since it would very rare that their reports or stringers would be eyewitnesses to all the reportable events.
People would be well advised around here to go back and read the original AP reports. They never claimed that people were burnt alive. They claimed that witnesses told them people were burned alive. AP also printed the fact that US & Iraqi sources denied the event occured.
In other words, they did their job.
Crow has a gamey taste, kind of like chicken with a bit more zest.
#32:
I’m not sure it’s necessary to say this, but if X is being sought under an arrest warrant for speaking to the press (lying to the press?) and it’s known that X signed a pledge not to do so, it’s not exactly outrageous to speculate that the pledge was legally binding. It is a bit outrageous, however, to speculate that the pledge was not a contract and that X is being sought for arrest out of some sort of perversity… without the slightest shred of evidence for such a speculation.
At any rate, at this point it’s entirely proper that the emphasis ought to shift to the veracity of the stories related by Captain Hussein. Any contention that this is improper is offal.
How does his possible exposure change anything? He’s still the sole source for dozens of stories, and the AP has still yet to produce anything close to their initial claims on the Mosque destruction/burning of 6 people story that Hussien is the source for.
This is not moving of goalposts, the story has always been that the AP’s report was full of shit, and the fact that the only source they used for the story has materialized (but as of yet still hasn’t had his story corroborated) means very little.
I beg your pardon. There is actually another possible reason why Iraqi authorities might want to arrest Jamil Hussein, besides an oath not to disclose. It’s possible he’s a disseminator of false information in an attempt to undermine the government, so would essentially be regarded as an insurgent. But again, the test involves whether or not his stories are factual, or invented. So far, as Ed suggests no evidence has been presented to substantiate the mosque-burning story, among others.
Glen’s right. In the U.S., public bodies routinely bar employees from talking with the media either by contract or by regulation. The reason is that these government agencies have public relations personnel whose job it is to work with the media, and inaccurate information prevents the government from doing its job. There have been a host of disciplinary actions in the State of Illinois in the last several years on this point. My brother was subpoenaed to be a witness to one such hearing last year.
It shouldn’t be surprising that a police officer talking to the media about a police-related matter might have broken a rule. It would be surprising to me if the punishment were more than a simple fine or demotion.
It would also not surprise me if the arrest warrant is intended to get him into custody voluntarily where additional charges will be handed to him. If any of his communications to the media were also false and increased violence, then he would properly be incarcerated.
Well heckuva job there Marc and friends. You’ve demonstrated your compassion for all those poor Iraqis yet again.
Just one question Marc, the phone numbers? Ya know, of your intrepid Iraqi reporters who were getting to the bottom of this fabrication?
First and last names would be nice too.
When you get a chance and all.
True but that’s not what happened here. In this case, the police denied the man ever existed, and the US Military denied the man ever existed (rather emphatically oddly enough).
Then the government turns around and admits his existance, and possibly arrests him?
Then again we are comparing this situation to what would happen in America, which has sort of been our blind spot overall for the past 4 years.
Then again it’s possible he’s a really annoying mime in his off time so they want to lock him up.
Keep searching for that pony!
Jamil Hussein may or may not exist.
But AP’s reluctance to discuss the matter probably comes out of something else.
Very likely he DOES exist in some form (real name or pseudonym) but is a person directly tied to the Al Qaeda terrorists.
It’s the norm for Western Press agencies to use terrorist-related or active terrorists as their stringers. They are the only ones who can move around without danger, and it keeps their offices safe if they act as propaganda outlets for terrorists.
Which they do. AP, Reuters, France-Presse, the rest have all been caught using terrorists as stringers. Fauxtography anyone?
Very likely nearly ALL the stories that Jamil Hussein was the sole source for were either outright fabrications or distortions or exaggerations, as nearly all the reporting out of Lebanon was (direct from Hezbollah).
This is why AP dug in their heels, and refused to defend the factual basis of their stories. Because they knew from the nature (Al Qaeda terrorist) of their source that the stories were bunk. Hokum. FALSE.
Bill Burkett certainly existed. However the TANG memos were as phony as Jamil Hussein’s stories.
Consider this: of the sixty odd stories he was the sole source for, ALL cited Shia violence against Sunnis. Given Iraq how likely is that to be the case?
I think Greg Sargeant summed it up perfectly.
Davebo,
On the contrary, it’s time to pay this story more attention. Look, if it turns out that the Iraqi police are this our of touch that’s very, very bad. If it turns out, as the AP implies, that the Sheik who spoke of the burnings was pressured to retract and that Jamil Hussein was right that’s a bomb-shell. We need to know.
Of course, the story is still very strange. The AP says in its story that the Iraqi police will be asking the AP to identify the man they believe to be Jamil Hussein. Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the source claims he isn’t the source. If the AP refuses to ID him one way or the other there is still no source. The AP will have implied that a man who claims he isn’t the source is the source and then the AP will have refused to ID him as the source. They’ll still be propping up a story that looks very bogus with smoke and mirrors.
Also there is still the matter of whether the story is true. The facts seem to indicate it isn’t. It will be interesting to what this guy has to say.
It will also be interesting to see the fall out from this. My guess is that the AP is hurt, and chances are good they will be hurt more. The Iraqi police have done themselves a lot of damage. There is also potential for the Iraqi government as a whole to be injured very badly.
Where ever the chips fall we need to know.
In the best kind of irony, today is the anniversary of the National Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer, declared by President James Buchanan in 1861.
Davebo,
You’re not paying attention. Read the AP story. It appears that the source claims he isn’t the source. At this point all we have is a story that appears false. The AP seems to be attempting to prop it up with a source who claims he isn’t the source. Further the AP seems to indicate that it will be reluctant to identify him as the source. Trust me, the AP is hurt, and this particular story hasn’t helped them nearly so much as you hope, especially among other news people, I would imagine.
On the other hand, there is the possibility that the source is the source and is telling the truth. Which could indicate that the Sheik who originally reported the story was intimidated into silence. That would be of crucial importance to know. An Iraqi government that is intimidating its won citizens into silence regarding atrocities committed upon them would be a horror.
Either way there is a lot of work left to be done here, and it is imperative that it be done.
davebo: _Then again we are comparing this situation to what would happen in America_
That wasn’t my point. Andy X (#15) made the normative comparison when he said something like this couldn’t happen in a democracy. It can and does, the sense of feigned outrage is without basis.
Ya think? How about an Iraqi Interior Ministry serving as torture central controlled by radical Militia members?
Is any of this truly “news” to you?
From what I gather, two complaints are being made:
1. They are going to kill ’em. (or torture him or punish him)
2. He is innocent.
Neither of which anybody knows to be true.
#47
There’s nothing false about my outrage, I assure you.
The false outrage is clearly on the side of those who pretend that this issue is about anything other than sowing public doubt and making excuses for a mess they helped create. And the nature of these (more or less constant) efforts is exactly as one would expect from those who confuse the virtual and real worlds. Their world is this world; comfort is sought in surrounding themselves in a bubble of misinformation and lies that is self-propogating in the Lyosphere, with Malkin and Reynolds serving as important nodes to coalesce the false outrage into a form that can be easily propogated.
If it gets large enough, this bubble can escape into the world and everyone who wants to feel good about their prejudices, ignorance or just plain stupidity can draw it around themselves.
On this issue, one point does bear repeating I think:
Marc the “ARMED LIBERAL” Danziger played a willful role in this latest outbreak of Right Wing Lynch Mob idiocy. For his part, he bears some responsibility for whatever may happen to the leaker (who seems destined to become a casualty of the PR war being fought by the Right) and predictable staunching of the flow of information out of Iraq (where every source is valuable).
You cannot wear the hood by night and act like an innocent Liberal by day, Marc.
For the record, the IP says if the AP reporter wont ID him he wont be charged. The AP reporter isnt going to, so that will be that.
Davebo,
That’s what we’re trying to figure out. Work on this story will go a long way in that direction. You and Andy X have evidenced a serious fondness for cover-up from the beginning on this. Now that the investigation is moving you are more hysterical than ever that it should be dropped. I’m sorry. You didn’t read the AP article very closely, and your comments, though covered with spittle aren’t very serious.
Don’t get me wrong. I think you believe you’re serious instead of just silly. Which makes it all the more sad. Let’s see how this turns out. At this point it could be that the Sheik was intimidated into silence. We don’t know that yet. Shutting down the enquiry won’t tell us.
It could also be that this person claims he isn’t the source Hussein and that the AP for one reason or another won’t identify him as the source.
What’s more it still appears from the facts that the story was false. There is more investigation to be done. At the end of the day things might cut your way. Your frothing leads me to suspect you believe they won’t.
Also I can’t help but point out that you took the completely opposite track on the Plame case, screaming for investigations (and indictments and convictions) when even Bob Woodward noticed that it was pretty much nothing about nothing. After Richard Armitage copped you sort of well, shut-up.
You accuse everyone who disagrees with you politically of using this matter to undermine the media picture of Iraq, but at the same time you used the Plame case to undermine the administration quite falsely, and you call for cover-up here before the facts have all come out here.
Maybe you’re not silly after all. Maybe you are a partisan so wrapped up in your own ideology that you have no regard for the truth at all.
Andy X
So by your lights, the gag on Cpt. Hussein would be “democratic” if it were imposed by a judge?
Police and other officials are routinely told not to talk to the media, not just by judges but by their superiors. So are many other individuals in many other situations, who can be fired, sued, or even prosecuted if they do not comply. Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with it.
So your “argument” that Iraq can’t be a democracy if the police aren’t allowed to talk to the media is false and absurd.
That wasn’t my argument, Glen.
Too bad that so few are willing to follow Austin Bay’s fine example.
http://austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=1588
Also, I’m curious where this notion of “wrong about one thing = wrong about everything” comes from.
Why on earth would anyone embrace such a standard?
For one thing, it perpetuates a refusal to admit error, which prevents people from making better policy decisions.
But more importantly, everyone is going to be wrong about something at some time. Why would you put yourself in a position of having to either invalidate your own perspectives or else subscribe to a double standard?
Let’s raise the debate here, people.
In the words of the Gipper.. There you go again.
It seems dreaming up positions and attributing them to me without a shred of supporting evidence has become a full time job for you.
Maybe. Heck I’m a hate the military, blame America first, Joe Wilson lover already.
Why not tack on blind partisan. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
And Marc, those phone numbers you promised?
It’s imperative that we get to the bottom of this crucial question.
Come to think of it, perhaps it’s best if Marc, Michelle, Glenn and Corvan concentrate on this incredibly important issue.
It might keep you busy and out of the way while the grownups see if there’s any way possible to minimize the long term impact of the mess they created and cheered.
Tylonius,
“Also, I’m curious where this notion of “wrong about one thing = wrong about everything” comes from.
Why on earth would anyone embrace such a standard?”
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Bless your heart. I couldn’t have said it any better myself and, believe me, I have been trying.
AP must report well over 300,000 stories a year. I’m supposed to mistrust all of them because of one possible but as yet unproven error?
Gimme a break.
Davebo,
The issue here isn’t decided. From the AP’s own article it’s pretty apparent that the source here is claiming he’s not the source. Is that true? I don’t know. No one does until someone speaks with this guy.
Yet you object to anyone speaking with him. Was the Sheik who claimed the Sunis were burned mistaken, was he lying, was he intimidated? I don’t know. We won’t know for certain until someone gets to the bottom of this Jamil Hussein thing. Yet you howl that no one should look.
At this point it seems that to you not knowing is more important than knowing. That’s just pathetic, and not very grown up either.
I’m sorry you’ve substituted arm waving for argument and invective for reason, just like you did during the Plame affair. That’s why you weren’t persuasive then and why you aren’t persuasive now. That’s why this story still merits attention. How it will turn out I don’t know, but you don’t seem to want to know. That’s just strange.
Mark,
No you’re not supposed to distrust all of those stories. It’s just sort of odd that you seem to really hate the fact that any one is looking into this one.
Mark,
You also have studiously avoided the fact that Jamil Hussein is a source in not just one AP story but in sixty of them. That’s a very large fact to hide from.
_Also, I’m curious where this notion of “wrong about one thing = wrong about everything” comes from._
The point I made in an earlier comment was that Roman civil law utilized the principle of _falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus,_ meaning “false in one thing, false in everything.” It didn’t apply simply to be wrongs or mistakes, but to intentional falsehoods, deceits and lies. Yes, people make mistakes, but if you’ve been deceived, do you trust them again or do you seek independent verification? Great White also had a rule: “Once Bitten Twice Shy”
Here, the AP said the guy existed even though others couldn’t locate him. The AP couldn’t easily have been mistaken about his existance, so if the AP was wrong it was almost certainly lying. OTOH, those who couldn’t find the guy could either have been inadvertant or intentional in their failures.
Great Jupiter’s Balls. Now you’ve got A.L. dressed up in a Klan costume, trying to lynch some Iraqi policeman who probably doesn’t even exist, and I guess you must be Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird. Once again you confirm my view of the anti-war left as a Junior High School Drama Club.
Has it occurred to you, Andy, that AP quoted this man by name (on multiple occasions) and if he suffers any dire effect thereby they would bear part of the responsibility – the other part being borne by the captain himself, who surely understood that he was defying orders?
I trust you are now fully corrected on this issue. Comparing people you disagree with to klansmen is standard operating procedure in your gang, but uttering criticism of the sacred Associated Press is a thought-crime.
I’m sure you won’t bring this up again, and have in fact already forgotten about it.
Andy X,
Davebo has been over zealous to the point of incoherence. You are acting unhinged. Because AL wants to know what happened with this story doesn’t make him a Klansman or a mass murderer or anything else, it makes him interested in the truth. Something you seemd to fear coming out. Look, being a caricature, which is what you are doing at this point, convinces no one of anything.
Why can’t you let the facts come out in this case? They might cut your way. Though the ferocity of your hatred for all those that are looking at this thing sort of makes me suspect you believe they won’t. I don’t know why.
Perhaps I took the “lynch mob” idea too far in this particular case, Glen; You’re right to point that out.
PD, I think you are ignoring a huge central fact here concerning the AP. There is an enormous record against which this incident can be judged. Your nice quote from Roman civil law is not applicable. AP has a rather distinguished international century-old track record, as well as 1,000s of employees, to take into account. That one reporter erred–deliberately or otherwise, IF he erred at all–shouldn’t be a reason to doubt the veracity of all the other reporters through space and time that have filed stories for the same organization.
I might very well distrust this particular reporter in the future. But I am not going be any more skeptical about other AP reports or reporters.
Corvan, I don’t hate the fact that anyone is looking into these matters. I dispute certain conclusions some people attempt to draw from the known facts. As I have said many times before–to you in particular–I am all in favor of those who have doubted this source’s existence to go out and see what they can substantiate.
I realize the Hussein has been used a source for several years. The current article repeats what the AP has long said. But it needs to be pointed out the conclusions you attempt to draw from this fact require you to already believe–before the facts are known–that any of his accounts are bogus.
Sure, if his account of one thing appears to me to be bogus, I would take that into consideration when evaluating the likely veracity of his other accounts.
#64
Corvan;
Right, AL is interested in the “truth”…but only when seeking this helps him to achieve what I think are plainly his real goals….mentioned several times in this thread so not to be repeated again.
Andy X,
You’ve done more than taken the lynch mob idea too far. You trying to use it as a club to stifle enquiry into the facts of this story. Of course I assume you figure AL deserves it because he is an apostate.
Mark,
As far as the conclusions go you’ve got a point. We just won’t know until some talks with this fellow. Therefore I assume you’re okay with him being talked with, unlike Andy X and Davebo. Be warned though, if that is the case Andy X will be forced to accuse you of all sorts of foul and corrupt deeds. Not the least of which is not being “an innocent liberal.”
mark:
If the account turns out to be correct, I would expect – and I am confident in my expectation – that A.L., Malkin, Professor Glenn “Superfluous N” Reynolds, and others who have questioned this story will acknowledge the facts, and not ignore or belittle them.
That is, not merely the existence of Jamil Hussein, but the verification of the mosque attack he described. I suppose we would have to accept the latest abridged version of the story, because in the original accounts it was 3 mosques that were burned and dozens of people who were killed.
If this is established, then the AP is “vindicated” to that extent. It will not excuse the manner in which the AP has responded to this controversy, however, and further criticism on that score will remain fully justified. Neither will it give the AP a blank check on future credibility.
In the end, you need only to point out to the AP that they are poorly serving their own self-interest. The credibility of a news organization depends on how well their stories stand up, not on how loudly they abuse their critics. Responding to inquiry with ad hominem attacks gives an impression of guilt, not innocence.
I couldn’t care less what they do. The more they rail against the blogs the more they sound like dying dinosaurs, but that’s their problem.
Here’s a little news item, fresh off the AP wire, that some in here may be interested in:
“The body of an Associated Press employee was found shot in the back of the head Friday, six days after he was last seen by his family leaving for work.
Ahmed Hadi Naji, 28, was the fourth AP staffer to die violently in the Iraq war and the second AP employee killed in less than a month. He had been a messenger and occasional cameraman for the AP for 2 1/2 years.”
Of course, this may just be another fabrication on their part to help turn opinion against the war so that the US will lose, which, after all is AP’s not-so-secret reason for its existence.
Scratch full time, you are now officially in overtime in ascribing beliefs to me I don’t hold.
I strongly encourage you to hop a plane and go speak with the man. It may occupy your time enough that you don’t have time to waste putting words in my mouth.
But frankly, I’ve had enough of your dishonest claims, personal attacks, and assertions that I’m just an unserious child.
So, with all due respect, get on that plane, or GFY.
I won’t be wasting electrons on you in the future.
Come on Mark, Ahmed Hadi Naji?
Look at that name. The guy was obviously just publishing Al Qaida propaganda (when he wasn’t being tipped on where to show up to get some good execution photos).
Glen (without an extra en),
“I couldn’t care less what they do.” This after 4 carefully constructed paragraphs of caring? C’mon now, Glen. Fess up. You do so care.
Davebo,
You are probably right. This is probably just a new version of suicide bombing on the part of the terrorists. They are now killing each other deliberately, terrorists killing terrorists-in-disguise-as-reporters (who until their death were working feverishly to dissmeninate terrorst propoganda) in order to turn US public sympathies against the war that is on the verge of eradicating their kind. Damn! these guys are clever. Like those Gitmo prisoners who killed themselves as PR ploy.
Two observations:
First, don’t talk to press rules aren’t unheard of in private sector jobs in the US. The company I work for now has a rule against talking to the press about company business. And in some sectors (particularly engineering type jobs), contract based free speech limitations are the norm.
Second, the AP isn’t an individual, or a political group, it’s a corporation that sells news. News is supposed to be real and verifiable, otherwise it’s either fiction or a theory. And there have been a LOT of big multinational corporations getting caught red-handed in credibility concerns recently (I blame the takeover of boardrooms by accounting/marketing types from the operations types personally).
For a company who’s entire product is essentially their credibility, can any question be more germane than if their product is accurate? You may remember another large, extremely trusted company with a superb reputation who’s product was their credibility? Does the name Arthur Andersen LLP ring a bell?
Let’s generalize the terms here, maybe it’ll help a bit. Customer orders product from company. Company provides product. Customer has questions over whether product provided was what was ordered. Company tells customer to jump in lake. Customer is upset. Company is upset. Wrangle continues.
The real irony here are the hordes of liberal posters leaping to the defense of a multinational corporation whose standard practice is to outsource work to poorly compensated ‘local stringers’ working in terribly hazardous conditions. Nike execs must be turning green with envy.
Treefrog,
2 comments about your 2 observations:
yes, some people sign confidentiality agreements as a condition of employment. If they breach them, they lose their jobs….they don’t go to jail. A distinction with a profound difference, I’d say.
yes, AP’s product is news. Perhaps–and this is still unknown–one item recently shipped was sub-standard. However, over 300,000 similar products were shipped and purchased this last year without complaint. The question would then be, given that ratio of 1/300,000, would you take a chance and buy another scoop?
its pretty ugly to suggest that anyone here feels some sort of vindication at the death of an AP employee.
The insurgents/terrorists are fighting an informational war. The media is part of the battleground. That means members of the media are in extremely vulnerable position to be intimidated and killed. Outsourcing the work to locals poses a real risk of infiltration and the further risk to family members. I have all the sympathy for people trying to do their job in demanding circumstances, but the only reason it would make sense for these risks to be taken is in fealty to the truth.
_they don’t go to jail._
Unsubstantiated. He might simply be fined.
PD
“Outsourcing the work to locals poses a real risk”!!! Outsource the work to locals? Are you shttng me? First of all, isn’t that an oxymoron, don’t you outsource to foreignors by definition? Can a foreignor outsource a job to someone in his own country? well nevermind all that. Are you seriously suggesting that only Americans are somehow capable of reporting honestly and that arabs or Iraqi’s or non-americans are not incapable of such activities?
PD
he might. let me change my language and substitute “going to jail” with “having an arrest warrant issued” or, even better, simply “arrested.”
mark: _don’t you outsource to foreignors by definition_
no. you’re thinking of offshoring.
PD, you are quite right about that. I was wrong.
Corvan;
Why is it that so many debates with Right wingers include comments like this?
“Therefore I assume you’re okay with him being talked with, unlike Andy X and Davebo. Be warned though, if that is the case Andy X will be forced to accuse you of all sorts of foul and corrupt deeds. Not the least of which is not being “an innocent liberal.”
I’d hate to live inside the thick skull of someone who thinks he already knows what other people will think or say on the basis of a few hundred words transmitted across the internet.
I think this is a nice example of extreme bias and prejudice. Thanks for illustrating your thought processes, such as they are.
Andy X,
So says the man that labeled AL a murder, on a par, I suppose, with the men that hanged Leo Frank. And he has the cojones to come back to the spot where he tossed out the insult and pretend his feelings are hurt because he was called on it. How impressive.
Mark,
The whole question of press accuracy is a very interesting one, and the main reason I am interested in this case. I would be very curious to see what the overall accuracy rate is for the AP or any other media organization. You imply that the AP ships 300,000 and all of them except maybe this 1 story are accurate. The problem is that I don’t think anyone actually knows how many of the remaining 299,999 are accurate. To the best of my knowledge, no one has bothered to run a controlled experiment to see what the overall accuracy rate has been for the AP or any other media outlets. Now, many stories are low impact (human interest, fringe, etc.) and can be ignored for this purpose, but you can’t just assume that all of the remainder are correct. There’s probably some low rate of errors for any media outlet, we just don’t know what the actual number is.
If anyone knows of any studies or papers in this field, please share.
Davebo,
If you feel I have called you names I apologize. In fact, I believe what I’ve done is note your behaviour. On that I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
It is a measure of the divisiveness of this topic that I’ve not found any sober, evenhanded discussion of this issue. But today I did find this, and I cannot improve on it:
. And who wrote that? Eason Jordan. I suppose in writing this he will please no one. He must be used to it now.
Okay Mark, Alex X and Davebo, let me spell it out for you:
1. Yes, journalism is hard, and journalists themselves are often facing tight timelines which make achieving perfection darn near impossible. Anyone who has ever interacted with the media and then read the article about their story in the paper next day knows that. Thing is, nobody really gives a crap about it because in the grand scheme of things small errors on inconsequential stories are meaningless.
2. Articles about Iraq must be held to a different standard. Here, articles can sway public opinion, impact government policy, and literally change the lives of millions of people for good or ill. It is therefore impossible to be an informed citizen, or hold anything even remotely close to a reasoned opinion on the Iraq war, if the information you are provided on that issue is wrong, misleading, out of context or incomplete.
3. The problem with much of the mainstream media’s reporting coming from Iraq is that there is a perceived bias toward inaccurate, sensationalistic and negative stories which portray the US and the war effort in the worst possible light. Worse, stories and context which might mitigate that negativity appear to be routinely ignored.
4. In other words, there is a big difference between editorializing and reporting. The former is opinion which can take any slant imaginable – with the consumer’s awareness — while the latter is (supposed to be) impartial fact delivered along with appropriate context.
5. When the AP runs a story which 1) appears to be blatantly false, 2) attributes it to someone who’s very existence cannot be verified, 3) it turns out that some 60-odd stories have already been attributed to this same individual, 4) the vast majority of these stories are directly or indirectly damning of the United States, and 5) the AP does not appear to be very concerned about this, then we have a problem on our hands.
*That* is why this is a big deal, and that is why it is worth continuing to pursue as diligently as possible. To sniff at AL and brush off the entire thing as yet another right-wing witch hunt is utterly counterproductive, because it has nothing do with helping understand reality (which is what I think most of us here at WoC want) and thereby making rational go-forward decisions, and everything to do with blindly swallowing information designed to help achieve the desired public opinion / public policy outcome(s) of a small number of unelected, unaccountable individuals whose motivations and goals are unknown.
BooPear,
You should be turning your ire on Centcom, and the Iraq government – they are the ones who “truly” started this, by quickly DENYING the story! Number one, they have a hell of a lot more information, and two, they are the accepted person of discourse.
And BOTH Centcom and the Iraq govt quickly denied, and didn’t give a damn about the truth of the matter.
Redo your entire screed there, for U.S. military officials – because they blew it, and were inaccurate – or misleading, weren’t they?
Your number 5 reworked:
5. When U.S military officials deny a story which
1) appears to be true, or at least have more than one source,
2) attributes the story immediately to make a news agency look bad
3) it turns out that there is a pattern of the U.S. military officials not telling the truth immediately (Lynch, Tillman)
4) the vast majority of these stories are directly or indirectly damning for the political fortunes of the administration
5) the U.S. military – amd administration does not appear to be very concerned about this, then we have a problem on our hands.
That is why this is a big deal, and that is why it is worth continuing to pursue the military officials as diligently as possible. To sniff at the news agency, who has been maligned is utterly counterproductive, because it has nothing do with helping understand reality (which is what I think most of us here at WoC want) and thereby making rational go-forward decisions, and everything to do with blindly swallowing information designed to help achieve the desired public opinion / public policy outcome(s) of a small number of public officials, most of whom work for a guy first questionably elected, and consider themselves unaccountable individuals whose motivations and goals are unknown.
So, let’s see some posts CASTIGATING the officials in question for quickly denying, hey?
Once I see the rightwing blogs UP IN ARMS AND DISGUSTED by an administration that KNOWINGLY used YOU – the rightwing bloggers – for their own purposes, which in this case, was to muddy the waters of the reporting.
I’m sure the military officials were aware of this rightwing blogstorm – they keep in touch. Were they laughing under their breaths, as they set you guys off – some of you noble in your intentions (but only some) for a better understanding of the REALITY in Iraq – on this loud campaign against the AP?
You have been HAD, you have been USED, you have been PLAYED. That’s right – YOU BooPear. The administration and military officials have taken your unquestioning faith in their denials, and USED it.
Why aren’t you PISSED THE EFF OFF about that?? Do you LIKE them playing you???
Dear BooPear, thank you so much for spelling it out for us.
Articles in Iraq must be held to a different standard, you say. Than what, may I ask? Articles about Darfur? Afghanastan? Somalia?
Where is the opinion or editorializing in the reports under discussion that you so vehemently decry? The issues have been about the accuracy of a single report and about the authenticity of one particular source.
No one has ever claimed that no one has a right to raise the issue or to be skeptical about reports. What I have claimed is that it is ridiculous to expect AP to run around and satisfy everyone who has doubts. I have also said it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions before the facts are at hand. I have also said that AP’s story about the immolations was a report that cited a source, and was not an independent claim. The AP also always printed the government’s denials that the incident occurred. For some reason this last point always gets lost in the AP-bashing and it is a very important one.
The 5 points you list in paragraph 5 are all 1. your opinion; and 2. easily refutable. How was the story “blatantly false”? The source can, could and has been independently verified. That he was the source of 60-odd stories didn’t “turn out”; it was always there and known. These stories are not damning to the US–they might be disappointing to anyone who wants to believe that there is no war going on in Iraq. AP was concerned enough to double check and verify the existence of Hussein. Just ’cause you didn’t believe them isn’t there fault.
FretensisX
Just wanted to make the point that I wrote there were no complaints about the other 299,999 products. I’m sure, humans being human and all, many of them had inaccuracies.
_However, over 300,000 similar products were shipped and purchased this last year without complaint. The question would then be, given that ratio of 1/300,000, would you take a chance and buy another scoop?_
Well, that’s the $64,0000 question.
What is the acceptable failure ration on news? In some industries a 1/300,000 fail rate would be enough to get the entire production line shutdown and retooled. In others it’s acceptable. The answer lies in how much trouble it takes to detect an erroneous product, how hard it is to replace/fix it, and how much it costs to up the quality ratio.
One of my gripes with the news industry is that when they screw up, they just bury a ‘correction’ on page 14 and call the problem solved. Completely ignoring the damage done in the meantime. When called on it, they always just shrug their shoulders and say that there is nothing more they can do.
Not to mention that any company that tries to stonewall Q/A issues has serious problems. When you find an instance of a problem, there are always more out there, the question is not if but how many. Good companies jump all over these problems and whack them before they grow. Bad companies ignore them until they eat them alive.
Plenty of industries have to deal with life and death QA issues, if they screw up buildings collapse, planes fall out of the air, etc. I find journalists lack of concern for the quality of their product insulting.
Let me pose you a thought experiment. Let’s take the politics out of this. When was the last time you picked up and read an article from a mainstream media outlet on a subject upon which you are an expert (or at least very well acquainted) that is non-political in nature (technology, health, lifestyle, etc etc), that was a quality article? In that I mean, it got the facts correct, identified debatable points correctly, identified potentially biased sources, etc?
I can’t remember the last time I read an article in my field where I didn’t wince in 14 places at outright errors, subtle misunderstandings, misplaced emphasis, biased sources not being identified as such, and what have you. No political bias of any stripe in place, just shoddy journalism by someone who didn’t understand the subject and obviously didn’t bother to check with anyone who did. Not to mention the whole press release as news phenomenen.
Put it this way, if the news corps made cars, we’d make France look fire free…
Other questions I had:
Is Centcom tracking Iraqi Police membership? If so, why did our elusive captain not show up? Or wasn’t on record?
If not, the centcom denial is just the IP denial repeated.
Larger concern is why the IP denied his existence? Bad record-keeping?
I can understand not always having accurate data on rank and file police given the situation, but on an officer? Or are captains that common?
An AP stringer manufacturing a source out of whole cloth to attach rumors to in order to save himself/herself effort makes lots of sense.
Since he now does seem to exist, this whole scenario is just plain weird.
Corvan,
You seem to have completely missed my mockery of your predilection to mischaracterize others, because the very next thing you write accuses me of something that in reality could not be further from the truth (that my feelings are hurt. LMAO!).
Even Davebo called you on the same thing in #71.
I am getting the idea you can generally be counted on to deliver the Rightwing mindset, a valuable trait from my perspective that I will continue to value in future exchanges. Thanks, corvan, keep up the good work…you’re an excellent representative of your political brethren who are moving so far away from reality every day that they strike out in group outrage when someone tries to introduce it to them.
#89
The story was, and remains, untrue. It was proper to deny its accuracy after they had checked the claims made and found them to be false.
It’s funny to see the assorted leftists claiming vindication despite the
fact that the AP story remains completely counterfactual — serving as little more than insurgent propaganda — and that the Iraqi policeman in question has denied being the AP’s source.
You’ve dragged the goalposts far past “fake but accurate” territory and into the “even though the story was a pack of lies, some guy with the same name as a quoted source seems to exist somewhere” zone, and you seem proud to adopt that fallback position!
Since that’s the low standard the AP and other news organizations are held to, it’s not surprising that most people no longer trust the media coverage of Iraq.
Hypocrisy, I deal with the media routinely on nice light fluffy stuff. I work for a large charity and we frequently announce big gifts that draw the media’s attention. To help them out, we always prepare a nice backgrounder for them to take away, which accurately describes all the relevant names and details for later use when they’re doing up their stories. Despite this, I have never once enjoyed the pleasure of opening up the paper the next day and reading a story on the announcement that wasn’t riddled with errors. But you know what? This is the small stuff. Doesn’t really matter, except maybe to a few ticked off donors and those of us who tried so hard to help the media get it right. And this goes the same for the vast majority of stories you’re likely to read in the paper or see on the six o’clock news. The vast majority. Fluff.
As one of my media friends once said, “The only thing you can really trust the papers to get right is the sports scores, and even then there are typos.”
Iraq is different. There are lives at stake. Public opinion and government policy – as swayed by the media – matter. Go big, go home, whatever happens, millions of lives will be affected by these choices for many, many years. Don’t you think the general public deserves at least some objective information as to what’s going on over there before opinion is swayed one way or another?
And for your information, I turn my ire on all those – on either side – who would attempt to manipulate me for their own partisan purposes. But I have to tell you, after the whole fauxtography thing and the Jenin “massacre” and Israeli missiles deliberately blowing up ambulances and “fake but accurate”, etc., etc., etc…. I’m a heck of a lot more inclined to trust CENTCOM than I am the unelected, unaccountable axe-to-grind activists and two-bit stringers employed by the mass media. What amazes me is that people such as you continue to provide free passes to repeated, blisteringly obvious attempts to misrepresent the truth, while always zeroing in on the other side. Why? I want to know it all, bad and good. Why don’t you?
With regards to the aside about Darfur and Sudan… well, it is the very people who have made it so politically difficult for the US to take any sort of oversees military action who are to blame for the ongoing problems-without-useful-action in such places. But that’s the Left for you. Everyone’s for a free Tibet, but no one’s for actually freeing Tibet. That holier-than-thou blood-soaked hypocrisy is not a legacy I would freely ascribe to, but hey, different strokes for different folks.
And Mark… you’re right, to a point. The AP doesn’t have to satisfy me that they’re getting every detail of every story right for me to trust them… because I already assume they’re getting many of the details wrong, but I also know that 99.9% of their stories are meaningless in the grand scheme of things anyway, so who cares?
I don’t, however, think it’s too much to ask that their stories on the big issues like Iraq at least contain a kernel of truth. Further, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with holding them accountable when they do publish unmitigated, unsubstantiated, un-provable garbage. Fact is, they stonewalled on this one for as long as they could, period. Considering they are well aware that 1) people are watching and 2) they have a credibility problem with their Middle East reporting already, I should think most responsible organizations in their position would have wanted to address the serious questions being asked of them as quickly and effectively as possible. But they didn’t, and so the thing dragged on and on. Why is that?
Your last sentence in #90 is priceless. I’m gonna use it the next time a 9/11 “Truther” tells me, booga-booga, the 9/11 Commission report was a big pack of lies.
BooPear;
I grok your point, dude, but I think you’re vastly understating the importance of a lot of other issues that the media reports on regularly and that also affect lives. In many cases I would say even more than in Iraq. Just witness their treatment of global climate change. I routinely see politicians and oil execs or lobbyists asked to give opinions on the subject, but never, and I mean never, an enviromentalist or god forbid one of those “know-it-all” scientists.
So I’m agreeing that the media is worthless, as treefrog also points out, on many if not most factually-based issues. But to contend that only Iraq matters is self-serving (to those here) and misplaced. Although I am pretty confident some of us on this thread know exactly what and why the specific and sudden interest in media accuracy for Iraq war supporters is based on.
And furthermore, if their reporting is innaccurate, there’s no evidence (or even good reason to suspect) that it is ALL (i.e., all the many and varied news sources combined!) skewed toward any particular direction. In my view this skepticism about “the media” leads me to suspect that the situation there could be a hell of a lot worse than we’ve been hearing. After all, war sells, but only to a point, y’know? American’s don’t want to see images of kids with their feet blown off or their moms missing part of their heads from an entry wound on their nightly news, now do they?
So your point about inaccuracy is fine, but that is only one of the contentions you are advancing here. You are also saying that it is intentionally so. No way you gonna convince me or anyone else of that one when you slam them for their incompetence in one breath but then claim in the next that they’re engaging in an orchestrated effort to skew the truth “against the war” (another point of debate) for some sinister purpose.
If you’re saying that it’s unintentional because, you know, they’re all Dirty Libruls at heart, well then there’s no amount of reasoning that’s gonna alter this delusion.
Andy,
Yeah, but you know… “Fake but accurate” Bush memo — innocent mistake or deliberate attempt to swing an election?
Jenin “massacre”: Oops, guess we miscounted the dead by, what was it… ten times-ish, or deliberate effort to make Israel look bad for political purposes?
Fauxtography scandal: playful photoshoping fun or deliberate effort to mislead?
And on, and on.
1. Yes, in my experience most reportage is grossly inaccurate. That’s what happens when you throw people who are not experts into reporting on things they know little about and then give them hardly any time to file their stories. Incompetence? Well… driven by circumstance, at a minimum.
2. In my view the media coverage on Iraq is slanted toward anti-Bush, anti-war articles, and when they don’t have what they want I think a stringer pushing a sensational piece that fits the bill often doesn’t get the scrutiny it should. And every now again stuff just plain gets made up. All of it? No. Enough to make a real difference in public opinion? I’d argue so. Others can feel free to disagree.
3. Is there media coverage slanted the other way? Of course! Fox is ample evidence of that — but I’d argue the preponderance goes the other way.
Fact is, most of us just want to do the right thing, the trouble is figuring out what that might be. I try not to come at it with preconceived notions, so a little media objectivity, context and truth goes a long way. Unfortunately, I think too much of Iraq reporting is done from people who approach it from a particular viewpoint, and you bet this colors every word. Do I think that every time an Iraq story is filed there’s a bit of Dr. Evil cackling in the background as the reporter imagines the damage he/she is doing to the great evil that is US/Israel/Republican Party? No. But neither can I say it (or the individual equivalent) never happens, because there’s three examples listed above where it clearly did.
And just as I believe a free media is essential to holding government excess in check, just as strongly have I come to believe that the blogosphere now plays every bit as essential a role in holding the media to account for their own excesses. Which is why I’m fine with Armed Liberal and all the rest holding their feet to the fire.
Finally, I’ll grant that Iraq is not the *only* big issue out there, and most of the reporting on the other big ones sucks, too. But please, please don’t get me going on global warming. 🙂
PooBear,
Any accurate or honest account of a war is bound to appear anti-war, if by anti-war you mean–and I think this is how you are using the phrase–it will have a detrimental effect upon support for that war.
I realize you believe that the US media leans towards anti-war and you feel this is reflected in the selection of what they chose to write about or to show.
But I would ask you to consider several things. First, might there selections be determined more by the free market. After all, with very few exceptions, MNM are for-profit companies.
Second, can you not also see an amazing restraint on the part of the US media, especially when compared to their foriegn counterparts, in NOT showing the horrors of war. We are exposed to very little actual blood and bodies and the death.
I feel that if the media were opposed to the war, as I am, there is so much more that they could–or should–be showing and recounting that would help to further erode whatever small support for the war remains.
Oh, c’mon Mike.
“Any accurate or honest account of a war is bound to appear anti-war, if by anti-war you mean–and I think this is how you are using the phrase–it will have a detrimental effect upon support for that war.”
It’s a good thing the Greatest Generation wasn’t aware of that back in the early 1940’s, or who knows where we’d be today? The simple truth is that sometimes armed conflict, as undesirable as it is, is the last but best option.
As for the free market dictating what the press runs… well, if it bleeds, it leads. No question there. But there’s also no reason that those same lead stories can’t be balanced with a little objectivity and context. A story about a GI shooting some injured fighter in a mosque sounds pretty bad until you know how often those “defenceless” guys blow themselves up with a grenade as soon as some unlucky GI — often coming to tend to the guy’s injuries — gets close enough (yet another real-life example, BTW).
Neverthess, there’s been polls which show the large marjority of MSM journalists self-identifying as “liberal”. Human nature says that that world-view is therfore going to colour every story they post. Some might be interested in only reading things which confirm their pre-determined opinions. I am not.
Finally, how is this “restraint” a good thing? All it has served is to minimize the extent of the problem and allow people to believe the fairy tale that if we just sit down and talk with those terrorists and insurgents they can be reasoned with. Simply put, in many cases, they can’t. They abhor the West and everything about it — liberal, conservative, whatever, we’re all infidels. The longer we all pretend otherwise, the worse it’s going to be later on down the road.
PooBear,
I think you misread my post, begining with my name, which is Mark not Mike.
“The simple truth is that sometimes armed conflict, as undesirable as it is, is the last but best option.”
I certainly agree. I am not a pacifist. But this simple truth neither rebuts nor addresses the point I was making, i.e., accurate portrayal of war will diminish one’s appetite for it.
Also, I don’t think a WWII comparison is apt for this current conflict, which is a struggle between factions for power in Iraq.
The restraint that I was talking about was that on the part of the US media who are not showing as much of the violence in Iraq as they could be. They give us very santized and heavily edited versions of the violence—probably for market reasons; whatever their intentions or motives for doing so, the fact of their doing so, I think rebuts the claim that they are “anti-war.” If they were truly anti-war, they would show us a lot more headless bodies, mangled bodies, tortured bodies. But they don’t. They’re just good, old American capitalists in competition with each other trying to give the public what sells.
I’m glad you put “liberal” in quotes in this context. Journalists, like university professors, are a self-selecting group who tend, on the whole, to not be conservative. Does that necessarily make them liberal? I don’t believe so. It means that you shouldn’t expect them to advance a conservative ideology or agenda.
What?
Still no Jamal Hussein? No picture, no new interview, no nothing?
Man, that’s gotta be embarrassing for you at this point, yes? Mark, Andy X?
Les,
Last I heard the Iraqi MOI admitted his existence and issued a warrant for his arrest for having talked to the press. Why would you expect a picture or interview? I’m not following you here. I also don’t undertand your expectation of embarrassment.
mark: “Les,
Last I heard…”
Yeah, I ‘heard’ that, too.
More rumor. Hearsay.
How about some proof after all these months.
Have you seen Jamil? Has anyone? No.
Les,
Your asking the wrong person for proof.
I’m not looking into it. Neither, I gather, is AP.
I doubt that Jamail Hussein even knows that you are looking for him so I don’t think you can expect any help from him.
I guess you’ll just have to go to bed and sleep another night with your doubts.
Otherwise, I think you should go to Iraq and confirm for yourself once and for all whether he does or does not exist.
good luck.
Go to Iraq and research it myself? Isn’t that what a news organization is supposed to do? Isn’t that their job?
Ah, so I guess we should assume the AP’s position is “We’ll publish ‘stories’ and call it ‘factual news reports’. We won’t lift a finger to prove our ‘stories’ or attempt to answer questions about the veracity of the ‘stories’. If you don’t like it, go research the story yourself.”
What use is the AP then? Why even bother to have an AP if they won’t do basic fact-checking?
One doubt I won’t go to bed with is that the AP has, at minimum, been playing fast and loose with journalistic standards.
A respected news organization should be more concerned with getting the story right and protecting it’s reputation.
What?
Still no Jamal Hussein? No picture, no new interview, no nothing?
Man, that’s gotta be embarrassing for you at this point, yes? Mark, Andy X?