It has become pretty clear in the past 24-48 hours that the news reporting from Iraq by the Associated Press is false, misleading and most likely been a purposeful propaganda effort by the Iraqi insurgents and/or Al-Qaeda.
Here is a refresher on the scandal from Eason Jordan, formerly of CNN, who has now become a key player in exposing the AP’s fictional source and “news” from Iraq.
The back story: On November 24, the AP quoted Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein as the source of a sensational AP story that began this way:
“Militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive as Iraqi soldiers stood by.”
It was a horrific report that was an AP exclusive – a story picked up and reported by news outlets across the U.S. and the world.
The U.S. military and Iraqi officials were quick to call the story baseless, saying there was no evidence that six Sunnis were burned to death in Hurriya and that there was no record of an Iraqi police captain named Jamil Hussein. The U.S. military and the Iraqi government demanded the AP retract the story and explain itself.
Bob at Confederate Yankee spent the past week dissecting all of the 60 Associated Press stories using Jamil Hussein as a “police source.” (Bravo, Bob!)
Put bluntly, a search for other news agency accounts of the events described by Jamil Hussein seems to indicate that most of these events simply do not exist anywhere else except in AP reporting. I was completely unable to find a definitive corroborating account of any of Jamil Hussein’s accounts, anywhere.
That I was unable to find corroborating accounts for some stories is quite understandable; even in non-war-torn countries some news organizations have access to some stories denied others, as reporting assets and sources are not evenly distributed.
Most of the AP dispatches using Jamil Hussein as a source were simply not that big in the wider and often larger chaos of the bloody sectarian conflict whirling through Baghdad; a gunbattle killing two suicide bombers, or even a non-fatal car-bombing is something that has sadly become far too common in many parts of Iraq, and Baghdad in particular. That other news agencies don’t account for every single attack of this kind is not surprising-though it should be somewhat suspect when in 40 straight stories, not a single one of your competitors captured the same event. Not one. At that point, some sort of editorial oversight should have kicked in, should it not?
And yet, in 40 AP stories checked, only in two instances covering a total of four stories did I run into anything approaching possible corroboration.
So far, the Associated Press (like CBS News & Dan Rather in the Bush Forged Documents case), have refused to admit something is wrong.
Eason Jordan, who as CNN Baghdad Bureau Chief admitted to covering up the atrocities of Saddam’s Iraq in trade for access for his network, has harsh words to the Associated Press on its Jamil Hussein integrity scandal:
Until this controversy is resolved, every one of those AP reports is tainted.
When two governments challenge the veracity of your reporting, when there are reasonable doubts about whether your prime named source for a sensational exclusive story exists, when there’s no proof a reported horrific incident occurred, when the news outlet responsible for the disputed report stonewalls and is stridently defensive, when the validity of dozens of other of your reports has been called into question as a result, then that news organization has a scandal on its hands, and that is where the AP finds itself.
Having learned from my own successes and failures and those of others, I know that a journalistic scandal can be handled effectively only when the news organization’s management deals with it proactively, constructively, and transparently, with a readiness to admit any mistake, to apologize for it, and to take appropriate corrective action.
The AP has failed to do so in this case.
I, therefore, urge the AP to appoint an independent panel to determine the facts about the disputed report, to determine whether Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein exists, and to share the panel’s full findings and recommendations with the public.
Until this matter is resolved, the AP’s credibility will suffer.
The American news media’s reporting and bias about World War III – Iraq Battle is critical because our enemies have admitted that using our own news media against us is part of their strategy.
The AP owes the American people and the Iraqi people the truth: WHO IS JAMIL HUSSEIN and why has the AP been so eager to peddle his information?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I am so happy to learn that the AP is all wrong, all the time, and that Iraq is a bed of wine and roses, going well, and that we are soon going to win The World War Three.
(Actually, Bob only “dissected” 40 stories, not 60, without a subscription to Lexis. This informant might be made up–so was the story of purchasing crack in front of the White House when Bush I held up the bag during his television address from the Oval Office when he declared the War on Drugs. That turned out to be a hoax. Then there is the matter of having corroborating accounts. The WMD, peddled by the White House, also had many corroborating accounts and turned out not to be true. So, all in all, the consumer of information should be suspicious of most of it. After all, this is The World War Three.)
Thanks for all your work. Keep bringing the truth.
I love you, man.
Sean, get a clue. Michelle Malkin has been all over this story for the past 3-4 months. The al-AP cannot verify who Jamil Hussein is, nor do they know where the reporters got his “quotes,” but they insist that this is a real person.
The point of the story is that al-AP has KNOWINGLY falsified information and passed it off as the real thing. Sort of what Jayson Blair and Howell Raines did at the NYT – you know, the “bible” of the libtard left.
And Eason Jordan, formerly of CNN who also stated for the record that his network broadcast what Saddam told them to broadcast, is trying to redeem himself by demanding that al-AP reveal its knowledge (or lack thereof) of this Jamil Hussein. I give him kudos for effort.
Here’s the link for you to examine:
http://michellemalkin.com/
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
The key for the anti-war crowd is for them to deny reality (maintaining their insular head-in-the-ground bubble world) whenever any inconvenient facts work against them. Dismiss, negate, evade, deny.
As we see today with jimmy as well, in another thread.
#3 cont – Having said that: There are a couple other points to consider.
First, the AP’s reporting hasn’t exactly been all false, as Confederate Yankee acknowledges (and I think Bruce). And Iraq isn’t an easy situation, going swimmingly.
Second, I recently learned, to my dismay, that the Pentagon is partly responsible for the biased media because the Pentagon prevents embeds from embedding and thus getting the stories of our soldiers.
Media organizations are “Product” organizations (despite their claim to be services). They have to continuously generate and roll out content. If more reporters COULD embed with our soldiers in Iraq, then more “soldier-point-of-view” product would come out, simply because that’s the content on hand for publishing.
We are in an information / media war – as al Qaeda knows – and the Pentagon itself is blowing it. Liberal media bias is a big factor, but not 100%.
No doubt some will simply be shocked, but I agree with GP on this one. Besides which, I have noticed many times in the past a great deal of bias in the AP’s (and Reuters) reporting.
You can often read an AP article and easily tell that the writer has made all kinds of prior assumptions that may or may not be true that basically form unwarranted conclusions in the story.
However, I think that the real main problem is simply that the two news-wire companies constitute a vast monopoly. They tend to drive the national and even world-wide discussion of events whether they are biased or not. Especially since they also tend to repeat each other.
If they were broken up into smaller groups, there would be more competition and hence more points of view on world events in addition to more cross-checking of facts.
I suppose I will be accused of being “anti-business” on this, but this is one of those times when whats good for business is NOT good for the country.
As I’ve said, the Pentagon has contributed to the problem by actively preventing embeds, or having an utterly lame info war vs. al Qaeda.
Further, sunshine – i.e., openness, criticism, transparency – as is happening in this case, helps.
Finally: What’s needed is to increase competitive *pressure* in the news industry. Simply breaking a perceived monopoly in 2 barely increases competitive pressure to improve, just like breaking a medieval fiefdom in two. Moreoever, it sets (or maintains) a terrible precedent of government interference with the press.
To boost real competitive pressures for improvement in any given industry, *lower barriers to entry*. We should be looking for ways to knock down barriers and regulations so that it becomes ever-easier for new competitors to set up shop in the [media or whatever] industry, *at their own initiative*.
Or, if we have new competitors – like, say, Internet speech – then we jolly well better prevent government interference with it.
And P.S. Gryph, I knew you couldn’t think Bruce was all bad – or else you would have no worthy reason to constantly want to be part of his Internet ‘household’. Good to see you admit it.
#1 The point it, Sean, not that everything is wonderful in Iraq, but that you don’t know and can’t know what you’ve been told that is true and what you’ve been told that is not true. It’s not bi-polar and because it’s “bad” any bad news, even if not accurate, is still true because it’s “bad”. It’s not “bad” or “good” it’s a mess, as most human things are. The false “bad” report isn’t true because things are “bad”. It’s false, and it keeps you from understanding what is happening there and why.
Okay, it’s *bad*. And there’s a bunch of different factions trying to put themselves in strong possitions and a few different groups looking for pay-back for past offenses and there is regular old crime of both the independant and organized sorts. You know this. But how well do you understand it?
Your understanding is going to be informed by news reports. A false report that six Sunnis were pulled from a mosque and burned alive matters because it influences the understanding of the dynamics of badness and that means that good decisions about solutions can not possibly be made. It’s all still “bad” but “bad” isn’t all you need to know.
What’s more, it gives a false impression locally to people who need to make decisions about their own lives. Crime should be treated one way. Sectarian violence demands entirely different action. When people are trying to find a way to work together and form something stable, a single false report of something like burning six Sunnis alive can do a great deal of damage. If it were *true*, it would need to be addressed. If it’s *not* true, then it’s simply destructive and one *must* ask what the motivation was for making up the story and what the motivation was for buying it.
It’s real people in Iraq who have to deal with the fallout.
If there is sectarian violence (and there is, we know there is) then *real* events need to be reported. Not made up ones.
And even accurate reporting that focuses on blood because blood sells, rather than giving a total picture of life as most people live it, is failing at any sort of higher calling toward “truth” and shouldn’t be treated like anything better than tabloid reporters. If journalism wants to be treated like a profession rather than hacks, they can’t be selling blood and drama in the place of truth.
WHO IS JAMIL HUSSEIN and why has the AP been so eager to peddle his information?
First question: Joe Wilson’s new “cover identity”.
Second question…..well, given the first……:)
For what its worth, the AP is now reporting that they have confirmation from Iraq’s Interior Ministry that Jamil Hussein is a real person and may be arrested for speaking to the press.
Thus bringing us back to Bruce’s original question in #0:
If they finally found him, then it should be possible for folks to get some work done to answer that. Remember:
— Using Capt. Hussein, the AP sensationally claimed that 6 Sunnis were burned to death in Hurriya. There is no evidence of it
— The AP has [mis]used Capt. Hussein as a primary source in dozens of other stories, many taking place FAR from the good Captain’s police precinct. “… in 40 AP stories checked [by Bob at Confederate Yankee], only in two instances covering a total of four stories did [Bob] run into anything approaching possible corroboration.”
Now (or if) we know who Capt. Hussein really is, the appropriateness of the AP’s reporting can really be checked.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528028
Lovely.
#3. I got my clue. And the story. And your Malkin is a flunkie.
#4. Who is denying reality now? Malkin makes something up and you all run with it. Chumps.
Sean, you ignorant slut.
Whether Jamil Hussein actually exists is really a secondary issue. The fact that the AP used a single source for dozens of inflammatory stories about atrocities in Iraq that still have yet to find any confirmation is almost as disturbing as making the source up.
So they “found” Jamil Hussein, but only after six weeks and after attention had been called to the matter by the blogosphere? What if there had been NO attention called to this person’s dubious existence?
Does this also mean that the al-AP has to now determine whether or not it was one mosque (not six as originally reported) that burned? What about the so-called burnings of civilians? Is that now made up as well?
If a story is green-lighted by the al-AP, there must be an expectation that the story was properly vetted, written and investigated to make sure that it meets proper journalistic standards or modicums (as such).
The fact that this person’s identity is now made apparent also now enables other interested parties (among them Eason Jordan, formerly of CNN – so obviously he’s not a “right-wing nut”) to interview Hussein and do the job the MSM is so loathe to do.
Match, set, game. You lose. Now go sit in the corner until you can play well with others.
Regards,
Peter H.
sean, ????????????????? The article you linked is the beginning, not the end, of an investigation. As Bruce phrased the basic question:
Get it? We now know (1) Hussein is a captain at a very local police station (Khadra) in Baghdad, and (2) Iraqi authorities find his activities untoward, in fact, illegal. So why has AP been relying on him? Now the real fact-checking of AP can commence. Expect to see bloggers coming out with much, much more about it.
Or as Mickey Kaus and Patterico have put it between them:
It will be fun, if I’m around sean, to see your continued denial of reality as several AP stories now proceed to be systematically exposed as exaggerated if not false. 🙂
(sorry for un-terminated link reference)
Finally – sorry, can’t resist – What I love about the comment “Who is denying reality now?” is the implicit (if unintentional) admission from sean that he has, in fact, been denying reality. 😉
Double Finally: Being intellectually honest and curious, I decided to check sean’s claim that Michelle Malkin has been harping on Jamilgate (I normally skip her), and had “made something up” (sean would not say what.)
Read the links yourself:
(1) Malkin asked questions about why AP’s reporting of the Hurriya non-existent “massacre” was so atrocious, and what the mysterious Capt. Hussein’s connection might be;
(2) Eason Jordan supports her questions, and she is travelling to Iraq shortly at his expense;
(3) The AP story remains botched and as worthy of question as ever.
sean, apparently, doesn’t understand what questions are. Wow.
#s 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. How’s that crow taste, mmmkay?
hugs, kisses, and love,
mwah!
the “ignorant slut”
Now sean proves he can’t read!
ROTFLMAO 🙂
Cal, at least he admits to being ignorant. Most libtrolls are not even that willing to declare themselves educable.
Regards,
Peter H.
I know. I was wasting my breath in trying to explain anything to him. But what can I say? I’m a “completist”. And I just slightly wanted the additional data point on him. Finally, part of me writes for the lurkers.
It makes me think someone from Fox or a blogger should “imbed” with an AP or Reuters reporter and report on the news collection in Iraq.
It’s a bit wonkish I suppose, but at the very least that reporter who is followed won’t be messing with confederate stringers. Maybe Malkin can goad the AP into allowing her to do this. That would be a riot.
Bastiat – I second that motion. In fact, there have been some bloggers from Town Hall and Newsbusters who have done so (independently).
O/T – go to Newsbusters.org and read about the beauty pageant winner who will forego her crown and not compete in the next Miss USA contest – because she’s going off to Iraq with her unit.
When asked by NBC if she thinks her journey will be a “waste,” she emphatically tells the infobabe “NO.” Some others on the blog have pointed out that the military does not pay attention to the MSM’s reporting of the war.
Neither should be, based upon al-AP and al-Reuters’ fabrications.