AP source not who he claimed to be

[Nova Land]

Jason Blair was a rogue journalist at the NYT writing false stories for over a year. His direct bosses tried to fire him but middle and upper management allowed him to continue. This was a reporting conspiracy but a major organizational problem.

Your writing here is not clear. One possibility that occurs to me is that you intended to write This was not a reporting conspiracy but a major organizational problem." The other possibility that occurs to me is that you intended to write "THis was not only a reporting conspiracy but a major organizational problem." Your use of the word but implies that you intended to fill in something like that, but I have no idea which.

Regardless, this example again serves to illustrate my point -- that sloppiness, deception, even genuine errors, are all common occurrences, but lying is rare. Jason Blair lied in his reporting. He flat out invented things. It took a long time for that to come to light -- many (including me) would say too long. When it did, he was fired.

But while Jason Blair lied, I don't know of anyone who lied in his defense. Having poor judgment -- which many of the NYT people apparently did -- is not the same as lying.

In the AP case, we have a reporter filing stories (which some of you are asserting are false) and other reporters confirming the key details of that reporter's story (which would make them liars if the original stories were false). That isn't, to my knowledge, what happened in the Blair case. That supports my point -- that what some of you are alleging to have occurred in the present case is an extraordinary event.

If you are aware of any NYT reporter who lied by saying that Jason Blair's stories were true, please quote the text of the statement and provide a link to it so I can check it for myself. Otherwise your claim is false and needs to be retracted.

 

[Nova Land]

How do we know this Iraqi police agent is real?

Do you mean how do we know he exists, or how do we know he is a police agent? Those are two separate questions.

1. The AP reporter says he has been meeting with this person and getting stories from him for the past 2 years. Either there is an actual person, or the AP reporter is lying. There is no evidence the reporter is lying about this. Unless evidence comes to light indicating otherwise, I think it is reasonable to reach a tentative conclusion that Jamil Hussein is a real person.

2. The AP reporter says he has met with this person several times in his office .. in an Iraqi police station. While it is possible in movies such as Charade for an impostor to set up a meeting in an office during lunch hour when everyone else is out, to be able to do that in an Iraqi police station during a time such as this would be an extraordinary story in itself. There is no evidence that any such thing happened. The reasonable conclusion to draw, unless and until any significant evidence to the contrary is provided, is that the person who met with the AP reporter was indeed an Iraqi police officer.

If he is, did he witness this event?

From the USA Today story: "The Associated Press first reported on Friday's incident that evening, based on the account of police Capt. Jamil Hussein and Imad al-Hashimi, a Sunni elder in Hurriyah, who told Al-Arabiya television he saw people who were soaked in kerosene, then set afire, burning before his eyes." That's slightly ambiguous, but I believe it is saying that Imad al-Hashimi witnessed the burning, not that Hussein did.

Police in the US often aren't on the scene at the time of a murder, but view the scene afterwards and talk to people to determine what happened. Police in the US talk with the press and give accounts of crimes that have occurred in their jurisdiction, so when it says "based on the account of police Capt. Jamil Hussein" I assume that is what they are referring to.

So: given that AP reporters were told by a police captain that this crime had occurred, and given than AP reporters talked to eyewitnesses to the burnings, do you think AP should have sat on the story? Or do you think they should have proceeded to report a newsworthy story?

 

[Nova Land]

Regarding the Dateline: NBC story on GM trucks which firecoins has erroneously presented as an example of NBC lying, we have an additional dubious claim here by qayak:

Not only that but it was the decider in a lawsuit that GM lost to the tune of $120,000,000.

Can you provide excerpts from the trial transcript to support your claim that the Dateline: NBC program was the decisive factor in that lawsuit? I am assuming you are referring to the case of Shannon Moseley, in which the jury awarded Moseley's family $4 million in compensatory damages and $101 million in punitive damages.

According to the account I found doing a quick Google-search,

... The major issue in the trial was whether the fuel-tank placement and design were defective and caused Shannon to burn to death after his pickup was struck on the side by another vehicle. GM argued that Shannon was killed almost instantly upon impact and not from the fire that occurred shortly thereafter. GM sought to show that Shannon had not experienced pain and suffering...

The key testimony in the case, according to this site, was:

... the defection of a former GM safety engineer, Ronald E. Elwell, who testified that the company had intentionally hidden its knowledge of a dangerous safety defect. Elwell, whose testimony GM tried to block, said the company had known for years that the design was defective but refused to fix it for fear of alerting the public. Ironically, Elwell had testified in more than 15 previous cases as an expert for GM and had stated that the design was safe.

In addition, videotapes of GM's own crash tests between 1981 and 1983 showed that when the pickup was struck on the side by another vehicle its fuel tank broke open.

Note that it was tapes of GM's own crash tests, not tapes of the NBC simulation, which are mentioned here. It's possible the NBC tapes were shown as well, but no mention is made of it in this brief account. That suggests to me they may not have been the decisive factor which you claim they were.

There's also mention made in the article of the verdict being overturned. Note that no mention is made of the Dateline program being a factor in this, either:

In June 1994, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict in Moseley, finding that the plaintiffs had erred in presenting their case by referring to other lawsuits involving GM trucks.

So no mention of the Dateline program playing any major role either in the trial or in the reversal. That doesn't mean it didn't play a role, just that I didn't find it in my quick search.

But that is a search which I shouldn't have had to make in the first place. I believe that a person who states a claim here as if it were a fact should take the time (a) to verify that what they are saying is true actually is true, and (b) to provide a source of evidence for what they are claiming, so that the rest of us can see (and check) that this is indeed fact. Already we've had several examples where claims that were presented as factual turned out to be based on opinion and spin.

It shouldn't be my job to fact-check these claims to see if they're right; it should be your job to fact-check them and show that they're right. That is the standard people are asking of AP, and I think it is a reasonable standard to apply to ourselves.

If one doesn't have time to find evidence, it's easy enough to say in one's post: I don't have evidence of this, and don't have time at the moment to find it, but this is something I have heard. Or: I don't have a link at hand to support this, but this is the how I remember the details from news coverage at the time. That way, if others think you are correct and wish to follow up on, it they can search for the evidence. The way you have done it, people are likely to assume that you know what you are talking about, when that may not be the case.

You didn't do that in making your claim. Please provide the evidence for it now. A link to the trial transcript showing the presentation of the Dateline material, and to the closing statement by the plaintiff's lawyer emphasizing the importance of the Dateline material, would be a good way to do this. An interview with one of the jurors, saying this had been a deciding factor, would be another.

 

[rikzilla]

Getting the thread back on topic.....

This isn't a shades of gray situation. Either Jamil Hussein is bona fide or he isn't. The only way to resolve this situation is for the AP to make Capt. Jamil Hussein available for interviews by the media in general. (read non-AP reporters) Until they do this simple thing reasonable people are going to wonder why they don't.

At this point I'm not likely to ever believe another AP story out of Iraq unless they:

• Produce Capt. Hussein.
• Print a retraction and show how they were honestly duped.
• Or print a retraction and fire those responsible for cooking up this scheme.

This thread has been a very interesting read...but it all boils down to AP supporting their story with facts and evidence. It should be easy for them to do. Why are they stonewalling?

-z

 

[rikzilla]

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/cartoons/120506.jpg

 

[varwoche]

This isn't a shades of gray situation...

Mole whacking invitation declined, thank you though.

Back to the painfully simple question that you continue to evade.

For the triple car bombing, AP reported a death toll of 91. Then on the same day they revised the death toll to 51, and 90 wounded.

Are you suggesting this is evidence of AP malfeasance?

 

[rikzilla]

No.

 

[varwoche]

Though the balance of evidence suggests that AP reported the story in proper journalistic fashion, I'm not 100% sure, and of course I will consider any new evidence.

I am 100% sure however that many of the posters who are here claiming that AP screwed up deserve an F grade for their "journalism", even by casual standards. The serial misinformation, misleading statements, knee-jerk conclusions, and the echoing of echoes is something to behold.

 

[rikzilla]

Though the balance of evidence suggests that AP reported the story in proper journalistic fashion, I'm not 100% sure, and of course I will consider any new evidence.

I am 100% sure however that many of the posters who are here claiming that AP screwed up deserve an F grade for their "journalism", even by casual standards.

Again...who is responsible for the veracity of an Associated Press article?

• Internet posters.
• The Spanish Inquisition.
• The Truth Movement.
• George W. Bush.
• The Church of Scientology.
  or
• The Associated Press.

The serial misinformation, misleading statements, knee-jerk conclusions, and the echoing of echoes is something to behold.

Exactly right! One wonders when the AP is going to stop this and go back to reporting actual news with actual real-life sources?

-z

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Can you cite one example where a mainstream news organization was clearly exposed reporting false information -- willfully or not -- and engaged in a conspiracy to coverup?

Would CNN admitting that they spiked news stories and soft-peddled bad news in order to maintain their office in Iraq prior to 2003 count?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003336



Solely from memory -- wasn't there a similar deal regarding Cuba?

 

[rikzilla]

Would CNN admitting that they spiked news stories and soft-peddled bad news in order to maintain their office in Iraq prior to 2003 count?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003336



Solely from memory -- wasn't there a similar deal regarding Cuba?

CNN's Peter Arnett also ginned up an investigative series alleging the US Army used sarin gas against US Army deserters in Vietnam. Actually Mr Arnett's wikipedia entry reads like a laundry list of questionable reporting with a distinct flavour of an anti-American bias.

-z

 

[varwoche]

I'm willing to give AP the benefit of the doubt for now

One wonders when the AP is going to stop this and go back to reporting actual news with actual real-life sources?

Like the shifting desert sands.

As to the part I underlined, you are implying that Hussein is an AP invention, and that they flat-out lied that he was interviewed multiple times in a police station. Is that what you meant?

 

[firecoins]

Your writing here is not clear. One possibility that occurs to me is that you intended to write This was not a reporting conspiracy but a major organizational problem."

Yes. I am saying Blair lied and was not fired due to organizational problems.

I noticed my error well after the limit for me to edit came about.

 

[rikzilla]

Like the shifting desert sands.

You'd rather I "stay the course?"

As to the part I underlined, you are implying that Hussein is an AP invention, and that they flat-out lied that he was interviewed multiple times in a police station. Is that what you meant?

You seem to be rather fond of mis-understanding rather easily understood language.

Yes...this is exactly what I've implied. There is to date no evidence that Capt. Hussein exists. As time marches on and the AP fails to back up it's sources the probability that Capt. Hussein is a fake gains credibility. All AP need do is produce Capt. Hussein. That's it. End of story. The bloggers will be discredited and AP will be vindicated. Why aren't they doing this?

-z

 

[rikzilla]

BTW, I've answered your pointy little questions. First was no, then was yes...just as you requested.

But when are you going to pick an answer to this question?

Again...who is responsible for the veracity of an Associated Press article?

* Internet posters.
* The Spanish Inquisition.
* The Truth Movement.
* George W. Bush.
* The Church of Scientology.
or
* The Associated Press.

*I even gave you a hint. Take your time.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

One more thing...

Capt. Hussein has been used as a primary source in 16 AP articles since April this year. (all of which were stories of Sunni victimhood BTW) The question of his existence now brings all those stories into question as well.

I find it likely that "Capt. Hussein" is a Sunni insurgent sockpuppet and that the AP is a willing participant in disseminating this disinformation.

The above should need no further interpretation. (even for you Varwoche) They are words I will happily eat along with a helping of crow if only the AP will back up it's sources and prove me dead wrong.

-z

 

[Mycroft]

Steps I would take if I were an AP editor to clear this up:

1) Contact Captain Hussein. Ask him if he’s aware of any issues that might create difficulty in verifying his employment. Also get further information including the name of his immediate supervisor, his subordinates, any employee identification numbers that might apply, and a brief account of his history with the police force.

2) Contact the Ministry of the Interior myself and verify if Captain Hussein works there or not. If not, check for alternative spellings and provide any employee identification provided by Capt Hussein previously. If still can’t verify, check for the people Hussein provided as superiors and subordinates, also ask for organizational command chart, if one exists.

3) Find out more about Captain Hussein. Find out if he’s willing to be interviewed in his home with his wife and kids. Find out where he went to school, how he spent the Saddam years, what his hopes for Iraq are and how best he thinks they may be achieved.

But the important thing is to do something. Serious and credible allegations have been raised, and to think a few reporters recollections of meeting this guy in his office are going to assuage them is silly. Reporters are supposed to know how to investigate, so now is the time to do it.

 

[Nova Land]

You're missing a 3rd possibility: Sunni insurgents have infiltrated into the ranks of the police dept and are actively engaging in propaganda.

Interesting speculation. But could you clarify it slightly:

Do you mean infiltrated as in he and his friends have been sneaking into the police station every day for the last couple of years and pretending to be police officers?

Or do you mean infiltrated as in he applied for a job with the police in order to work for the insurgents from within the police ranks?

The first seems kind of silly, so I'll assume you mean the latter. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Yes, that's certainly possible. I can see that as being a quite reasonable explanation. The problem -- for you -- with that scenario is that it means Hussein is in fact a police officer -- just as AP has said. Which means Michael Dean was wrong when he said Hussein was not a police officer and that there was no mention of him in MOI records.

How is that? Are the MOI records no good? Did the MOI lie to Dean? Is it an example of careful wording, where Dean is saying something technically correct (such as that Hussein is no longer a police officer because we've just fired him for telling the truth about something that puts us in a bad light)?

It could be any of those. We don't know what the reason would be for Dean being wrong -- only that he would be wrong, in what you are suggesting as the solution to this puzzle.

At present we have a situation where AP is saying one thing, Dean another. The initial reason for disbelieving AP was because of Dean and his claim about the MOI records. If you now believe that Dean and the MOI records were wrong all along, what are the grounds for doubting AP's story?

 

[Nova Land]

I was replying to this post from firecoins yesterday, but did not have time to post my response to this particular question:

How do we know he isn't an insurgent sympathizer ... trying to manipulate the media?

We don't. Nor do we know that the unnamed MOI person who allegedly told Michael Dean about the record search isn't an insurgent sympathizer. Nor do we know that Michael Dean isn't a Soviet sleeper agent.

But just as it makes sense to report Michael Dean's statement (even though we have no proof that either he or the MOI file clerk are telling the truth) similarly it makes sense to report what Jamil Hussein said, and what those who say they witnessed the incident say, rather than to suppress that information.

In previous posts, you indicated you thought it was wrong for the media to sit on a story -- even though, in the example you offered, the magazine had not yet been able to confirm key details of the story. Here, a person whom AP has reason to believe was a genuine police captain told them about newsworthy events. So are you now arguing AP was correct to have gone ahead with the story?

If evidence comes to light that Jamil Hussein is an impostor (as originally theorized by AP's detractors) or an insurgent sympathizer who infiltrated the police force (as seems to be the new theory), then by all means that should be reported and considered too. But so far it all seems to be armchair speculation and what if scenarios.

 

[Nova Land]

The issue here is that the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior disavowed knowing at least two different people that have been used as primary sources by the AP who supposedly work for them.

No matter how you look at it, it’s a big deal. It will require more than the word of one AP reporter who says he met one of these guys in his office to clear this up.

Yes. Likewise it will require more than the word of one Iraqi MOI person. You seem to be over-looking that there are two parties with unverified claims: AP and Dean/MOI.

You are arguing that the large number of sources MOI is challenging lends support to the idea that Jamil Hussein is a fake. If the AP were fooled by one false source, they could be fooled by others. That's true.

But in order to reach that conclusion, you are assuming that the MOI is telling the truth (about one matter), and then using that as support for the claim that they are telling the truth (about a related matter). That strikes me as a bit unfair. If you're going to do that, do you also accept that the AP's report of their follow-up investigation increases the likelihood they were right in their initial reporting?

You see the large number of challenged sources increasing the likelihood that MOI is telling the truth. I see it as decreasing it. If MOI were only challenging one source, then carelessness would be an adequate explanation for AP getting fooled. Carelessness is a mundane explanation. But the large number of challenged sources makes it unlikely this was mere carelessness on the part of the AP, and makes it puzzling why the MOI is just recently discovering and taking action against people who have appeared prominently in news stories for months. So we're again into extraordinary territory.

It's possible to read this as confirming that AP is lying (if one has already made one's mind up that AP is lying). It's equally possible to read this as indicating that what MOI is talking about is not fake police, it is genuine police officers who are not on their list of people approved for talking to the media. I'd really like to see Dean and MOI pressed more closely on just what it is they are claiming.