AP source not who he claimed to be

[Mycroft]

AP, U.S. military spar over atrocities report

The Associated Press is standing by its report that six Sunni men were burned to death in Baghdad Friday by Shiites, even though U.S. military officials have accused the wire service of relying on a source who "is not who he claimed he was," an Iraqi police captain.

Military officials also say they cannot confirm that the incident took place and have asked AP to retract or correct the story, which was repeated by media around the world and cited as a grim example of Shiites taking revenge for a deadly bombing that killed more than 200 people a day before.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/us_military_and.html

THis is an interesting news item. Apparanly there is some disagreement over a particular source that claims to be an Iraqi police captain but who may not be.

Further reading:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23483_Getting_The_News_From_The_Enemy_2#comments

http://www.floppingaces.net/

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/29/the-make-it-up-media/

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/us_military_and.html

THis is an interesting news item. Apparanly there is some disagreement over a particular source that claims to be an Iraqi police captain but who may not be.

What, an Arab lie?

Pshaw.

DR

 

[Nova Land]

From USA Today's web site, this follow-up:

Witnesses detail immolation attack on six Sunnis in Baghdad last week
By Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press

... Seeking further information about Friday's attack, an AP reporter contacted Hussein for a third time about the incident to confirm there was no error. The captain has been a regular source of police information for two years and had been visited by the AP reporter in his office at the police station on several occasions. The captain, who gave his full name as Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, said six people were indeed set on fire.

On Tuesday, two AP reporters also went back to the Hurriyah neighborhood around the Mustafa mosque and found three witnesses who independently gave accounts of the attack...

Occam's Razor suggests to me that AP is right and LGF is wrong. For AP to be wrong, there would need to be a conspiracy of liars at AP, involving not only the original report but Steven Hurst's follow-up report as well, since his report from Baghdad states as fact that an AP reporter talked with Jamal Hussein ..in person .. in his office .. at the police station .. on numerous occasions. That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for them.

In contrast, for Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, and the assorted other right-wing bloggers who have jumped on this to be wrong would simply involve their being too hasty in their conclusion-jumping and media-bashing. They had no personal knowledge, but assumed that any accusation of media error had to be correct.

In light of this follow-up, do you have any evidence that AP is wrong and lying? If not, you might want to contact a moderator about re-titling the thread "AP source is who he claimed to be", since it looks as if Little Green Footballs and co. got it wrong and AP got it right.

 

[rikzilla]

From USA Today's web site, this follow-up:

Occam's Razor suggests to me that AP is right and LGF is wrong. For AP to be wrong, there would need to be a conspiracy of liars at AP, involving not only the original report but Steven Hurst's follow-up report as well, since his report from Baghdad states as fact that an AP reporter talked with Jamal Hussein ..in person .. in his office .. at the police station .. on numerous occasions. That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for them.

In contrast, for Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, and the assorted other right-wing bloggers who have jumped on this to be wrong would simply involve their being too hasty in their conclusion-jumping and media-bashing. They had no personal knowledge, but assumed that any accusation of media error had to be correct.

In light of this follow-up, do you have any evidence that AP is wrong and lying? If not, you might want to contact a moderator about re-titling the thread "AP source is who he claimed to be", since it looks as if Little Green Footballs and co. got it wrong and AP got it right.

LGF, etc are merely bringing the issue up. Iraqi police and coalition sources are the ones that are saying AP's named source does not exist.

AP has made a claim; they need to back it up with confirmed sources. If they cannot than they should retract it. It's really just as simple as that.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Lt. Dean's letter to the AP:

Dear Associated Press:

On Nov. 24, 2006, your organization published an article by Qais Al-Bashir about six Sunnis being burned alive in the presence of Iraqi Police officers. This news item, which is below, received an enormous amount of coverage internationally.

We at Multi-National Corps - Iraq made it known through MNC-I Press Release Number 20061125-09 and our conversations with your reporters that neither we nor Baghdad Police had any reports of such an incident after investigating it and could find no one to corroborate the story. A couple of hours ago, we learned something else very important.

We can tell you definitively that the primary source of this story, police Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an MOI employee. We verified this fact with the MOI through the Coalition Police Assistance Training Team.

Also, we definitely know, as we told you several weeks ago through the MNC-I Media Relations cell, that another AP-popular IP spokesman, Lt. Maithem Abdul Razzaq, supposedly of the city's Yarmouk police station, does not work at that police station and is also not authorized to speak on behalf of the IP. The MOI has supposedly issued a warrant for his questioning.

I know we have informed you that there exists an MOI edict that no one below the level of chief is authorized to be an Iraqi Police spokesperson. An unauthorized IP spokesperson will get fired for talking to the media. While I understand the importance of a news agency to use anonymous and unauthorized sources, it is still incumbent upon them to make sure their facts are straight. Was this information verified by anyone else? If the source providing the information is lying about his name, then he ought not to be represented as an official IP spokesperson and should be listed as an anonymous source.

Unless you have a credible source to corroborate the story of the people being burned alive, we respectfully request that AP issue a retraction, or a correction at a minimum, acknowledging that the source named in the story is not who he claimed he was. MNC-I and MNF-I are always available and willing to verify events and provide as much information as possible when asked.

Very respectfully,
LT Dean
Michael B. Dean
Lieutenant, U.S. Navy
MNC-I Joint Operations Center
Public Affairs Officer

AP, U.S. military spar over atrocities report

 

[Ziggurat]

Occam's Razor suggests to me that [Reuters] is right and LGF is wrong. For [Reuters] to be wrong, there would need to be a conspiracy of liars at [Reuters],

Edits mine. Is the AP really somehow more trustworthy than Reuters? No, I don't think so. Do you recall what happened in that little dustup?

In contrast, for Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, and the assorted other right-wing bloggers who have jumped on this to be wrong would simply involve their being too hasty in their conclusion-jumping and media-bashing.

Except that they aren't the sources of the contradictory evidence, as pointed out by Rik.

 

[Nova Land]

LGF, etc are merely bringing the issue up. Iraqi police and coalition sources are the ones that are saying AP's named source does not exist.

AP has made a claim; they need to back it up with confirmed sources. If they cannot than they should retract it. It's really just as simple as that.

Actually, there are several claims.

First, we have the claims by AP. (1) AP claimed in the first story to have talked to a person -- named in the story as Jamal Hussein, and identified as an Iraqi police captain. (2) AP claimed this person told them a story about 6 Sunnis being burned alive.

Second we have claim by US military officials. (1) They claim there is no one by that name working as an Iraqi police captain. (2) They claim they have not confirmed that 6 Sunnis were burned alive.

No lying is necessary in order for the US military officials to be mistaken. They basically claim they are unaware of certain things. It is quite possible for them to be unaware of those things, and those things to be true.

AP, on having its story challenged, re-checked. And they stand by the original report. In order for AP to be wrong on this, not only does the original report need to be wrong, but also the follow-up report -- in which Hurst reports that AP reporters have talked to police captain Hussein in his office .. at the police station .. on several occasions, and that they talked with him again in his office following this challenge to their story.

Story challenged. Story checked. Story confirmed, unless the reporter who reported having checked the story is lying. Which is possible, but if so that is a claim which in itself requires some evidence. At some point the claim that AP is lying when it says it has talked to Jamal Hussein, in his office, at the police station, on more than one occasion, needs to be supported by some evidence. Otherwise we can go on endlessly, with reporter after reporter re-checking the work of the previous reporter, only to have their reporting challenged.

Is there any evidence that the AP reporters who claim to have talked to Hussein are lying? Have they, for instance, refused to take along a reporter from an independent (i.e. non-AP) source to verify they have indeed talked to a police captain by this name?

One reporter reported a story from a named source. Another reporter reported having verified that the first reporter had indeed talked to that source. Do you want a third reporter to check into whether the second reporter actually did check into the first reporter's story? Will you then want a fourth reporter to check the third reporter's story?

It's possible that AP is lying through its teeth. It's possible the people who claim AP is lying are mistaken. I can easily believe a single AP reporter being careless or dishonest in reporting, but I have difficulty believing that additional AP reporters, assigned to confirm the challenged story, also lied. I need some evidence before I accept that claim. And I'm not seeing any.

AP says it has checked and says the facts are as they first reported. The ball is now in the court of the US military officials who claimed AP was wrong. What is their evidence, and how reliable is it?

 

[Nova Land]

Edits mine. Is the AP really somehow more trustworthy than Reuters?...

Sorry, I'm not clear what you're referring to. Are you saying that Reuters has checked this story and found evidence that Jamal Hussein does not exist? If so, could you please post a link to this story so I can read it?

If there is evidence, such as a Reuter's investigation, to support the US military official's claim that no such police captain exists, that would change the balance of the evidence. At present, the weight of the evidence is with AP, who claim that they did check and that this person does exist.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry, I'm not clear what you're referring to. Are you saying that Reuters has checked this story and found evidence that Jamal Hussein does not exist? If so, could you please post a link to this story so I can read it?

No, actually, I was refering to a different incident entirely, but one in which LGF (and other "right wing" blogs) uncovered fraud on the part of Reuters: namely, faked photos from Lebanon.

At present, the weight of the evidence is with AP, who claim that they did check and that this person does exist.

That the person exists does not mean that the name he gave or the position he supposedly holds are real. To verify that, it is NOT, in fact, enough to just visit him. For that, the relevant check IS to ask the Iraqi government, and apparently the AP has not done that but the US military did.

 

[luchog]

In order for AP to be wrong on this, not only does the original report need to be wrong, but also the follow-up report
(...)
Story challenged. Story checked. Story confirmed, unless the reporter who reported having checked the story is lying. Which is possible, but if so that is a claim which in itself requires some evidence. At some point the claim that AP is lying when it says it has talked to Jamal Hussein, in his office, at the police station, on more than one occasion, needs to be supported by some evidence.
(...)
Is there any evidence that the AP reporters who claim to have talked to Hussein are lying?
(...)
One reporter reported a story from a named source. Another reporter reported having verified that the first reporter had indeed talked to that source.
(...)
It's possible that AP is lying through its teeth.

More than possible, highly likely.

It's certainly not the first time the AP has been caught with manufactured "evidence" supporting stories that later proved to be false. Either falsified by their own reporters, or, as in this case, continuing to support stories and pictures later determined to have been manufactured or staged. In very few cases have they actually retracted and admitted their errors. Retractions, when there are any, are generally done quietly with no admission of error.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22063_AP_Stands_Behind_Green_Helmet_Guy&only
http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=10280215025338
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007763.php
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200603\NAT20060303a.html

 

[firecoins]

Reuters, AP, CBS News, CNN, ABC news, NBC news have all been caught with incorrect stories that should have never made print/the air and some were completely made up.

NBC Dateline did a story in 1994ish I think where they tested GM SUVs safety and found out exploded on impact. Turns out Dateline rigged the vehicles used in their test. GM sued. The case was settled out of court.

ABC news did an undercover report from a grocery store chain, Food Lion where they reported employees mishandled food. Turns out only the undercover reporters mishandled food and tried to pass it off as the chain's employees.

 

[a_unique_person]

More than possible, highly likely.

It's certainly not the first time the AP has been caught with manufactured "evidence" supporting stories that later proved to be false. Either falsified by their own reporters, or, as in this case, continuing to support stories and pictures later determined to have been manufactured or staged. In very few cases have they actually retracted and admitted their errors. Retractions, when there are any, are generally done quietly with no admission of error.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22063_AP_Stands_Behind_Green_Helmet_Guy&only

I don't get your point. What does the LGF link claim, who is retracting what?

 

[varwoche]

It's certainly not the first time the AP has been caught with manufactured "evidence" ... In very few cases have they actually retracted and admitted their errors.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22063_AP_Stands_Behind_Green_Helmet_Guy&only
http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=10280215025338
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007763.php
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200603\NAT20060303a.html

These are flimsy sources indeed. What's more, after I clicked the LGF link and saw it pertained to a non-conclusive issue, I stopped right there based on the not-enough-time-in-the-day principle.

More than possible, highly likely.

So sayeth luchdog and a few agenda-driven bloggers -- unconvicingly. Call me stodgy, but I would expect that if AP was caught manufacturing false stories and failing to correct the record, it would be reported by a mainstream source.

 

[firecoins]

Call me stodgy, but I would expect that if AP was caught manufacturing false stories and failing to correct the record, it would be reported by a mainstream source.

Thats a mighty assumption there. Most mainstream media outlets are customers of AP. Your expecting the media to police themselves in an industry where gov't oversite is forbidden. I don't really expect them to do that because alot of people switch between news agencies, professional courtesy, a small amout of ownership etc. etc. I would not expect the media to investigate itself.

 

[varwoche]

It's certainly not the first time the AP has been caught with manufactured "evidence" supporting stories that later proved to be false. Either falsified by their own reporters, or, as in this case, continuing to support stories and pictures later determined to have been manufactured or staged. In very few cases have they actually retracted and admitted their errors.
http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=10280215025338

As the saying goes, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..." It's quite misleading to make an assertion that is blatantly contradicted by your own citation. It's abundantly clear that AP owned up and fired the reporter as should be expected.

 

[varwoche]

Thats a mighty assumption there. Most mainstream media outlets are customers of AP. Your expecting the media to police themselves in an industry where gov't oversite is forbidden. I don't really expect them to do that because alot of people switch between news agencies, professional courtesy, a small amout of ownership etc. etc. I would not expect the media to investigate itself.

The media isn't a monolith. Furthermore, I can cite countless instances of the mainstream media exposing mistakes/fabrications by the mainstream media.

 

[Merko]

I know US military officials have an agenda in Iraq. I guess AP, by cultural affiliation, share part of that agenda. Neither party seems to be corroborated by any external source. Thus the issue is not easy to judge.

I still find the AP version considerably more likely, considering that they can be considered less biased, and more importantly because their statements are more assertive and therefore easier to be proven wrong. They are sticking their chin out here, if they are wrong someone could walk up and hit them pretty badly. That no one did yet does not prove that they are right, but it supports their credibility that they dare to take this stance.

 

[firecoins]

The media isn't a monolith. Furthermore, I can cite countless instances of the mainstream media exposing mistakes/fabrications by the mainstream media.

We are expecting them to police themselves. How do we know they doing a good job. You say you have countless times where they did catch each other but how how many times did they miss major mistakes? How many minor ones go by? We don't really know. Instead of us going back and fourth has it been scientifically studied anywhere?

The Drudge Report is not a reliable source or a member of the major media but they broke the Monica Lewinsky story because TIME magazine sat on it. Little Green Football is some biased right wing blogger and he has caught CBS & Reuters in a couple of scandals.

As for the story in question the AP is reporting from a source, an Iraqi police captain, who claims 6 Iraqis were burned by US soldiers. The AP is reporting hearsay. It could be wrong, it could be right. We don't know. The US military has motive to cover it up if true and a motive to complain about it if not true.

 

[varwoche]

We are expecting them to police themselves. How do we know they doing a good job. You say you have countless times where they did catch each other but how how many times did they miss major mistakes? How many minor ones go by? We don't really know. Instead of us going back and fourth has it been scientifically studied anywhere?

I think it's excellent that "ordinary citizens" keep an eye on the media and expose errors/fabrications, and even break stories sometimes.

The Drudge Report is not a reliable source or a member of the major media but they broke the Monica Lewinsky story because TIME magazine sat on it.

I agree with you that Drudge is not a reliable source. Nor is LGF a reliable source. Nor are random bloggers. For every one they get right, they get N wrong. But when they one right, I expect the mainstream media to run with it. A good example is the CBS memogate gaffe.

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?

As for the story in question the AP is reporting from a source, an Iraqi police captain, who claims 6 Iraqis were burned by US soldiers. The AP is reporting hearsay. It could be wrong, it could be right. We don't know. The US military has motive to cover it up if true and a motive to complain about it if not true.

I'm not clear if the source was a first hand witness or not. If it was hearsay and if AP reported the information otherwise, they deserve to take some flack. However, that's not the claim that's being echoed about. The claim is that the source is fictitious. If this is the case, numerous people at AP are engaged in a conspiracy to willfully mislead the public -- not impossible, but not likely.

Based on the evidence presented, to assume that AP is engaged in a broad conspiracy to willfully mislead the public (per luchog) is goofy. If it makes sense to dismiss AP in this instance, then it makes equal sense to dismiss each and every mainstream news report that the military* takes issue with.


* hardly a bastion of openness and truth

 

[varwoche]

Edited for accuracy based on the evidence you presented:

According to the US military, Iraqi police and coalition sources are the ones that are saying AP's named source does not exist.