AP source not who he claimed to be

[Nova Land]

The claim is that this person, Capt. Jamil Hussein is not an Iraqi policeman... For that to be true doesn’t require any conspiracy from anyone at the AP, only that one or more people at the AP had been conned by someone who represented themselves as being Capt. Jamil Hussein.

Yes, that's true. If it is possible for a person who is not a police officer to repeatedly make use of an office in a police station -- in a country at war, in which police have repeatedly been targeted -- then it is possible AP could be mistaken rather than lying.

But if that is the case we have a much bigger story than 6 Sunnis being burned alive, that story being the incredibly poor security at Iraqi police stations. Not only is the con artist able to enter and commandeer offices on repeated occasions, but a visitor to the station is able to enter and meet with the con artist with apparently no questions from people at the front desk of the station (such as Who are you? Why are you here? Who is this person whom you say asked you to meet him here?)

Or, I suppose, the con artist could have put signs on a building which was not a police station, hired a number of friends to pose as police officers, and invited the reporter to that building. Anything's possible. I do not think such a conspiracy is a likely occurrence, so for the sake of cutting a few words out of an already overly-long post I omitted a qualifier in that instance. Here, for your benefit, is a corrected version:

For AP to be wrong, then barring extraordinary circumstances such as an elaborate hoax, of which we have no evidence, 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.

 

[Nova Land]

Elsewhere on the forum there is a thread about EdenPURE heaters in which Goshawk has several good posts which illustrate the difference between lies and deception. For those who don't understand the point I am making in this thread, and who are offering examples of deception when what is at issue is outright lying, Goshawk's post may help you see the difference. Here are some excerpts.

From post # 6:

...Advertisers have been claiming for decades that something will do something in "only minutes"--but they don't say how many minutes. This is considered a valid sales technique.

...pure-D Madison Avenue advertising-speak, with nary a sentence to interest the legal beagles at the FTC, all perfectly factual and above-board, but wonderfully constructed so as to imply miracles.

From post # 7:

... You have to look at each sentence literally, the way a fraud-sniffing legal beagle from the FTC would approach it. There's not a single sentence in there that is potentially litigious; it's all completely factual. Their successful sales pitch rests in the implication that their product is somehow better than the competition's product, but there's not a single statement there that their product makes use of unknown or mysterious technology. That's what separates the truly woo from the merely "new and improved"--the truly woo gives you a lot of gobbledygook and pseudo-jargon, but there's nothing like that here. It's a quartz space heater, exactly as advertised. They're not advertising anything they aren't prepared to deliver.

And post # 11 is a good decoding of a number of the passages in the ad which seem to say one thing but actually mean another, which concludes:

I still don't see any dubious claims, other than what you're reading into it. Read it literally. He's not saying anything he can't back up.

This is the kind of deceptive behavior which, unfortunately, has become all too common in all walks of life -- including journalism. So examples of this kind of behavior are all too common.

Looking at Michael Dean's statement, there are several passages where it is possible he is saying something other than what it seems to say. But looking at Steven Hurst's account, there is not the same kind of careful wording, not the same kind of vagueness and ambiguity. He makes rather clear statements about matters of fact. If these statements are factually untrue, then he is lying -- and others at AP -- are lying.

Some of you say this is not an extraordinary occurrence. I am still waiting for examples of when this has occurred in the past. My point is that deception is common, outright lying rare. So far the examples which have been posted back me up.

 

[WildCat]

Or, I suppose, the con artist could have put signs on a building which was not a police station, hired a number of friends to pose as police officers, and invited the reporter to that building.

You're missing a 3rd possibility: Sunni insurgents have infiltrated into the ranks of the police dept. and are actively engaging in propaganda. And it's no secret that militia groups on all sides have infiltrated the Iraqi police/army/security forces.

 

[Mycroft]

Nova, I think you're missing the point.

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.

The possible explanations for this are more than just a simple dichotomy of either AP is lying or not. Possibilities run the spectrum from a simple mistake by the person who did the verification to infiltration of the Iraqi police by people sympathetic to insurgents, to other possibilities you and I haven’t considered yet.

But the important issue here is how AP handles this. I tell you if I were in charge, the next story to come out of Iraq would either be a “human interest” full biography of Captain Hussein from where he was born, where he went to school, how he got into police work, how he felt about the Saddam years, his hopes for the future as well as nice pictures of him with his wife and family, or it would be a big story about the con-man who duped the world press. Either way, by the end of the week I’d make sure everyone knew his name.

 

[varwoche]

You're missing a 3rd possibility: Sunni insurgents have infiltrated into the ranks of the police dept. and are actively engaging in propaganda. And it's no secret that militia groups on all sides have infiltrated the Iraqi police/army/security forces.

Lots of things are possible.

It's possible that the Sunnis who possibly infiltrated the police station also burned and bulleted the Sunni mosque and wrote "blood wanted" on the door.

It's possible that the multiple corroborating witnesses are stooges of the Sunni infiltrators.

Or it's possible the Iraqi officials lied when they said Hussein isn't a policeman, in order to protect fellow Shias.

Or it's possible that US officials lied, in order to downplay civil war talk.

It's possible that any given news story is false for a myriad of possible reasons.

Is there any basis (beyond idle speculation) for the possibility you suggest that makes this story any more suspect than any other Iraq story, seeing as most stories depend on one or more parties with a self interest who are possibly engaging in propaganda?

 

[firecoins]

You assert that TIME sat on the story. Are you claiming that they sat on the story past the point when they had adequately established the veracity of what they had been told. If so, could you provide what you believe is sufficient evidence to prove that was the case?

I would ask you to hold yourself to the same standard you feel AP should have lived up to in the incident we are discussing in this thread. State your claim clearly. Present what you feel is reliable evidence for it. "Sat on it" implies they suppressed the story even after they had confirmed it. If that's not what you meant to say, please clarify.

PS: I think you might mean Newsweek. That indicates you may not have checked the facts before posting your assertion. Am I correct in that surmise? And, if so, would you say that your error in identifying Time is a lie -- or simply carelessness? I'm inclined to believe the latter -- that either you were careless in typing and typed Time when you meant Newsweek, or that you were careless in neglecting to verify something before asserting it. Carelessness is, after all, a fairly common occurrence.

Okay Newsweek sat on the story. Newsweek sat on a newsworthy story instead of Time. The mistake on who sat on the story doesn't debunk my assertion that the news media will report flawed news or sit on other news items at all. You still you haven't debunked that a major news organization sat on a story which they did. Newsweek disn't dispute that it either when Drudge reported it. Oh well.

Yes I did more reasearch on the Food Lion vs ABC. I am wrong. This does not debun that the media does not report bad news stories and should not be believed because the media says so.

In this case the AP is reporting an incident based on a source that is disputed by the US military. Both the AP, the military have reasons to lie and so does the "source". We have been given 0 evidence that incident being reported by the "source" is true.

 

[rikzilla]

Lots of things are possible.

It's possible that the Sunnis who possibly infiltrated the police station also burned and bulleted the Sunni mosque and wrote "blood wanted" on the door.

It's possible that the multiple corroborating witnesses are stooges of the Sunni infiltrators.

Or it's possible the Iraqi officials lied when they said Hussein isn't a policeman, in order to protect fellow Shias.

Or it's possible that US officials lied, in order to downplay civil war talk.

It's possible that any given news story is false for a myriad of possible reasons.

Is there any basis (beyond idle speculation) for the possibility you suggest that makes this story any more suspect than any other Iraq story, seeing as most stories depend on one or more parties with a self interest who are possibly engaging in propaganda?

It looks like it's quite possible that Jamil Hussein is only the tip of the deception iceberg:

AP Back On That Bogus News Source Saddle(?)

(This post has been bumped up)
** Update: Centcom responds and is looking into this latest "questionable" source used by the Associated Press in their report yesterday on the car bombings at the Iraqi market. This AP writer reported that Lt. Ali Muhsin reported that 91 were killed in the blasts. Later reports put the total somewhere around 50.

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Sir:
We have requested our contact in the Coalition Police Assistance Training Team to get back to us. The length of time this takes seems to vary from week to week. I know the MOI is moving locations this week so I am not optimistic.

Vr,
LT Dean

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

This list of questionable media sources from Iraq was released earlier in the week by the Multi National Force Iraq as reported by Michelle Malkin and Flopping Aces. Here is that list:

Finally, notice no mention from AP of the long list of problematic Iraqi Police/Ministry of Interior spokesmen quoted by the AP and others that the military says it cannot verify as legitimate employees of the IP/MOI published at Flopping Aces:

* police Lt. Ali Abbas
* police Capt. Mohammed Abdel-Ghani.
* Police Brigadier Sarhat Abdul-Qadir
* Mosul police Director Gen. Wathiq al-Hamdani
* police Lt. Bilal Ali
* Ali al-Obaidi, a medic at Ramadi Hospital, police Maj. Firas Gaiti said.
* Police Captain Mohammed Ismail
* Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the Interior Ministry spokesman (a.k.a. Police Brigadier Abd al-Karim Khalaf, Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, Brig. Abdel-Karim Khalaf)
* Mohammed Khayon, a Baghdad police lieutenant
* police spokesman Mohammed Kheyoun. (a.k.a. Police Lieutenant Mohammed Khayoun)
* Lt. Thaer Mahmoud, head of a police section responsible for releasing daily death tolls
* police Lt. Bilal Ali Majid said
* police Lt. Ali Muhsin.
* police 1st. Lt. Mutaz Salahhidine. (a.k.a. Lieutenant Mutaz Salaheddin)
* Col. Abbas Mohammed Salman policeman Haider Satar

The Link

Like Mycroft said before...I'm willing to give AP the benefit of the doubt for now....but everyday that goes by with more allegations of dishonest reporting coupled with a continuing lack of clarification/verification by AP I become more skeptical of the AP. I'm already skeptical of the blogs...but I also fail to see how wire services such as AP deserve the appearance of instant credibility that they generally enjoy.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Check this out....

According to Capt. Jamil Hussein of the al-Yarmouk police station, gunmen opened fire on a minibus in Dora's predominantly Sunni Arab Mahdiya neighborhood. He said 11 people were killed, but Al-Yarmouk hospital reported receiving only two bodies from a shooting. It was unclear if the victims were Sunni or Shiite. There was no one available at Baghdad's main morgue to confirm if it had received any bodies.

The Link

This was an AP story from June 5th. It appears to be another instance of our phantom IP captain distorting the scope of the violence.

-z

 

[varwoche]

The Link

I'm not clear what your point is.

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?

As to the list of suspect names: A blogger echoing Michelle Malkin echoing another blogger citing a list of suspect names is so Kevin Bacon that I don't know what to make of it. Perhaps you could point me a little bit closer to an actual source of information.

 

[rikzilla]

I'm not clear what your point is.

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

Are you suggesting this is evidence of AP malfeasance?

As to the list of suspect names: A blogger echoing Michelle Malkin echoing another blogger citing a list of suspect names is so Kevin Bacon that I don't know what to make of it. Perhaps you could point me a little bit closer to an actual source of information.

I've done all the digging into this that I'm apt to do...but I will leave you with this:

Please note that the Associated Press has yet to produce proof that “Iraqi police captain Jamil Hussain” actually exists; all we got from them was an arrogant statement that they are “satisfied with their reporting.”

Shouldn’t it be simple for them to produce “Captain Hussain,” and repair the damage to their reputation? They certainly had no problem getting in touch with him when he had stories of atrocities and US war crimes.

...which is a very apt question. AP could fix this situation very easily. But only if Capt. Hussein really exists as they have described him. Similarly Dan Rather could have easily produced a proper source for the Bush ANG memo...had one existed.

AP has made assertions based a source which seems to have no substance. It's up to them to provide evidence for their assertions...it's not up to me to disprove them.

-z

 

[varwoche]

I've done all the digging into this that I'm apt to do...

Digging? You cite a blogger who echoes Malkin who echoes another blogger? I call that failing to even scrape the surface.

 

[rikzilla]

Digging? You cite a blogger who echoes Malkin who echoes another blogger? I call that failing to even scrape the surface.

Okay...here's a question for you...please answer honestly:

Who has the burden of proof for the veracity of a Associated Press story:

• A JREF forum poster called "rikzilla"
• The Associated Press
• Our overlords from Planet X
  

Take as much time as you need....

-z

 

[firecoins]

Okay...here's a question for you...please answer honestly:

Who has the burden of proof for the veracity of a Associated Press story:

• A JREF forum poster called "rikzilla"
• The Associated Press
• Our overlords from Planet X

Take as much time as you need....

-z

the AP?

 

[varwoche]

Who has the burden of proof for the veracity of a Associated Press story:

You posted stuff that doesn't make sense and when challenged you posted new stuff that doesn't make sense rather than explain yourself. I enjoy the occasional game of whack-a-mole at the arcade, but not here.

So let's back up and take it one at a time. What is your response to...?

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?

 

[Nova Land]

... 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.

No. Wrong on two counts.

1. The eyewitnesses to the incident are saying the Iraqis were burned alive by Shiite militiamen.
2. The police captain is confirming that 6 Iraqis in his jurisdiction were burned alive.

I don't know if you were simply careless in typing, or if you hadn't read the stories carefully, but It's worth taking a few moments to get details such as this straight.

I am, of course, assuming this was carelessness on your part rather than lying. Carelessness in matters such as this is quite common. Lying is rare.

 

[Nova Land]

... The AP is reporting hearsay. It could be wrong, it could be right. We don't know.

You seem to be unclear about the difference between hearsay and eyewitness testimony.

Eyewitness testimony is when a person testifies to things which they have personally seen or experienced. Hearsay is when a person passes along what they have heard other people say, but which they have no personal knowledge of. The former is what reputable news sources strive for.

It is quite possible for eyewitness testimony to be wrong; people often are mistaken in their observations at the time something occurred, their memory of what they observed, or their reporting of what they remember. Likewise it is quite possible for hearsay to be correct. The Drudge Report, and various right-wing blogs, are a good example. What they report is generally hearsay -- things they have picked up (often from reading other right-wing blogs, or listening to right-wing talk shows) -- but sometimes the stories they've heard are true, at least in some details.

While it is possible for reports of what people have actually witnessed to be wrong, and while it is possible for passed along stories to be right, over the long haul we will be better able to determine what is true and what is false if we place more credence on the testimony of people who actually experienced things than on the opinions and spin of those who didn't.

In order to determine what is true and what is not, we need to take the evidence presented and examine it. That's why reporters are valuable. They go out, collect evidence, and report it so that we can examine it. That is what they have done in this case.

You relied on hearsay in the Food Lion case and turned out to be wrong. That illustrates why relying on hearsay is a poor choice.

I believe the AP reporters are doing their best to report accurately and honestly. Like all people, they are imperfect, so doing their best doesn't mean they are right in all the particulars. That's why it's good to have a number of different reporters looking into things -- as is happening in Iraq.

It's possible that AP messed up in this case. If so, that in itself will be a good story so other news outlets have an incentive to uncover it and it will likely come out. So far no evidence has come out to indicate that AP has not done a good job on this.

 

[Nova Land]

you assume it isn't likely. How are we to check its likelihood or not? The media says the source is an Iraqi police captain and the US military says he isn't. We have to take the word of one or the other...

The AP says they have been working with this person for the past 2 years. That appears to be true. The AP says their reporter has met with this person on several occasions in an office at the police station. That also appears to be true. These are not proof, but they are corroborating details.

The US military says that they were told that MOI didn't find Jamil Hussein in their records. They have not released the name of the person at MOI who did the search and who informed them of the results (so that this person could be questioned) nor have they produced any other corroborating details. Furthermore, Dean's statement is worded in such a way that it is unclear whether he is saying that Jamil Hussein is a phony who is claiming to be a police captain (which is what some of you seem to be assuming he said) or whether he is saying that Jamil Hussein is not on the list of police who are authorized to speak with the media.

Given that the AP's statement about Jamil Hussein is clearly worded and is supported by corroborating details, and that Michael Dean's statement is ambiguously worded and is not supported by any corroborating details, then if we have to choose between the two stories the balance of the evidence says that AP is more likely to be correct.

 

[Nova Land]

Your criteria excuses faking a news story. I think your criteria is wrong. I am sorry but NBC did deny "faking" it despite being caught red handed. GM uncovered the NBC story as b.s.

Yes, NBC defended the actions of the people who worked on that story. Similarly, people have defended the actions of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, George Bush, and countless others who have been caught making misleading or deceptive statements. That doesn't mean the defenders are liars.

I note, for example, that you were caught using a false story (the Food Lion case) to support your claim that the media tell false stories and then lie about them. You have admitted you were wrong. But you are still attempting to defend the point you made using the false information. How, then, does your behavior differ from Dateline NBC's behavior? They apologized for using a simulation in the course of a larger story which they believed to be true. You apologized for using false information in the course of making a larger point which you believe to be true. Neither you nor they are lying simply because you continue to defend your larger point.

If you wish to assert that NBC lied in regard to this story, please quote a specific statement which is a lie.

 

[Nova Land]

Your criteria excuses faking a news story. I think your criteria is wrong. I am sorry but NBC did deny "faking" it despite being caught red handed. GM uncovered the NBC story as b.s.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html

Since this subject of this thread is whether AP maintained good standards in the way they handled their reporting, I think it is appropriate to point out when those who criticize AP fail to live up to such standards. Here is another prime example.

If you believe a site contains evidence to support your claim, excerpt and quote the relevant parts so we can see what it is you offering. That will be helpful not only to those of us who are trying to follow your claim and see if it is true, but also to you (if you do it well) because it will make you have to look closely at what is written to see what parts are statements of fact (worth quoting) and what parts are rhetorical (not worth quoting, except for entertainment purposes).

This site is simply another hearsay blog. The power lies in their story-telling ability. For those who are impressed by rhetoric, such sites are often impressive. When one tries to excerpt out and verify the facts, much of the power often evaporates.

Hearsay sites may, or may not, have checked out the sources they used to construct their piece. They may, or may not, have fairly selected the facts from these sources. So before you put your reputation on the line by passing along what they say as true, you should take the time to verify what they have said.

Unless you take the time to verify what hearsay sites have written, then you don't know whether what they have written is legitimate evidence to back up your claims and you shouldn't attempt to pass it off as if it is. If you want to say, here's the site where I got this stuff I just posted about, but I have no idea how accurate it is, that's one thing. But citing it as if it were a reputable source is deceptive.

If AP were to do something like this, we would rightly criticize them for it. We should not tolerate lower standards from ourselves.

 

[Nova Land]

NBC conspired to write a false news story with the full expectation that they would not be caught doing so. They got caught.

No, that is incorrect.

The people at Dateline "conspired" to write what they believed was a true news story -- that GM trucks were more prone to explode than other trucks, due to the placement of the gas tank. Court cases have confirmed that this is true.

The sin which the Dateline people committed was to report a true story in a deceptive way. Because it would be too difficult and expensive to keep crashing things into the side of a GM truck until it exploded, and to report how many explosions there were out of how many collisions, and then do the same with control trucks with the tank placed differently, and then report how many explosions there were out of how many collisions for the control, they chose to stage a dramatization of the kind of explosion which had occurred in a number of real-life cases. That would have been tolerable if they had clearly stated during the broadcast what they were doing. But they didn't. Their disclaimer was so subtle that many viewers totally missed it, and assumed the explosion was likely to happen in a random collision rather than that it was possible to happen, and to happen at a higher rate than if the gas tank were located differently.

But there was a disclaimer. So for NBC to attempt to defend the program is not the same as lying about the program. Making a poor argument is not the same as a lie. If it were, every losing lawyer would be liable to face perjury charges.

You have claimed NBC lied about the program. Varwoche pointed out that is not the case. For you to attempt to defend your false claim is comparable to NBC attempting to defend their deceptive claim. If you maintain that NBC was lying by attempting to defend its claim, then you must also be maintaining that you are lying by attempting to defend your claim.

If you believe that NBC lied, then please quote at least one specific statement by an NBC person which is a lie. If you are unable to do that, then -- by the standard which AP is being asked to adhere to -- your claim about them lying is false and needs to be retracted.