AP source not who he claimed to be

[Nova Land]

It's possible more evidence will come to light which will tip the balance decisively one way or the other... But until that evidence does come out, we have to look fairly at what we do have. That means subjecting MOI to the same standard of scrutiny as AP.

FACT: The AP wrote a story based on an account by an Iraqi police captain...
FACT: The Iraqi Ministry of Information] has gone on the record saying that the quoted source; Police Captain Jamil Hussein is not in their employ...

The burden of proof is on the entity that made the positive claim. By any rational standard the burden of proof that Captain Hussein exists and therefore that this purported attack occurred as reported (or at all for that matter) is the AP's alone.

Standard of scrutiny and burden of proof are two separate things. Both are essential elements of skepticism (or at least to what I mean by skepticism), so I think it is important to have a good understanding of what these things are and not to confuse one with the other. Let me try to explain the difference to you. I suspect we have a semantic difference here rather than a real one, and that once you understand what I am talking about you will find you do not disagree with me on this after all.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It is their responsibility to prove that the defendant is guilty. If they fail to do so, then the defendant is to be considered not guilty. The defense does not need to make any arguments or present any evidence whatsoever, if it so chooses -- and if the prosecution fails to make its case, the defense prevails.

However, if the defense does choose to make arguments, present witnesses, or introduce evidence, then their arguments, witnesses, and evidence are subject to the same standard of scrutiny as prosecution witnesses.

If a prosecution witness says they saw the defendant fleeing the scene moments after the crime occurred, we subject their testimony to scrutiny to see if it is credible. If a defense witness says they saw the defendant miles away at the time when the crime occurred, we subject their testimony to the same type of scrutiny to see if it is credible.

We do not give defense witnesses a free pass simply because the defense was under no obligation to present witnesses. Every claim made in a court of law -- or any other proceeding where we are concerned with getting at the truth of a matter -- should be subjected to critical scrutiny, and the standard of scrutiny should be consistent. If it is relevant to ask whether prosecution witnesses had any biases that might affect their perception or their testimony, then it is relevant to ask those questions of defense witnesses as well. If it is relevant to consider the qualifications of a prosecution witness, then it is relevant to consider the qualifications of a defense witness. The fact that the burden of proof is on the prosecution is irrelevant to this.

The AP reporter said he had met several times with Jamil Hussein in his office at the al-Yarmouk police station. That is a claim which should be subjected to scrutiny. Michael Dean has said that a records check with MOI turned up no mention of Jamil Hussein. That is also a claim which should be subjected to scrutiny. Accepting Dean's statement, without examining it to see what it means and whether it is reliable, would be foolish.

Rejecting Dean's statement does not mean accepting AP's. Accepting Dean's statement does not mean rejecting AP's. The two claims, while related, are not directly in opposition. That is why they need to examined separately. Each is a small piece of evidence in a much larger picture. The fact that we are still missing many of the pieces doesn't mean we can't do a good job of examining the pieces we do have.

By examining all the evidence -- not simply challenging evidence put forward by those we are in disagreement with -- we come to a better understanding, and begin to understand the bigger picture of which the fragments of evidence are tiny pieces. We can often learn a lot by a closer examination of something we've been taking for granted. Why not read Dean's statement a bit more closely -- and with a properly skeptical eye?

 

[Nova Land]

While you are busy being studiously even-handed you are ignoring standard logic.

No, I am not. The concept of applying the same standard of scrutiny to all the evidence is an essential element of critical thinking.

Irrationalists are very fond of finding excuses for applying one standard of scrutiny to their opponents claims and a different standard to their own claims. That allows them to hold onto irrational beliefs while dismissing rational objections to those beliefs. Rationalists insist on applying the same standard. That isn't ignoring standard logic; it's practicing it.

After all, what would you say to the creationist who says "Goddidit!"? Should we be "fair-minded" and give the benefit of the doubt to the traditionally established religionists as we wait for science to disprove the assertion?

Yes, we should apply the same standard of scrutiny to the creationists (who say that God created all living things in one fell swoop, and that the species have remained constant ever since) as we do to the evolutionists (who say that life evolved over time from simple life forms into the life forms we see today).

That's not being 'fair-minded' or giving the benefit of the doubt -- that's being a skeptic. If you've already made your mind up what's true and what's not, then your proposed method is a good way to keep on thinking you're right. But if you genuinely want to know what's true, then you need to apply the same standard of scrutiny to things you are inclined to agree with as you do to things you are inclined to disagree with.

You argue that we should apply one level of scrutiny to what AP says: what they say is false until proven true, because they are making a claim. But you argue we should use a different level of scrutiny to what Michael Dean and MOI say: what they say is true until proven false, because they are not making a claim, only questioning AP's claim.

The problem is that's exactly what the creationists do with regard to evolution. They use the same approach you are advocating -- except they see evolution as the claim and creationism as the skeptical challenge. They ask that evolution be proven to be true, and reject it because they are not satisfied with the level of proof offered. So as far as they are concerned, evolution is false until proven true. But they believe in creationism because -- like you -- they do not see a need to subject their own side to the standard of scrutiny they want to impose on those they disagree with. So as far as they are concerned, creationism remains true unless proven false.

Because they are not subjecting things they agree with to the same standard of scrutiny as things they disagree with, they are able to set an unrealistically high standard of scrutiny for the one (and thus no one will ever able to prove to them that evolution is true) and an unrealistically low standard of scrutiny for the other (and thus no one will ever be able to prove to them that creationism is false). If they had to apply the same standard of scrutiny to both, the problem in what they are doing would be apparent. They would either need to reject creationism in order to reject evolution, or they would need to accept evolution in order to accept creationism. The evidence for creationism is so weak that there is no reasonable way to conclude that creationism is true and evolution is false if you hold both to the same standard of scrutiny. But by using the approach that you advocate, they manage to avoid that problem.

Your method is a way for people to confirm to themselves that they were right all along. That makes it a useful process for true believers -- and a terrible process for skeptics.

That's why I prefer the method used in US courts: every bit of evidence, whether presented by the prosecution (who are making a claim) or the defense (who are questioning that claim) is subjected to the same standard of scrutiny. If the prosecution has witnesses who claim to have seen the defendant at the scene of a crime, those witness are examined to see if they know what they are talking about and to see if they have biases which might color their testimony. If the defense chooses to counter with witnesses who say the defendant was somewhere else at the time, those witnesses are examined to see if they they know what they are talking about and to see if they have biases which might color their testimony. Neither side gets the kind of free pass you want to hand out to Michael Dean and the MOI.

What's true will stand up to scrutiny; what's false won't. That, at least, is the skeptical ideal. It may take a long time, and we may make errors on the way, but in the long run we will be right more often, and wrong less often, if we use a consistent standard of scrutiny.

I'm not asking to exempt what AP says from scrutiny; I'm asking to subject Michael Dean, MNC-I, and MOI say to the same scrutiny. And yes, that is precisely what I would do with creationists as well.

I don't understand why you would be opposed to that. Bringing good evidence into the light helps show it is good; bringing bad evidence into the light helps show it is not good. If it were I who believed Dean was telling the truth, I would be delighted to have him to elaborate on the records check that MOI did. The more he explained it, the stronger the case that Hussein is a fake would become -- if this really were a valid records check that had showed Hussein not to be an Iraqi policeman.

The reason why I believe in evolution is that a fair reading of the evidence supports it. The reason I don't believe in creationism is that a fair reading of the evidence does not support it. I don't need to give evolution supporters a free pass on critical scrutiny in order to reach that conclusion. Quite the contrary: it's because of, not in spite of, critical scrutiny of evolutionists claims that I believe in evolution.

 

[Nova Land]

Let me quickly run through the process of weighing the evidence -- both for the claim of creationism and for the claim of evolution -- in order to illustrate how this works and to demonstrate that this is a better way for skeptics to evaluate claims than the approach rikzilla appears to be espousing.

Creationists claim that all species were created at the same time and that the species have remained constant ever since. Evolutionists claim that life evolved over time from simple life forms into the life forms we see today.

I. Weighing the claim for evolution

In regard to the claim for evolution, there are two things which weigh heavily in its favor. One is that there is physical evidence to support the theory of evolution: fossil records, for example. The thing about the physical evidence which lends support to the theory of evolution is that as new evidence emerges -- for example, new fossils are discovered and examined -- the results of the examinations continue to be consistent with what the theory of evolution indicates we should expect. Dinosaur bones continue to date back to the age of dinosaurs; primate bones continue to date to much more recent times. If we were to start discovering dinosaur bones which dated to recent times, or primate bones which dated back hundreds of millions of years, that would call evolution into question.

Anyone can put together a theory which covers all the facts discovered to date. Coming up with a theory which covers all the facts presently known, and which continues to hold true as new facts come to light without needing major alterations and tweaking, is a good indication the theory is valid.

The second thing which weighs heavily in evolution's favor is that better understanding of evolution has tied in with better understanding of other areas (such as genetics). In science, the discovery of one thing which is true generally leads to and ties in with other discoveries which turn out to be true. Belief in evolution has led scientists to pursue lines of inquiry which have proved fruitful. This, again, is a good indicator a theory is valid.

And what is the evidence against evolution? It seems to consist largely of rhetorical arguments and intellectual notions.

Most of these arguments and notions do not seem to stand up well to scrutiny. As an example of a weak argument, it is argued that some of the early evidence for evolution turned out to be fraudulent, and from that it is implied that therefore all the evidence is suspect. This is not a very convincing argument. As an example of an intellectual notion which fails to stand up to scrutiny, it is claimed that evolution violates basic principles of science, such as the second law of thermodynamics. But scientists who are actually familiar with thermodynamics say this is not an accurate description of what the second law says.

Even if the rhetorical arguments being made against evolution were better, the balance would still tip for me in favor of evolution -- because physical evidence and useful predictive value generally weigh more heavily with me than rhetorical arguments. But the fact that these particular arguments are so lacking in substance makes this a fairly easy call: the scales come down heavily on the side of evolution.

II. Weighing the claim for creationism.

(a) As for the claim that all living things were created at roughly the same time, there is physical evidence -- but the evidence contradicts the claim. For instance, there is evidence (such as carbon-dating, and the fossil record) which indicates that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago and that humans are a much more recent development. The creationist literature I've read is less concerned with presenting evidence than with explaining away the evidence. For instance: the fact that dinosaur fossils are found deeper down than primate fossils, in geological strata dating from earlier time periods, is brought up in creationist literature for the purpose of explaining it away as something which doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

(b) As for the claim that species stay essentially the same, rather than evolving over time, again the creationists offer no physical evidence to support this claim. What they offer instead are attacks on evolution. Many of these attacks are largely rhetorical -- for example, their use of the second law of thermodynamics as a reason to believe evolution is impossible. But the problem is not simply the weakness of the attacks. It is that attacks on one's opponents position are not the same as support for one's own position.

Those who live in a black-or-white world, where there are only two possible choices, would be justified in equating an attack on the opposing position with support for their own. But the reality we live in is not like that. In our reality, it is quite possible for two people with opposing views to both be wrong. So 'proving' that the opposing position is wrong is fine and dandy -- and should be taken into account when weighing that opposing position -- but it is not a substitute for providing evidence to show that one's own position is correct. And that is what creationists have largely failed to do -- in the literature I've read, at least.

Because the creationist claim rests largely on explaining away the evidence and attacking evolution, rather than presenting evidence in support of the theory of creationism, this also is an easy call for me: the scales come down heavily against creationism.

 

[Nova Land]

Let me make it even simpler. In weighing these claims, I considered a number of things. Three of the main questions I considered were:

(1) Is there substantial physical evidence in support of the claim?
(2) Is there substantial physical evidence which casts the claim in doubt?
(3) Does acceptance of the claim lead to other useful discoveries?

WIth evolution there is a fair amount of physical evidence in support. There is no substantial physical evidence against. And belief in evolution has tied in with many advances in other areas of science. Hence, my weighing of the evidence leads me to believe in evolution.

With creationism there is no physical evidence in support. There is substantial physical evidence against. And belief in creationism is not connected with any notable advance in any scientific area. Hence, my weighing of the evidence leads me to reject creationism.

There is no need to set a higher standard creationists to meet than for evolutionists (as rikzilla seems to be proposing). Nor is there a need to set a higher standard for evolutionists to meet than for creationists (as creationists seem to want). Evolution stands up as valid because it is a valid scientific theory -- at least by a fair weighing of the evidence we have so far. Creationism fails because it is not a valid scientific theory -- at least, not by a fair weighing of the evidence we have so far.

For those of us who are interested in finding out what's true and what isn't, there's no need to rig the scales -- or to use one set of scales for people we agree with and a different set for those we disagree with.

 

[varwoche]

They responded by poo-pooing thier critics. What they have not done is produced Captain Jamil Hussein.

Back to this once more. You falsely represent AP's response, which included a re-investigation at the scene including interviews of corroborating witnesses. Even if you consider AP's follow-up inadequate, your statement is quite misleading.

Now you're just flat out fabricating reasons for AP not to check their sources.

I think not. My comment pertained to the ludicrous notion that a Sunni cop in one of the most dangerous Baghdad neighborhoods -- a place where al-Sadr death squads have been purportedly running rampant -- is going to publish pictures of his family. Here's the credulity-defying comment I was refering to:

But the important issue here is how AP handles this. I tell you if I were in charge, the next story ... pictures of him with his wife and family

Which is great, as far as that goes. Personally I'd be curious as to what happened to the bodies of the 10 militiamen that were killed...

I'm aware that the bodies of purportedly burnt Sunnis weren't witnessed by AP (though anonymous, corroborating morgue workers are cited), and indeed this is evidence against the AP story. I'm not aware that the bodies of the militiamen don't exist. If true, this too would be a piece of evidence against the AP story.

A reporter claimed he had been interviewed in a police station in the past. The claim was never made that he was interviewed in the police station for this story.

By and large immaterial if true, though I'm not positive it's true.

In my line of work...

This is not merely apples and oranges. It's more like apples and meatloaf, given the complex Iraq dynamics.

Clearly you're satisfied extending the benefit of the doubt with little evidence.

Unless you're in the camp that accuses AP of fabricating the story, in fact there is a lot of evidence that corroborates Hussein. As well, there is contradicting evidence, which is why my satisfaction is far from absolute.

That's fine for you, but some of the rest of us choose to be more skeptical than you are.

You might want to re-examine this pompous dig in light of your stunningly counter-skeptical OP that echoes agenda-driven echoes in propagandistic fashion.

As it happens, more evidence will be forthcoming on the issue. Apparently Eason Jordan has offered to fly Michelle Malkin and Curt of flopping aces dot com to Iraq to personally look for Captain Hussein. If they find him or not, this should be interesting.

Fascinating.

 

[Nova Land]

... the AP's site appears to list [Jamil Hussein] as a source in at least 50 articles about Iraq..... But now they can't seem to lay their hands on him.

Yes. I think I read that the policy in Iraq used to be that anyone of captain's rank or above was permitted to speak with the media. Jamil Hussein was a police captain, he spoke with AP on numerous occasions, he was quoted in numerous stories, and no one complained.

Now things have changed. The MOI has set up a list of people who are approved to talk with the media, and is threatening legal actions against the media if it gets stories from unauthorized sources. There is no mention of what penalties they are planning to impose on the sources themselves, but if they are planning to punish the media if it dares to defy them it seems highly likely they plan to punish unauthorized sources as well.

Under those conditions, if Jamil Hussein is no longer willing to be quoted in AP stories anymore I do not find that very surprising.

The means of establishing this man's bona fides appear to be entirely in AP's hands.

No, the means of establishing whether Jamil Hussein is genuine or phony lies in the hands of the MOI as much as (or more so) than in the hands of the AP. The MOI could, for instance, release a list of all the people who have worked as police captains at al-Yarmouk over the last two years and give reporters permission to talk freely with any and all of these people so that the reporters could ask them if they did or did not know and work with Jamil Hussein. Even better, they could agree to an exception to their policy of not allowing police under the rank of captain to talk with the media, and permit reporters to talk with any or all police working at the al-Yarmouk station to check on this matter. So far they have not done so.

As rikzilla pointed out, the MOI is the controlling authority. They have much more power in this matter than AP does.

Their unwillingness to do anything about that or give an explanation why that is not possible makes it very difficult for me to believe them in this instance.

Yes. And this applies to what the MOI says as well as to what the AP says. There are good reasons to be suspicious of what both sides in this dispute are saying. That's why I think anyone who takes a firm position at this point -- who says this is the definitive answer, no need to inquire further -- is being decidely non-skeptical.

I would like to see MOI pressed for answers. I would like to see AP given permission to speak to and quote the police officers at al-Yarmouk, and for the police officers there to be given permission to speak freely with AP. That seems to me to be one of the best ways for this matter to be settled.

 

[Nova Land]

So we have one valid example, out of all those offered in the thread so far. That demonstrates that there is precedent for AP to be misstating things badly enough to be wrong in this matter. But it also demonstrates how rare it is for a media outlet to behave badly enough for that to be the case.

No, all you have demonstrated is that the few people posting on this thread have not offered any other examples which pass your criteria.

Yes, that is correct.

Similarly, JREF has not demonstrated that dowsing does not work. All they have demonstrated is that, of the dowsers they have tested, none have been able to demonstrate genuine abilities. Just as JREF can only test the people who apply, I can only; evaluate the examples that have been presented.

But we've had a number of intelligent people searching for examples for over a week. If examples of the media outlets lying when one of their reporters is caught faking a story were as common as some people here claimed, that would seem to me sufficient time for people to have come up with at least a handful of valid examples. Instead, only one example that comes close to qualifying has been presented.

Several of the examples presented in this thread have turned out to be not examples of the mainstream media lying but rather to be examples of the hearsay sites deceiving the people who relied on them. Others have turned out to be good examples of incidents in which the media got a story wrong -- and, when the matter came out, did not lie about it. That doesn't prove that there aren't examples in which such lying did occur -- but as a practical person I try to base my judgments on the evidence which has been presented, not on guesses about what evidence might still be out there.

If further evidence is brought to light, one can always revise one's judgment. But first it needs to be brought to light.

 

[Nova Land]

I don't claim to have done any research and don't plan to spend time researching a matter that seems, at best, tangential.

I can understand that. My time is also limited. There are many threads I'd like to be posting in, but I just don't have time or energy to be involved meaningfully in more than one or two at a time, and I dislike starting to take part in a thread only to fall hopelessly behind in participation due to other commitments coming up.

I think you are wrong about the matter being "at best, tangential". I think it is relevant in a number of ways. First, it is a good test of whether the theory that AP got the story wrong, and now is lying about having gotten it wrong is reasonable. If this has happened frequently in the past 50 years, then it is a reasonable theory as to what is happening in the present case. If it has happened rarely or not at all in the past 50 years, then it would be an extraordinary explanation for the present case.

Some people in this thread claimed that such occurrences are common -- but so far have not been able to come up with a single instance in which that actually happened. That's interesting tome not just because it supports the argument I'm making (that for AP to lie in the present case would be an extraordinary event, and hence if there are explanation for the present case which do not require extraordinary events to have taken place those explanations are more likely to be correct) but also because it shows that the reason some people are concluding that AP is lying could be related to the mistaken view they have of how the media actually conducts itself.

Which brings us to the third reason I think this is a relevant tangent: we can see from various posts in this thread that the people who deceived firecoins about the Food Lion Case, the GM truck case, and the Monica Lewinsky case, turn out to be some of the same hearsay sites which are currently pushing the claim that AP is lying. That strikes me as something worth keeping in mind.

 

[Nova Land]

One phrase in NoZed's post deserves a little extra emphasis:

... don't plan to spend time researching...

Yes, precisely.

Finding out if there are instances in which the media had got a story substantially wrong, and then lied about it, would be a time-consuming task. That's because such an event is either extremely rare or non-existent.

If it were a common occurrence, it would not take much time to research. Examples would spring to mind, and could be quickly Googled, confirmed, and specific lying statements could be quoted and linked to. But clearly it is not that simple, since so far not a single example of such a lie has come to light. The Killian memo case came close enough that I was willing to count it. But so far that's it.

So I agree with you. Trying to find such examples is not how I intend to spend my time either -- because for a media outlet to lie in the way AP is being accused of lying in the present case would be extraordinary.

 

[Nova Land]

You may conclude that no one has demonstrated malfeasance to you (at least to your satisfaction), but to conclude that the failure of a handful of people on this thread to prove the matter to your satisfaction is actually evidence that the phenomenon is rare or impossible takes a giant, extra, and unwarranted step.

A number of people in this thread claimed that it was common for the media to lie in the way that AP would need to be lying in this case in order for Jamil Hussein to be non-existent (which was the original claim the AP detractors were making). What I have been doing is challenging that claim. I think their failure to provide examples does, indeed, demonstrate that they were wrong in their belief that such examples were common.

What we have seen in this thread is that what actually was common was not lying by the mainstream media. What was common was for people such as firecoins to be deceived by the hearsay sites they were relying. That seems quite relevant to the case at hand, since once again it is the hearsay sites who are the source people who believe AP is lying are relying on.

Just because the hearsay sites were wrong so often in the past doesn't mean they are wrong again this time. Just because firecoins got deceived by the hearsay sites repeatedly in the past doesn't mean he's being deceived by them again in regards to the AP story. But it does make that a possibility worth considering.

 

[Nova Land]

Proof that news organizations in the past have or have not lied or been wildly (or perhaps wilfully) mistaken would not show that AP either is or is not correct in this case.

You are correct: it would not. But that's not the argument I'm making.

There are numerous examples where news stories have been incorrect. The question is: what have media outlets such as AP done in the past when a story has been challenged over an incorrect story?

In the present case, AP would need to be lying if it turns out that Jamil Hussein is not an Iraqi police officer. I have said that this would be an extraordinary occurrence; others have said it would not be, and that it is common for the media to lie about such a matter. That is the question at hand: Is it common or uncommon for a media outlet to lie when one of its stories is false and is challenged?

It goes to the matter of probability. Rikzilla has said this is a black-and-white situation, that either Jamil Hussein exists or he doesn't, that either AP is lying or it isn't. That strikes me as a very poor way to try to arrive at truth. In everyday life, instead of demanding certainty it is often more practical to make judgments based on probability.

In this matter of the AP story about Sunnis being burned alive, we do not know the truth with certainty yet. But we can make judgments among the various possible explanations about which are more likely to be true and which are less likely to be true. If there are many cases in which reporters have turned in incorrect stories, and when the story was questioned the media outlet lied in support of the reporter, this would support the opinion of some that this is a very likely explanation in the present case. If there are a fair number of such incidents, that would make this a reasonable explanation. And if there are virtually no such incidents, that would make this a highly uinlikely explanation.

So far, the evidence indicates it is highly unlikely.

 

[Nova Land]

Or to reduce it to a bumper sticker, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think that you are confusing evidence with proof. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence; but it most definitely is evidence of it.

How strong a piece of evidence the absence of evidence is will vary from case to case, depending on the particular circumstances. In some cases, the absence of evidence for something is pretty compelling evidence that the thing being sought doesn't exist; in other cases, the absence of evidence for something is at best a mild indication.

For example, suppose there has been a burglary which the police are investigating. The absence of any evidence that someone broke in -- locked windows and doors with none of them broken or apparently tampered with; no sign of intruders on the security cameras; no strange footprints or fingerprints; etc. -- does not prove there was no intruder, but it strongly suggests it. Absence of evidence (of an intruder) is evidence there was no intruder.

Or suppose someone has died under suspicious circumstances, and the police are trying to determine if the person was poisoned. If medical tests done soon after the death do not turn up any traces of poison, that is evidence that poison was not the cause of death. Absence of evidence (of poison in the body) is evidence of absence (of poison as the cause of death). It's not proof that poison wasn't the cause; it's possible that a poison was used which was not detectable by the particular tests used. But it is evidence worth taking into consideration.

The Loch Ness monster is another good example. The failure to turn up any solid evidence for the existence of a sea serpent monster in the lake, despite many efforts to do so, is evidence that such a creature does not exist. It is not absolute proof of the creature's non-existence, but it is very strong evidence.

On the other hand, consider the matter of snow in Tennessee. We do get snow here several times each winter, so a claim that it has snowed in the last day or two is not outrageous. But the ground temperature is often warm enough that snow melts soon after falling. Therefore the lack of snow on the ground is consistent with a theory that it has not snowed, but not much more than that. Absence of evidence (of snow) is evidence (that it has not snowed recently), but it is very weak evidence.

You yourself argued that the absence of evidence of the existence of Jamil Hussein is one of the reasons you are inclined to disbelieve AP on Jamil Hussein's existence. So in that case, you did feel that absence of evidence was evidence of absence.

And I agree. The failure of AP to produce additional evidence to support its claim (of Hussein's existence) is reason to be suspicious of the AP's claim and to want to see more evidence before reaching any firm conclusion. But likewise, the failure of Michael Dean and MOI to produce evidence to support their claim (that records exist proving definitively that Jamil Hussein is not an Iraqi police officer) is reason to be suspicious of their claim, and to want to see more evidence before reaching any firm conclusion.

It's wrong to fixate on suspicious elements in the story of one party in a dispute without giving equal attention to suspicious elements in the stories told by other parties. That's what non-skeptics do.

 

[Mycroft]

Now you're just flat out fabricating reasons for AP not to check their sources.

I think not. My comment pertained to the ludicrous notion that a Sunni cop in one of the most dangerous Baghdad neighborhoods -- a place where al-Sadr death squads have been purportedly running rampant -- is going to publish pictures of his family. Here's the credulity-defying comment I was refering to:

Is he a Sunni cop? How do you know?

Does he have reason to be afraid? If so, how come he allowed himself to be named in the press a dozen or so times in the past?

Would increased attention place his family at risk? From whom and why?

Most importantly, if your speculation is true and that Hussain is suddenly scarce out of concern for his family, what methods could be employed to verify AP’s information while minimizing the risk to him?

I accused you of fabricating reasons for AP not checking their sources because you speculate on a possible reason for Hussein not coming forward, and then take your own speculation as fact. With an active imagination, we can always imagine some reason for things being one way, but skeptics depend on evidence.

In my line of work...

This is not merely apples and oranges. It's more like apples and meatloaf, given the complex Iraq dynamics.

I see nothing that makes it substantially different. The US military did an employement verification with the Iraqi DOI, and were unable to verify the employment of Captain Hussein.

No matter how you look at it, that's significant and needs resolution.

 

[Mycroft]

Now things have changed. The MOI has set up a list of people who are approved to talk with the media, and is threatening legal actions against the media if it gets stories from unauthorized sources...

And this event is used to justify that policy.

Which is a powerful reason for AP to do the work and verify Hussein. If he is a real person and their failure to verify he works for the DOI is just a mix-up, then policy is being decided based on this mix-up. No matter what side of the political spectrum you sit on, being confident in the accuracy of your sources is a plus.

 

[The Fool]

And this event is used to justify that policy.

Which is a powerful reason for AP to do the work and verify Hussein. If he is a real person and their failure to verify he works for the DOI is just a mix-up, then policy is being decided based on this mix-up. No matter what side of the political spectrum you sit on, being confident in the accuracy of your sources is a plus.

They have taken reasonable steps and verified the source....unless they are all conspiring. I wonder where the goalposts would be moved to if they were to provide more. Personally I think the blog warriors would still be calling fraud if this guy appeared on Letterman.

Rejecting sources except those approved by the regime in power in Iraq is not a plus. I am assuming that the bloggers are going to do what they are told by the Iraqi regime and place special requirements of veracity on any source the Iraqi regime does not approve.Or are we seeing the same standards of source verification on the "happy happy" stories?

 

[Mycroft]

They have taken reasonable steps and verified the source....

Oh yeah? What steps are those? Have they been able to explain why the Iraqi DOI doesn't seem to know who he his? Oh, I see, they checked with one of their own reporters who remembers meeting the guy at some unknown time in the past, plus he's in the rolodex. Does that explain away why the Iraqi DOI claims not to know him?

Rejecting sources except those approved by the regime in power in Iraq is not a plus.

If the Iraqi DOI claims this guy doesn't work for them, that's an issue for concern, wouldn't you agree?

Or maybe you think it's normal for a police captain to be repudiated by the government he works for?

 

[WildCat]

No, it would need to be quite a bit more complicated than simply putting on a false name tag.

In US police stations one does not just walk in off the street and proceed to walk anywhere in the building one wishes. There is a front desk one must check in at, where one states why one is there. Access to the rest of the building is restricted. I have not been inside an Iraqi police station, but am assuming the security arrangement there is similar.

How big is the station? Is it mostly Sunni or Shiite? Is it mostly one tribe? These are factors in Iraq that are not even thought of in US police stations. In Iraq, loyalties and identities go first to tribe, sects, etc before the national gov't.

 

[WildCat]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are asking.

You state:1. The MOI has recently started cracking down on media outlets which print stories they don't like. This is a fact.

2. The MOI has a list of people who are approved to speak to the media. This is a fact. [/quote]
Evidence that these facts together mean that Dean meant that Jamil wasn't authorized to give interviews rather than that he wasn't a MOI employee period?

3. The MOI records check which Dean refers to could be a check of the list of people who are approved to speak to the media. This is a speculation

Exactly.Could be. Shouldn't it be up to the person making a positive claim to prove it?

For your speculation to be true, there needs to be a conspiracy among the police officers at al-Yarmouk police station to deceive the AP into believing that a genuine Iraqi police officer is actually a genuine Iraqi police officer.

Which for reasons I noted above is hardly a far-fetched possibility, especially given the importance of propaganda in this war.

That's possible, but I think it's unlikely. For my speculation to be true, all that is required is for Michael Dean to be a deceptive weasel. That's possible, and sadly I don't find it at all unlikely.

No, Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf (and presumably the entire MOI) is in on it as well:

Khalaf said the ministry had no one on its staff by the name of Jamil Hussein.

It's basically the word of the AP vs. the word of the Iraqi MOI, neither of which I have reason to trust greatly. Therefore the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

I don't buy the "protecting the witness" line either btw. If he does exist they know who he is, and can't possibly be exposed by a picture or other reporters verifying his existence.

 

[casebro]

So does anybody else here notice the lack of newsworthy big nasties happening in Iraq since the doubts about AP's coverage came up?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Yes, that is correct.

Similarly, JREF has not demonstrated that dowsing does not work. All they have demonstrated is that, of the dowsers they have tested, none have been able to demonstrate genuine abilities. Just as JREF can only test the people who apply, I can only; evaluate the examples that have been presented.

But we've had a number of intelligent people searching for examples for over a week.

My perception is that you have a *very few* poeple who have done little to no looking.

Can you quantify how much work they've done and how easy it is to locate such information?

And you have completely dismissed people's points with the most nonchalant reasoning I have seen outside a John Edward reading:

With the CNN example of faking news stories in Iraq, you have a reporter from CNN -- this was in the print version of the Washington Times in early 2003, IIRC -- saying that the organization actually handed him talking points from Sadam Hussein's propaganda bureau to read as if it was valid news. This occurred from 1998 to almost the time of the invasion and CNN's representatives, during that time, said more than once that their reporting was fair and untainted regarding Iraq.

You wave this aside as a sin of omission, but: (1) it isn't, as they were *admittedly*, actively reading propaganda points from Iraq's ministries to help Hussein with world opinion; (2) the distinction is irrelevant, as omitting negative items and presenting watered down news as the real thing without disclosing the bias is no different that affirmatively saying the wrong things; and (3) it does -- as asked -- represent a conspiracy from the entire news bureau that lasted *years* while the facts were being denied by them. If you ignore this example so readily, I am not going to spend any more time looking up more examples that will be summarily ignored.

If you won't accept the above as an example of why to be suspicious in the present case -- despite the fact that you apparently don't even appear to know what CNN's own people have admitted to -- then why should I (or anyone) spend any more time jumping through hoops that you will continually raise higher and higher? That we are not willing to so jump is not evidence of anything except that this conversation, at least on this one question, is no longer fruitful.