AP source not who he claimed to be

[Nova Land]

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.

Yes, I recall that incident. If you believe it will support your point, then by all means state your claim regarding that incident and present the details of it.

My memory is somewhat different from the summary you present. There was indeed lying involved -- but not in the story ABC broadcast, and not in ABC's defense of the story.

As I recall, and as a quick Google seems to confirm, ABC investigative reporters went undercover to check out stories about Food Lion deliberately selling food which should have been discarded. They found this was indeed happening, and videotaped evidence of this.

Food Lion has never legally disputed the facts of the 20/20 expose. They never sued either ABC, or the reporters involved for libel (or slander). My guess is because that's because the evidence ABC had gathered and broadcast is pretty clear-cut, and truth is an effective defense against libel in the US.

What Food Lion did sue ABC over is the method ABC used to get the story. In order to get jobs at Food Lion, the ABC reporters lied on their job applications. They failed to mention that they were ABC reporters who were applying for the job in order to get the good on Food Lion. Therefore, according to Food Lion, they were guilty of fraud (getting jobs under false pretenses). They were guilty of trespassing (since they had gotten the jobs under false pretenses and weren't genuine employees). And they were guilty of breach of loyalty, since they were gathering evidence against Food Lion while ostensibly working as employees of Food Lion.

As I say, that's from memory (and a quick Google) so I may have some details wrong. So if you feel this incident supports the point you are making, by all means state your claim clearly and present the evidence to support it. For this to be parallel to the AP incident, you need to show that the original 20/20 story was wrong and that someone at ABC then lied about that. Please present this statement, and a link to where it appears so that I can check it out for myself.

 

[Nova Land]

... Neither party seems to be corroborated by any external source. Thus the issue is not easy to judge.

Yes. This is a matter on which we should suspend judgment -- that is, not come to any firm conclusion, but rather keep an open mind to a number of possibilites and await further (better) evidence. That's why I think the thread title, and the right-wing bloggers who have concluded that AP was wrong, are decidely non-skeptical.

But while we can't reach a firm conclusion, we can make a tentative judgment based on the evidence at hand. In real life we often have to make these interrim judgments, in which we reach (and act on) conclusions based on the balance of the evidence.

Ideally we would like to draw conclusions that are based on evidence which establishes things beyond a reasonable doubt. But political situations where the evidence is so clear-cut is rare; it takes time for sufficient evidence to come out for us to be that certain. More commonly, we have to draw conclusions that are based on a preponderance of the evidence. But even that requires time. And so, in daily life, it is often necessary to form working judgments which are based on the balance of the evidence, even though the scales are often very close in weight and even though the balance often tips first one way and then the other as new evidence gets added and old evidence gets sifted.

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.

Yes. That isn't quite why I've come to that conclusion, but my reasoning is very similar. Either the military or the AP could be wrong on this. But the nature of the military claims (simply passing on what they were told by the Iraqi authorities about what their record search turned up) and of the AP claims (attesting to what they have personally seen and verified) makes it much easier for both sides to be telling the truth as they know it if AP is correct and Michael Dean is incorrect.

If there were any evidence to support the idea that AP is lying, that would change things. But the fact that so much of the case for favoring Dean's claim rests on speculation and could-be's, and a general bias against the media, makes me more inclined to believe AP will turn out to be correct on this. If there were any substantive case to be made against AP, people wouldn't be wasting so much time on fluff.

 

[varwoche]

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/

I've browsed the further reading. True, the pages contain further reading. But what's written on these pages is of virtually no merit in terms of understanding the facts.

These citations, on the other hand, are prime examples of agenda driven bloggers knee-jerking to self serving conclusions. And then these conclusions are echoed by other agenda driven bloggers, creating enough noise to sucker in non-critical readers.

(1) The LGF citation can quickly be written off as not worth so much as one electron, because all it does is echo Flopping Aces:

Curt at Flopping Aces has received confirmation from CENTCOM that “Iraqi police Capt. Jamil Hussein,” cited as a source (often the only source) in a long string of media articles about murders and atrocities in Iraq (including the recent report of 6 people burned alive), is not a police officer, nor is he employed by Iraq’s Interior Ministry

Furthermore, unless you subscribe to the theory that AP fabricated their sources, it is as clear as the day is long that AP interviewed corroborating witnesses. The "often the only source" comment -- even if true in other instances -- simply does not apply here.

And as a minor side point, notice how LGF portrays Curt as johnny-on-the-spot, as if he is in direct communication with CENTCOM. Guffaw.

This would merit an F grade in a high school journalism class.

(2) Whackjob Michelle Malkin's aptly named HotAir blog consists of no more than a list of links*, the first of which is, whaddya know, Flopping Aces. Unless you count the reader comments, the page doesn't even qualify as "further reading".

(3) Finally, Flopping Aces. This blog has numerous posts about the issue. I read some but not all. (If there is something specific you think is meritorious, please point it out.) Apparently Curt's ace card is the fact that AP has used Hussein as a source on more than one occasion -- Curt offers this as evidence that AP is being manipulated.

Of course this could also mean that Hussein is a good source for information. Assuming he is indeed a police captain, this makes sense.

As skeptics (within our means), we should try to apply the same standards to our own reporting here on jref that we expect from the AP reporters. We should cite primary sources, or as close as possible. Echoing an echo of an agenda-driven blogger who knee-jerked to a self serving conclusion fails that standard by no short measure.

* Add: I just noticed that Malkin's blog also contains a video clip that echoes Flopping Aces, plus a lot of inane babbling.

 

[luchog]

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.
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.

First, making fun of someone's name is one of the most petty and childish taunts imaginable.

Second, The issue wasn't that the AP was manufacturing false stories, it was that reporters, stringers, and sources that the AP relied upon were manufacturing evidence; and the AP wasn't taking adequate steps to verify, but simply printing them as established fact. Something that has been reported on in the mainstream media; just not widely or openly, because pretty much all of them are guilty of it, and no one wants to fall under the kind of scrutiny that a loud denunciation would invite. CBS/Dan Rather ring a bell?

 

[qayak]

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

Not only that but it was the decider in a lawsuit that GM lost to the tune of $120,000,000. I am sure GM got a lot of that back in their out of court settlement with NBC.

 

[varwoche]

First, making fun of someone's name is one of the most petty and childish taunts imaginable.

I assure you it was unintentional. I even thought you were "lunchdog" at one point.

 

[varwoche]

It's certainly not the first time the AP has been caught with manufactured "evidence" supporting stories that later proved to be false.

The issue wasn't that the AP was manufacturing false stories...

If you say so.

Add: You have a backlog of errors to clear up.

 

[delphi_ote]

People are failing to ask the obvious question we always ask of conspiracy theorists around here. Why?

Why would AP intentionally lie about the guy's credentials? They have other witnesses, so the story would still stand. If they were discovered to be deliberately publishing false stories, their reputation would be destroyed. Especially after claiming to double check the story!

 

[Mycroft]

People are failing to ask the obvious question we always ask of conspiracy theorists around here. Why?

Why would AP intentionally lie about the guy's credentials? They have other witnesses, so the story would still stand. If they were discovered to be deliberately publishing false stories, their reputation would be destroyed. Especially after claiming to double check the story!

Nobody asks that question because nobody is claiming that AP is lying about the guy.

The claims being made are:

1) The Baghdad police failed to verify this event took place. This is troubling as apparently it was a Baghdad police captain who brought it to the attention of the AP.

2) The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior (MOI) says they don't know anyone named Capt. Jamil Hussein. This is very troubling because if he were a police Captain, it's the MOI that would be employing him.

3) Another source oft quoted by AP, Police Lt. Maithem Abdul Razzaq is also unknown to the Iraqi MOI.

Claims not being made

1) The AP is lying.

2) The AP is behind a conspiracy to generate fake news.

3) The Illuminati secretly replaced George Washington with an anarchist named Adam Weishaupt, and it's his picture that's really on our one-dollar bills today.

I mean c'mon, demonstrate some basic reading comprehension skills before jumping in here.

 

[delphi_ote]

*a lot of obvious stuff*
I mean c'mon, demonstrate some basic reading comprehension skills before jumping in here.

There are certainly people in this thread with exactly that contention.

It's certainly not the first time the AP has been caught with manufactured "evidence" supporting stories that later proved to be false.

That wasn't just one lone journalist, that was a team which got suckered by a false source, and tried to back up that source rather than admit they got suckered. And I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if the AP would do the same thing here: spend their time trying to bolster the case that this guy is real rather than actually try to figure out whether or not he is.

I don't know that it is a willful conspiracy either.

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.

It may not be your contention that AP deliberately published a false story, but it certainly seems to be a suspicion of some of the people posting in this thread.

Oh. Maybe they're "just asking questions"?

 

[Nova Land]

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.

I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote. When I wrote "...lying through their teeth", I did not mean failing to admit their errors oradmitting their errors, but not loudly enough to suit their critics, or any other such thing. I meant deliberately making statements which they knew to be significantly wrong in factual details.. As many people have pointed out in threads accusing George Bush of lying, there is a difference between making a statement which later turns out to be factually wrong and lying.

If you are aware of any cases in which AP manufactured evidence supporting false stories, and an AP official then lied about this, please quote the statement and provide a link to a reliable source where this statement can be found.

 

[Nova Land]

... Claims not being made

1) The AP is lying.

Please re-read the exchange between me an luchog which I quoted in the preceding post. That is indeed the claim which a number of people have made.

 

[Nova Land]

The claims being made are:

1) The Baghdad police failed to verify this event took place...

2) The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior (MOI) says they don't know anyone named Capt. Jamil Hussein....

3) Another source oft quoted by AP, Police Lt. Maithem Abdul Razzaq is also unknown to the Iraqi MOI.

No, those are some of the claims being made.

You only list one of AP's disputed claims. The second two you list are claims being made by Michael Dean -- in response to claims by AP, which you fail to list clearly.

Why not go back and write out a clear list of the claims you believe are being made by AP (and a separate list, if you wish, of the claims being made by Michael Dean)? If you're going to assert confidently what claims are and aren't being made, a good list of what you think the claims are would be a good start.

 

[Nova Land]

As skeptics (within our means), we should try to apply the same standards to our own reporting here on jref that we expect from the AP reporters. We should cite primary sources, or as close as possible. Echoing an echo of an agenda-driven blogger who knee-jerked to a self serving conclusion fails that standard by no short measure.

Yes!

This is something with which I whole-heartedly agree.

 

[Nova Land]

You're expecting the media to police themselves in an industry where gov't oversight is forbidden.

Government oversight is forbidden? Perhaps you could state more clearly what you mean here. Not only is the media subject to the same laws regarding libel, slander, fraud, etc., as the rest of us, but they are subject to additional regulation by groups such as the FCC as well. Radio networks have been subjected to hefty fines for things their talk show hosts have said, and a tv network was fined when a woman's breasts were exposed during a program.

 

[Nova Land]

We are expecting them to police themselves.

Not really. Not in the sense that AP is expected to police AP, ABC is expected to police ABC, etc. Not only are there other, competitive media outlets which are eager to pounce on mistakes by their rivals, but there are many others scrutinizing the media as well. If the media screws up, they are liable to civil and criminal penalties.

In one sense it is true that we expect the media to police themselves, although I don't think that's the way you mean it in your post. We expect the media to police themselves in the same way that we expect any responsible business enterprise to police itself. But that doesn't mean they are the only ones responsible for doing the policing job. If a media outlet commits wrongdoing they are as subject to civil and criminal penalties as any other business enterprise. Most companies try to detect problems within their ranks, and take what they deem appropriate measures when the uncover problems -- both because most people are basically honest and prefer not to be part of wrong-doing, and because most people realize that if they don't take appropriate measures to fix the problems then outside agencies will step in and do it for them in ways that will be much more unpleasant and costly for them.

So, yes, we expect businesses to police themselves. But we don't take it on faith that they will do so adequately. There are numerous watchdogs around -- for the media as well as for other industries. If you feel US businesses are inadequately policed and want to see more government supervision, feel free to start a new thread to discuss that.

 

[Nova Land]

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.

This is a very good point, and one which I'd intended to raise myself in a different thread a short while ago. Huntster and Darth Rotor were arguing that, because a number of incidents in which people being held in captivity by the US were mistreated and abused (including several who were beaten to death) had come to light, that proved the system was adequate at policing itself and outside scrutiny was not needed.

As you correctly point out in relation to media missteps, that's a mistaken (and, I believe, naive) way of looking at things. The fact that problems come to light -- whether it be incidents in which the media makes mistakes, or incidents in which people in US custody are mistreated -- shows simple that such problems are a real possibility. It does not show that all such problems have been detected, or will be detected, or will be dealt with appropriately.

That's why scrutiny of the media is a good thing, and why the media should be held to a higher standard than it presently lives up to. Unfortunately the low journalistic standards championed by Fox News, the Drudge Report, and various blogs and opinion sites (such as some cited in this thread as sources) seem to be more entertaining and more commercially successful than ventures which attempt to set higher standards. But I join you in looking forward to the day when higher standards prevail.

One small way in which we can work toward this is to try to adhere to higher standards ourselves. For instance, if one has a claim to make it would be good if people set forth that claim clearly and plainly, and provided good sources for their key facts. Several people in this thread have made oblique claims, and others have made strong claims but simply provided links to right-wing blogs where the claim is also made. Just as we expect AP to verify the story it is reporting, rather than to repeat claims it has heard, so people who hear interesting claims at a blog (or other opinion site) should not simply repeat the claim but should look up the sources and verify the accuracy of the claims for themselves before passing them on to the rest of us as factual.

 

[Nova Land]

The Drudge Report is not a reliable source...

Very true! Which is why it is surprising to see skeptics sometimes linking to it (and similarly unreliable sites) to back up their claims. IF there's something of interest posted at Drudge (or Powerline, DailyKos, Little Green Footballs, etc.), a skeptic should take the time to look it up and verify it before passing it along as fact.

 

[Nova Land]

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.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My impression is that Drudge doesn't take the time to verify his stories -- which is why he's wrong a lot of the time. That's precisely what people in this thread are criticizing AP for. They believe AP should have done more checking as to Jamil Hussein before reporting what he told them. So the media is damned if they don't adequately verify their stories before publishing, and damned if they do wait for verification before publishing. What standard would you like them to use?

(And are you willing to apply that standard across the board to all media outlets? Because it appears to me that some people in this thread are applying one standard to media they disagree with and a different one to media outlets they agree with.)

 

[Nova Land]

... they broke the Monica Lewinsky story because TIME magazine sat on it.

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.