AP source not who he claimed to be

[NoZed Avenger]

I think that settles it!

It does. I can think of at least two ways that AP could have verified his existence to independent parties at the very beginning of this without running afould of any rules; it is hard to understand why it did not do so.

 

[a_unique_person]

Going away? No way?

Curt at Flopping Aces weighs in: "As many of us have said from the beginning, finding Jamil Hussein will not make this story go away..."

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

Sorry, Nova, I think you just wasted your time.

 

[varwoche]

It does. I can think of at least two ways that AP could have verified his existence to independent parties at the very beginning of this without running afould of any rules; it is hard to understand why it did not do so.

How is one to know if you have a valid point when you don't explain the at least two ways?

 

[a_unique_person]

I am very heartened by Eason Jordan's post yesterday challenging the Associated Press's credibility, but am puzzled that his own crew in Baghdad still has nothing new to report more than a month after bloggers first started raising questions. I hope Jordan follows up on the most recent investigative developments in the blogosphere.

Michelle Malking wonders why Eason still hasn't come up with answers when he has a crew on the ground, and he's on her side.

The whole 'blogoshphere' business is just starting to sound like a bunch of spoilt brats whining cause people won't give them what they want, when they want it.

 

[Steven Howard]

Quoted without comment:

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

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

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

-z

 

[NoZed Avenger]

How is one to know if you have a valid point when you don't explain the at least two ways?

Do you mean that you, yourself can think of no way that AP couldn't have satisfactorily had a third party verify the current existence of the man?

 

[rikzilla]

Quoted without comment:

Munch...munch...munch....anyone have any ketchup?



So the guy exists...glad to hear it. I just wonder why it takes 6 weeks and a great deal of noise from the blogosphere to back up a story. Really I don't think either Mycroft or I have anything to apologize for. Asking for evidence when that skeptical tingle is felt is usually a pretty good idea.

I understand the bloggers are still questioning the veracity of the story itself since no burned bodies or other evidence was found and AP itself changed the story from 4 mosque attacks to one that day. Yes, existence of the source is always a good first step towards verifying a story. It's not the last word on the issue as the bloggers likely won't let go of it...but hey it's good enough for the JREFer known as rikzilla.

Now....where's the Catsup again?


-z

BTW: My words go down pretty easy, but the crow is chewy and greasy....I should NEVER have agreed to eat that stuff!

 

[Mycroft]

It does. I can think of at least two ways that AP could have verified his existence to independent parties at the very beginning of this without running afould of any rules; it is hard to understand why it did not do so.

Interestingly this version of the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_jamil_hussein_1

...was written by the same Steven Hurst who supposedly used Hussein as a source in the previous article.

 

[Mycroft]

crooksandliars says it best

So now this guy is going to be arrested because the right wing blogonuts (and Eason Jordan who has taken up with them to get his website off the ground) have been on a mission to intimidate the AP and other news agencies so they will only print the touchy—feel good stories in Iraq. Go check it out Michelle. Contact all your really good Army sources and tell us what you come up with. And the media will continue to kowtow to them no matter what happens. Conservatives face no consequences for the people that they smear—ever.

Iraq is Rosy, and it is just the left wing media that fails to tell us about all of the schools painted last week.

Daredelvis

I find your attitude hard to understand.

Are we never supposed to question the media? Are we supposed to just close our eyes and look the other way when important questions are raised?

If Jamil Hussein is facing disciplinary action for having spoken to the media, it's because the Iraqi government is trying to suppress information he releases. It's not because some bloggers (and journalists) questioned his existence and wanted to verify a source.

If the Iraqi government is trying to suppress information by punnishing its own people then that's important new too and the best protection Jamil Hussein can have is a great big international media spotlight on his case letting the world know if the Iraqi government treats him unfavorably.

 

[rikzilla]

Interestingly this version of the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_jamil_hussein_1

...was written by the same Steven Hurst who supposedly used Hussein as a source in the previous article.

After reading that I can only hope that nothing really bad is going to happen to this guy. As they say the first casualty of war is truth. As such, I wonder how we're going to know if any news coming out of that Ed-forsaken place is true or not? How depressing!

-z

 

[rikzilla]

I find your attitude hard to understand.

Are we never supposed to question the media? Are we supposed to just close our eyes and look the other way when important questions are raised?

If Jamil Hussein is facing disciplinary action for having spoken to the media, it's because the Iraqi government is trying to suppress information he releases. It's not because some bloggers (and journalists) questioned his existence and wanted to verify a source.

If the Iraqi government is trying to suppress information by punnishing its own people then that's important new too and the best protection Jamil Hussein can have is a great big international media spotlight on his case letting the world know if the Iraqi government treats him unfavorably.

That's true...
The same attention that got him into the hot water is now his best protection. The blogosphere, like any other entity, can only be wrong by making unreasonable demands. Asking that a media source be verified is
hardly unreasonable.

-z

 

[varwoche]

Wow. At the same you're eating crow ...

Munch...munch...munch....anyone have any ketchup?

... in between bites you persist in misrepresenting the facts...!

I just wonder why it takes 6 weeks and a great deal of noise from the blogosphere to back up a story.

AP backed up the story immediately by reinvestigating at the scene, including interviews of corroborating witnesses.

As well, you're disregarding the fact that Hussein was precluded from talking to the media (and that AP also faced repercussions from the Iraqi govt). What do you suggest AP should have done differently given the truth we now know?

Furthermore...

Asking for evidence when that skeptical tingle is felt is usually a pretty good idea.

Asking? May I remind you...

The primary fact is that IP Capt. Jamil Hussein does not exist.

 

[varwoche]

Do you mean that you, yourself can think of no way that AP couldn't have satisfactorily had a third party verify the current existence of the man?

Call me dense, but a plausible scenario does not readily occur to me given the threat that Hussein faced, and given the separate threat that AP faced.

(Ask a simple question, expect a simple answer condescending, opaque reply.)

 

[rikzilla]

Call me dense, but a plausible scenario does not readily occur to me given the threat that Hussein faced, and given the separate threat that AP faced.

(Ask a simple question, expect a simple answer condescending, opaque reply.)

In other words thou must henceforth believeth in all that the media may telleth thou.

No thanks man...I never much liked Koolaid no matter who's serving it up. As for my words that Hussein didn't exist? That was indeed my default position until objective evidence was offered. It has been and so I happily concede the point just as I said I would.

"Believing" without evidence is what got us into Iraq in the first place. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy...just because the authority this time is the AP and not the US government is no reason to abandon logic.

-z

 

[varwoche]

In other words thou must henceforth believeth in all that the media may telleth thou ... I never much liked Koolaid no matter who's serving it up ... no reason to abandon logic.

Posturing in lieu of constructive input ... again. If my thinking is faulty, hyper-vague input such as this is of no help to me (or to readers) -- it is devoid of informative value.

I extended you the courtesy of answering your questions, so perhaps you will address my question that you so clumsily evaded:

What do you suggest AP should have done differently given the truth we now know?

And I invite NoZed (for the third time) to answer this as well.

 

[Mycroft]

Posturing in lieu of constructive input ... again. If my thinking is faulty, hyper-vague input such as this is of no help to me (or to readers) -- it is devoid of informative value.

You can dismiss it as posturing if you want, but that would be to ignore his very valid point that that the AP, as well as any other news-source, are perfectly valid targets for scrutiny, skepticism, or fact-checking.

What do you suggest AP should have done differently given the truth we now know?

Simple: Produced him about 5 weeks earlier.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Call me dense, but a plausible scenario does not readily occur to me given the threat that Hussein faced, and given the separate threat that AP faced.

(Ask a simple question, expect a simple answer condescending, opaque reply.)

If you want condescending, there's plenty of that to go around.

If you don't think -- from earlier in the thread -- that a major news service handing talking points from an oppressive regime's information ministry to have them read as if they represent the real news (and hiding the deal made for access within Iraq) met your criteria for the type of journalistic malfeasance discussed earlier, I have absolutely no doubt that I will not be able to convince you of anything related to the topic, regardless of the time and effort spent.

As I stated earlier, I am sufficiently convinced that the source exists; I therefore eat my words as necessary. I have no doubt that any methods I offer will never manage to reach the hoops you raise for this latest task, however.

 

[The Fool]

You can dismiss it as posturing if you want, but that would be to ignore his very valid point that that the AP, as well as any other news-source, are perfectly valid targets for scrutiny, skepticism, or fact-checking.

You left out the word "selective", it goes in front of "scrutiny, skepticism, or fact-checking". Can you point out where you used "scrutiny, skepticism or fact-checking on the erroneous announcements from Iraqi MOI and a US army dude?

 

[Mycroft]

You left out the word "selective", it goes in front of "scrutiny, skepticism, or fact-checking". Can you point out where you used "scrutiny, skepticism or fact-checking on the erroneous announcements from Iraqi MOI and a US army dude?

You're question makes no sense. Do you deny that in verifying the existance of Jamil Hussein the accuracy of the Iraqi MOI was also challenged?

That's the way it works. There is not enough resources and time to verify every piece of information that comes along, so you question those that you have specific reason to question. In this case, we had specific reason to doubt the existence of Jamil Hussein. Now that his existence has been verified, it's the DOI that's brought into question.

 

[varwoche]

If you want condescending, there's plenty of that to go around.

Vague criticism such as this serves no positive purpose. If someone has posted something that you take issue with, you should explain yourself with specificity. Otherwise it's just vacuous posturing.

If you don't think -- from earlier in the thread -- that a major news service handing talking points from an oppressive regime's information ministry to have them read as if they represent the real news (and hiding the deal made for access within Iraq) met your criteria for the type of journalistic malfeasance discussed earlier, I have absolutely no doubt that I will not be able to convince you of anything related to the topic, regardless of the time and effort spent.

Either you're inattentive to the thread or else you're willfully misrepresenting what's been posted.

(Incidentally, I've been meaning to re-visit the CNN issue you raised, as I finally refreshed my memory and learned some new things in the process. When I get around to it (time allowing) I hope you don't take it as tit-for-tat due to this inane post of yours. Jumping the gun a bit: Perhaps you could cite evidence that is more substantial than an op-ed piece. )

As I stated earlier, I am sufficiently convinced that the source exists; I therefore eat my words as necessary. I have no doubt that any methods I offer will never manage to reach the hoops you raise for this latest task, however.

This breaks the evasiveness meter into unrecognizable shards. The "hoop" I raised was no more than asking you to convey your suggestions, which is as clear as the day is long on a summer day in Barrow.

Maybe you'll answer my fourth attempt for the benefit of other readers if not me:

What do you suggest AP should have done differently given the truth we now know?

Unimpressive across the board NoZed. (And Odin help the person you debate with should they turn out to be wrong on the facts.)

Add: Here's one thing I think AP should have done differently -- they should have been specific about who/when/where regarding the AP reporters who spoke with Hussein.