AP source not who he claimed to be

[rikzilla]

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

You've had your question answered but you don't seem to listen to any of them, you just keep asking questions. JAQ'ing off like a truther...is that really a debate tactic that you think has merit?

AP screwed up. There are no two ways about it. They could have admitted it long long ago. They didn't. Therefore they were wrong. They were wrong to use a named source in the first place. If Hussein was endangering himself he should have been identified only as: "a senior MOI officer", "an anonymous MOI source". Hell even The National Enquirer knows enough to us "a pal" when the source wants to remain anonymous.

Of course we all do understand that a named source is far more credible, and many people do actually believe that the AP is more credible than the Enquirer. But we all also know (or should know) that a named source is meant to be verifiable. If AP uses a named source that cannot be verified then something has gone terribly wrong. Naming a source that is subsequently unverifiable becomes either a journalistic mistake, or a journalistic fraud. There really is no in between. In the event of a mistake you explain yourself and apologize. AP did not. In the event of fraud you lay low and hope it blows over...exactly what AP did for 5 weeks.

AP was wrong to:

• Use a named source when it placed that source in jeopardy.
• Use a named source that can't be verified.
  
  They then compounded their problem by:
  
• Stonewalling.
• Not explaining.
• Not apologizing.
• Not doing any meaningful investigation.

So what should AP have done differently?
A:Literally everything.

This episode has hurt their credibility not because of what happened, but how they reacted to it. They were arrogant when humility was called for. They were secretive when openness was called for. They were reckless when caution was called for.

The White Star line did a better job developing and sailing the Titanic.

-z

 

[varwoche]

AP screwed up. There are no two ways about it.

So declares some guy on the internet who, oops, has been wrong on the facts at virtually every turn. (I'll provide a summarization of your gaffes if you wish. It will be a challenging task seeing as the post could easily exceed software limits for max post length.)

They could have admitted it long long ago.

Admitted what? That Hussein was real? That he was interviewed in a police station wearing a police uniform? That his identity was never questioned when he was cited on numerous prior stories?

They were wrong to use a named source in the first place.

I never would have expected this criticism, especially since the press is so often criticized for using unnamed sources, and since AP received copious flack from Malkin and the bloggers due to the fact that the corroborating witnesses were unnamed.

I hope you will clarify: What are the specific factors that make this a mistake? Should reporters never use named sources in dangerous areas? Or is it just in this instance, because Hussein was on the recently published MOI list of invalid sources? Or...?

If AP uses a named source that cannot be verified...

This makes no sense at all. He was verified by AP. And he has been subsequently verified by MOI. How much verification do you require? << the rare double-confused indicator

Naming a source that is subsequently unverifiable becomes either a journalistic mistake, or a journalistic fraud.

Wrong. It was an MOI mistake. << preserving the rarity of the double-confused indicator

In the event of a mistake you explain yourself and apologize. AP did not.

Black is white and white is black.

In the event of fraud you lay low and hope it blows over...exactly what AP did for 5 weeks.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. AP re-investigated at the scene of the incident (in a most dangerous neighborhood). They interviewed corroborating witnesses. And they pressed MOI for clarification -- clarification that proved Hussein's legitimacy.

 

[rikzilla]

So declares some guy on the internet who, oops, has been wrong on the facts at virtually every turn. (I'll provide a summarization of your gaffes if you wish. It will be a challenging task seeing as the post could easily exceed software limits for max post length.)

ad-hom...last refuge of the witless.

Admitted what? That Hussein was real? That he was interviewed in a police station wearing a police uniform? That his identity was never questioned when he was cited on numerous prior stories?

Admitted that they had no objective evidence that he was really what he said he was.

I never would have expected this criticism, especially since the press is so often criticized for using unnamed sources, and since AP received copious flack from Malkin and the bloggers due to the fact that the corroborating witnesses were unnamed.

So what? It comes with the territory...you will be less credible but you cannot be nailed for providing false or otherwise unverifiable information. You name a source? Better be able to actually produce him if needed.

I hope you will clarify: What are the specific factors that make this a mistake? Should reporters never use named sources in dangerous areas? Or is it just in this instance, because Hussein was on the recently published MOI list of invalid sources? Or...?

JAQing again? You gonna post these same questions 4 times and ignore every reply?

• If a journalist uses a source who turns out to not be who he claimed he was this is a mistake. Specifically.
  
• If a journalist quotes a source who subsequently slinks away and becomes unverifiable this is a mistake. Specifically.
  
• If a journalist uses a professional source and his organization disavows his credentials this is a mistake. Specifically.
  
• If a news organization is faced with a story they've run that used a named source that they can neither find nor corroborate this is a mistake. Specifically.

Anyone can make mistakes. Anyone can be a victim of fraud. A responsible organization would have taken steps to mitigate the damage by being up front and truthful...not stonewalling for 5 weeks in the hope that the storm would either blow over or Capt. Hussein would be found.

This makes no sense at all. He was verified by AP. And he has been subsequently verified by MOI. How much verification do you require? << the rare double-confused indicator

Somehow I doubt it's that rare for you.

Yes, 5 weeks later he has been verified. He might just as well have been verified as an insurgent infiltrator that duped the AP for all we knew 5 weeks ago. AP should have retracted the story...then re-ran it when Capt. Hussein was found. Simple as that.

Wrong. It was an MOI mistake. << preserving the rarity of the double-confused indicator

Yes it was...the way that AP handled the issue was a huge mistake in it's own right. That's what we're talking about here. The MOI didn't run the story, AP did.

Black is white and white is black.

Thus sayeth the valiant defender of the indefensible. Windmill-tilt much?

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. AP re-investigated at the scene of the incident (in a most dangerous neighborhood). They interviewed corroborating witnesses. And they pressed MOI for clarification -- clarification that proved Hussein's legitimacy.

You're saying AP didn't lay low and stonewall for 5 weeks? I see no proof of that.

-z

 

[Steven Howard]

If a journalist uses a source who turns out to not be who he claimed he was this is a mistake. Specifically.

How does that apply in this case? Didn't the source turn out to be exactly who he claimed to be?

If a journalist quotes a source who subsequently slinks away and becomes unverifiable this is a mistake. Specifically.

First of all, how does the behavior of a source after he's been quoted retroactively transform the quote into a mistake?

Second of all, how does that apply in this case? When exactly did the source "slink away"?

If a journalist uses a professional source and his organization disavows his credentials this is a mistake. Specifically.

Except in this case, didn't that turn out to be a mistake on the part of the source's organization, and not on the part of the journalist? The Iraqi government made a mistake when they said the source wasn't a police officer.

If a news organization is faced with a story they've run that used a named source that they can neither find nor corroborate this is a mistake. Specifically.

How does that apply in this case? The AP did go back and confirm their source after his identity was questioned, didn't they?

You're saying AP didn't lay low and stonewall for 5 weeks? I see no proof of that.

You wouldn't be asking somebody to prove a negative, would you? Isn't that a bit like asking the Iraqi government to prove that Jamil Hussein wasn't a police captain?

 

[varwoche]

ad-hom...last refuge of the witless.

LOL!

Concerning the facts, I don't have more to add at this time, though I can't help but note that you passed on my offer to summarize your gaffes. No matter -- I have a fun(?) idea I'd like to run by you...

I'm content that I've assessed the facts in a reasonable, even-handed manner, and equally content that you have not. Whereas clearly you think the opposite. Correct?

If you're game, I'd like to propose a friendly little wager, with the proceeds going to jref. It's not clear to me yet how to boil down our opposing views into a gambling proposition. I'll think about it some more if you express preliminary interest. (I've outlined the concept in my old wanna bet? thread.) What do you say?

 

[Mycroft]

Except in this case, didn't that turn out to be a mistake on the part of the source's organization, and not on the part of the journalist? The Iraqi government made a mistake when they said the source wasn't a police officer.

The Iraqi government certainly did make a mistake, and a huge mistake at that. If I were an AP reporter (or a reporter with any service) I would be following up on why and how that mistake was made. Further, I would be drawing a lot of attention to that policy of who may or may not talk to reporters.

The mistake the AP made was in not following up on the mistake of the Iraqi government when it provided information that contradicted the AP.

I don't know what could be more clear than that. The AP's source was called into question, the AP depends on its reputation and its job is to provide accurate and reliable information. That this source was later shown to be real doesn't change that for five weeks the AP blew off the issue as though it were unimportant.

 

[rikzilla]

LOL!

Concerning the facts, I don't have more to add at this time, though I can't help but note that you passed on my offer to summarize your gaffes. No matter -- I have a fun(?) idea I'd like to run by you...

My "gaffe(s)" are not the issue are they? Afer all I don't remember claiming to be perfect. I merely said I'd be happy to eat my words about the AP...mostly because I did not want what I was thinking about AP to be true at all. Why not stick to the facts of this incident in this thread? Why do you want to make this some personal attack against me?

I'm content that I've assessed the facts in a reasonable, even-handed manner, and equally content that you have not. Whereas clearly you think the opposite. Correct?

Your opinion. That and $3 will get you a Venti Latte @ Starbucks. My own opinion of you is quite low simply because of the rude and arrogant manner of your posts. Similarly my opinion of you has no bearing on this thread either so why don't we both just drop the subject?

If you're game, I'd like to propose a friendly little wager, with the proceeds going to jref. It's not clear to me yet how to boil down our opposing views into a gambling proposition. I'll think about it some more if you express preliminary interest. (I've outlined the concept in my old wanna bet? thread.) What do you say?

If you show up at a TAM I will gleefully remove you from the Texas Hold'em Tourney....other than that I am not interested in any kind of "wager" that you might pull out of your rear end.

-z

 

[varwoche]

My "gaffe(s)" are not the issue are they? Afer all I don't remember claiming to be perfect. I merely said I'd be happy to eat my words about the AP...mostly because I did not want what I was thinking about AP to be true at all. Why not stick to the facts of this incident in this thread? Why do you want to make this some personal attack against me?

My pointing out your errors is not a personal attack. Whereas your posts are a constant stream of personal insults, and you are welcome to desist.

Back to the facts:

Admitted that they had no objective evidence that he was really what he said he was.

Patent falsehood. He was interviewed in uniform, in his office, in a police station.

If a journalist uses a source who turns out to not be who he claimed he was this is a mistake. Specifically.

Black is white and white is black. Need I remind you that he is who AP claimed he was?

If a journalist quotes a source who subsequently slinks away and becomes unverifiable this is a mistake. Specifically.

Even if this presumption is correct -- and I don't know that it is -- this defies credulity for at least two reasons:
(1) threat of arrest from the Iraqi govt is a reasonable reason to slink away
(2) more importantly, slinking away doesn't change the fact that Hussein is who AP said he was

If a journalist uses a professional source and his organization disavows his credentials this is a mistake. Specifically.

It is abundantly clear that the mistake was made by MOI and not by AP. Think about the ramifications of what you're saying here -- you are ceding all governments the power to simply declare that a press report is wrong no matter the facts.


Also, you failed to clarify why AP made a mistake by naming Hussein...

They were wrong to use a named source in the first place.

I hope you will clarify: What are the specific factors that make this a mistake? Should reporters never use named sources in dangerous areas? Or is it just in this instance, because Hussein was on the recently published MOI list of invalid sources? Or...?

 

[varwoche]

The mistake the AP made was in not following up on the mistake of the Iraqi government when it provided information that contradicted the AP.

This is 180 degrees off target. AP did follow up. In fact, AP conducted the interview with MOI spokesman Khalaf in which he revealed that Hussein was legit. article

 

[fishbob]

Numbered for my convenience:

[1] If a journalist uses a source who turns out to not be who he claimed he was this is a mistake. Specifically.

[2] If a journalist quotes a source who subsequently slinks away and becomes unverifiable this is a mistake. Specifically.

[3] If a journalist uses a professional source and his organization disavows his credentials this is a mistake. Specifically.

[4] If a news organization is faced with a story they've run that used a named source that they can neither find nor corroborate this is a mistake. Specifically.
-z

1 - Except that he was who he claimed to be.
2 - Except that he did not slink away and become unverifiable. He remains and is in trouble.
3 - Except that his organization did the disavowing after the interview. Are news organizations also supposed to predict the future?
4 - Except that they did find and corroborate. As it turns out, the US and Iraqi disavowers are the ones who could not corroborate.

Darn those pesky facts.

PS: What the hell is the matter with you? I noted at least two name-calling items in the post this list is from. Both after your bit about ad-homs being the last resort of the witless.

 

[rikzilla]

Numbered for my convenience:


1 - Except that he was who he claimed to be.

For 5 weeks there was precisely as much evidence for Capt. Jamil as there was for WMD's in Saddam's basement. Had it turned out that Saddam HAD these weapons it would still not change the fact that we had no evidence for their existence before the invasion. In other words it could have come out either way given what we knew 5 weeks ago.

2 - Except that he did not slink away and become unverifiable. He remains and is in trouble.

He did for 5 weeks. As for trouble...well one would have thought that a police captain would know the risks associated with talking to reporters before giving them an interview.

3 - Except that his organization did the disavowing after the interview. Are news organizations also supposed to predict the future?

They're supposed to use named sources that can be checked. Otherwise what is the purpose of naming the source?

4 - Except that they did find and corroborate. As it turns out, the US and Iraqi disavowers are the ones who could not corroborate.

They did not offer any proof that this guy existed. They corroborated nothing. If they had we would not be having this conversation.

Darn those pesky facts.

Look you lot can play monday morning quarterback all you want. Hindsight is after all 20-20 right? During the time in question AP named a source that was unverifiable by any official agency. It doesn't matter that it wasn't their fault...it was their fault to not retract until such time as the guy could be found. Responsible journalism means just that...taking responsibility for your sources and content. For 5 weeks they abdicated responsibility. That's what they did wrong.

PS: What the hell is the matter with you? I noted at least two name-calling items in the post this list is from. Both after your bit about ad-homs being the last resort of the witless.

Well go back and count up all the ad-homs that varwoche laid on me before then. he/she/it got to me and I apologize for any untoward comment. Please forgive. I could show you the vile PM this miscreant sent me but I'd rather just leave it alone. He occupies a lonely space on my ignore list. He IS my ignore list.

Good day.
-z

 

[hgc]

I could show you the vile PM this miscreant sent me but I'd rather just leave it alone.

Oh, so you'll source this PM without actually showing it? Nice. Please publish the vile PM.

 

[varwoche]

For 5 weeks there was precisely as much evidence for Capt. Jamil as there was for WMD's in Saddam's basement.

Dead wrong. AP interviewed Hussein in his office, in uniform, in a police station.

In other words it could have come out either way given what we knew 5 weeks ago.

Dead wrong. It wasn't until this week that MOI corrected their mistake.

As for trouble...well one would have thought that a police captain would know the risks associated with talking to reporters before giving them an interview.

This confusing sentence has no bearing on the quality of AP's journalism.

They're supposed to use named sources that can be checked. Otherwise what is the purpose of naming the source?

This criterion makes no sense at all, especially since he checked out to be legit. Your posts are disconnected from reality in the extreme.

They did not offer any proof that this guy existed.

Dead wrong. They explained that he was interviewed in his office, in uniform, in a police station.

During the time in question AP named a source that was unverifiable by any official agency.

That's because MOI made a mistake, obviously.

it was their fault to not retract until such time as the guy could be found.

It would have been wrong for AP to retract based on what they knew to be a mistake by MOI.

I apologize for any untoward comment. Please forgive. I could show you the vile PM this miscreant sent me but I'd rather just leave it alone.

I'd accept your apology except for the fact that you persist with the personal insults. And for the record, my vile honest and direct PM postdates your juvenile insults.

And if you don't like it when your overzealous distortions are pointed out, then stop posting overzealous distortions. Surely you're aware this is a skeptical forum where this sort of abject nonsense doesn't get a free pass.

 

[fishbob]

Look you lot can play monday morning quarterback all you want. Hindsight is after all 20-20 right? During the time in question AP named a source that was unverifiable by any official agency. It doesn't matter that it wasn't their fault...it was their fault to not retract until such time as the guy could be found. Responsible journalism means just that...taking responsibility for your sources and content. For 5 weeks they abdicated responsibility. That's what they did wrong.

-z

Sorry, incorrect.
During the time in question AP named a source that the official agencies mistakenly claimed was unverifiable. The official agencies made a claim that turned out to be false.

The real question is whether this really was a 'mistake' by the official agencies or deliberate dishonesty by the official agencies.

 

[hgc]

I find it incredible that some people still insist on attacking AP now that the "fake source" bruhaha turned out to be all BS. But then that's what TRUE BELIEVERS do. It's like talking to a young Earth creationist.

 

[Mycroft]

This is 180 degrees off target. AP did follow up. In fact, AP conducted the interview with MOI spokesman Khalaf in which he revealed that Hussein was legit. article

That's great. They just should have done it a lot sooner.

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

 

[varwoche]

That's great. They just should have done it a lot sooner.

For all you and I know, they may have been on it like white on rice, but it took this much time for MOI to come clean.

Or maybe they just sat on their asses while taking all of this flack.

What leads you to presume the latter?

 

[Mycroft]

For all you and I know, they may have been on it like white on rice, but it took this much time for MOI to come clean.

Or maybe they just sat on their asses while taking all of this flack.

What leads you to presume the latter?

Why do you present that as an either or when it seem both happened?

Clearly the MOI did take this long for them to come clean, but the AP never took the challenges to its credibility seriously either.

 

[varwoche]

Why do you present that as an either or when it seem both [including AP "on it like white on rice"] happened?

Pardon my poor choice of words. I too assume that both happened.

So what in Odin's name was this about...?

The mistake the AP made was in not following up on the mistake of the Iraqi government when it provided information that contradicted the AP.

They re-investigated at the scene. They interviewed corroborating witnesses. They issued two (or was it three?) official responses to the flack. Their interview w/MOI revealed the mistake. We agree they were probably on it like white on rice.

And yet they didn't follow-up. Go figure.