BRING ME THE HEAD OF JAMIL HUSSEIN
My post yesterday taking lefty bloggers to task for their gloating over AP confirming the existence of Jamil Hussein generated some comments that were, to put it mildly, revealing.
Ed, a frequent commenter on this site, spoke for those who see any attempt to discredit AP by questioning either the existence of their sources or the veracity of their information as disingenuousness by the right:
You really didn’t read the ‘Jamilgate’ blogs if you interpreted the attacks on the AP as anything other than just another attempt to intimidate the liberal MSM because they were reporting things that partisans didn’t want to hear. It wasn’t that there were inaccuracies, it was that inaccuracies could be used to discredit the AP’s overall coverage of the war. And yes, that is meant to insinuate that things would be different if people knew the “real†story.
“It would seem to me to be the height of irresponsibility as a citizen not to question the sensationalism…, and the almost total lack of context that accompanies every story…†is exactly the same complaint that many of us had on the runup to the war. I heard no complaints from the right blogosphere when sensational claims of WMD were made out of context. Yes, Saddam had an active nuclear program but it was BACK BEFORE 1991. Which was exactly what Baradi and the IAEA were saying.
Hence, I don’t think you can claim with a straight face that this was about accuracy in reporting. This was an attempt to influence the coverage to a particular point of view that blew up in the right’s face.
So yes, a little crow-eating might be in order.
First, the idea that any blogger or group of bloggers could “influence coverage” by AP or any other major news outlet to the extent that they become war boosters is absurd. But if Ed means that we wish to influence the editorial coverage so that “fake but accurate” is not used as a matter of course in reporting on the war, he is absolutely correct.
In fact, this seems to be the de facto position of many commenters from that post; that it really doesn’t matter if 6 Sunnis were burned alive or not. It doesn’t matter if 4 mosques were destroyed or not. It doesn’t matter if any violent incident Jamil Hussein has been a confirming source for over the last 10 months actually occurred or not. The fact that Iraq is in chaos is what is important and that an inaccuracy here or a piece of enemy propaganda there is not going to change that overarching fact one bit.
Challenge them on that point and, like Ed, they change the subject to pre-war intel - as if there was even the slightest comparison between “news” in the form of intelligence analysis that was never meant to see the light of day (the information was leaked in violation of the law) and stories written for publication by AP or any other news organization.
And lest you think that I’m misstating or exaggerating the point about “fake but accurate,” here’s a follow up comment by Ed (an intelligent guy who contributes to reasoned debate on this site):
The major news from Iraq is and has been for a long time:
1. The Iraqi government cannot control the insurgents, militias, or criminal gangs.
2. American troop efforts also cannot control the insurgents, militias, or criminal gangs.
3. Many Iraqis and Americans are dying in these failed attempts and because there is no control.
What other news are we missing, exactly? Perhaps you think our “rebuilding efforts†are more important news that the three points above that is what is usually referred to as the missing news from Iraq)?
The news that we’re “missing” from Iraq is of the factual variety - a point highlighted not only by the burning Sunni story but by many other stories commented on by this site and others.
As an example, there was the reporting on the Haditha massacre. Leaving aside the army investigation for a moment, the news stories that were written about that incident were wildly different and varied enormously. Here’s what I wrote when the story of the massacre first came to light:
While it is not unusual for small details to be lost or found in different translations, these discrepancies are huge, up to and including one 12 year old girl (or 13 or 15 depending on which report you are reading) being in different houses, being shielded from the wrath of the Americans by 3 different family members, and telling completely different and ever more bloodcurdling details of how the Marines killed her family.
Then there is the weird case of Aws Fahmi. In an AP report, he is reported to have been a victim of the massacre, left to bleed in the street after being shot by the Americans. But the Washington Post story in which several eyewitnesses are interviewed, features Mr. Fahmi’s testimony prominently and in which the “victim†has morphed into an eyewitness, viewing the events from his house with no mention of his being shot and left to bleed to death in the street.
I want to be extremely careful here because there may be other, more mundane explanations for the discrepancies in eyewitness accounts than what appears on the surface to be a coordinated disinformation campaign by the insurgents that has taken in reporters for AP, Reuters, and Time Magazine to name a few.
I feel constrained again to point out that there is no more difficult job than reporting from a war zone. Whom to believe? Whom to trust? Individual reporters, guided only by their personal code of ethics and common sense, have to sort out the facts from the confusion, the terror, the grief, and the hate that contributes to discrepancies in eyewitness reports in a battle zone.
But the Jamil Hussein story is different. Here is someone who, although not an authorized spokesman for the Iraqi government, has been used as a sole source on dozens of stories involving the worst of the war’s violence; sectarian massacres, blood curdling murders, and police or army collusion in the violence. And questioning the judgement of the stable of AP reporters in Iraq who have used Hussein as a sole source these many months - despite his distance from most of the incidents among other problems - would seem to me to be a reasonable and responsible way to hold AP to standards they themselves have set.
As for Hussein being in danger as a result of bloggers trying to find him, I find this incredible. AP didn’t use him as an anonymous source or try to hide his identity. They gave his name and location in any number of stories. Dan Riehl:
For Carroll’s assertion that Hussein is in danger one must assume that there is an element of the Iraqi government that would harm him for having been a primary source for the story. The other initial source, Imad al-Hashimi, retracted his statements after a visit from the Iraqi Defense Ministry.
Without arguing that first point, one need only answer two simple questions to reach the conclusion that the blog coverage of this incident would be more to Hussein’s benefit, than harm. Assuming he was in danger for being an AP named source, which is more likely: that these assumed to be dangerous elements of the Iraqi government would quietly take out an individual after the drive by media was long gone and onto another story? or that they would be reluctant to do so because blogger coverage has kept the issue and Jamil Hussein’s name in the news?
Some bloggers are still questioning whether or not Hussein exists, that until AP produces the police captain in the flesh, there will be a question. I am satisfied Hussein is a real person and works as a police captain in Baghdad. What I am not satisfied with is whether the information he has been feeding AP is factual or not. And until AP deals forthrightly with questions about the accuracy of Hussein and other sources, all the gloating in the world won’t change the fact that AP has a credibility problem.
at the end of the day why does any of this matter (he says cynically) do i think AP possibly made up sources - sure. do i think “Jamil” exist - sure. I think the crux of the problem is that we are at a stage where anything is possible. subjectivity masquerading as “objective professional journalism” is enhanced by the ability to photoshop picture evidence and collude with the PR of terrorists or freedom fighters - you take your pick.
i have enjoyed watching blogs like powerline, lgf and many others expose laziness and political agendas of those in the traditional media. my sense is that the problem is borne out of laziness combined with the demands of a gotta have it now news cycle. this provides plenty of opportunity for the press to be manipulated. and as long as it fits into the action line then all the better.
all of this investigation is great but at the end of the day we have a much bigger problem on our hands: the notion among the msm community that they are their to solve a problem, represent the people, - not to report the news.
Comment by ming666 — 1/6/2007 @ 5:17 pm
what difference will it make in the scheme of things whether the actually existing AP source is telling the truth? That’s the question here.
My brother called me last night from Kuwait. He is finally coming home after his third rotation into theatre.
It’s a bloody disaster there. There are more crimes and atrocities being committed in this Iraqi civil war than can even be reported because it is so hard to move through the city. The last place he was fighting was Ramadi and he said Sunni and Shia had dug in fixed positions and were lobbing mortars at each other and coalition forces
That said, who on this blog has been in Iraq? Well..er…no one, my guess is.
Who has kept telling this horrible story about the actual conditions on the ground in Iraq?
People like my brother who have actually been there. The facts of the case are that Iraq is lost.
Why are you arguing an argument you have essentially lost?
Look, AP was telling the truth and the rightwing blogoshere has been caught wrong about that.
The invasion was a bad idea and the rightwing blogs were basically wrong about all that as well.
I mean you talk about enemy propaganda. Who has been more wrong on reporting about Iraq than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?
You see there’s a saying that when you’re up nto your ass in alligators it’s hard to remember you’re there to drain the swamp. That’s where we are in Iraq.
We are we where are in Iraq not because the reportng was wrong. We are in Iraq to begin with because the reporting was wrong. But honestly, with hundreds dead per day in a wide open civil war, you are parsing words and missing the mess we made over there.
Comment by bibbleman — 1/6/2007 @ 6:44 pm
You are exactly right, the ship that is Iraq is going down and the righties are just frantically rearranging the deck chairs and pointing out the the pursers mate has a smudge on his uniform, trying desperately to distract everyone else from the inevitable fact of the sinking.
The reporting before the war is what has us in such deep do do in Iraq. The facts were out there which showed that invading and occupying Iraq was a fools errand, even if done with adequate troop levels. All I used was my own knowledge of history and military doctrine and a lot of Google searching to find out the facts, why could the media not do the same or even better? The media has infinitely more resources than do I, one lower middle class man with an internet connection. At the time all I had was dialup too.
Of course, this sort of deception by the media and the politicians is nothing new.
The myriad falsehoods leading up to the war are what really scream for examination, not the pecadillos of some brave reporters trying under very dangerous circumstances to bring us the news from the outer ring of the seventh circle of hell that is today’s Iraq.
I SHOULD HAVE DELETED THIS COMMENT TOO. WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE AP AND THE POST ABOVE? AND YOUR BRINGING UP THE “FALSEHOODS” FROM BEFORE THE WAR AND NOT RESPONDING DIRECTLY TO MY CHARGE THAT THIS IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT SAYS TO ME EITHER YOU DON’T OR CAN’T READ WHAT I WRITE. WHAT KIND OF IDIOT GOES RIGHT AHEAD AND DEMONSTRATES EXACTLY WHAT I WRITE ABOUT WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A COMMENT ACKNOWLEDGING AT THE VERY LEAST THAT IT ISN’T A STRAWMAN?
READ THE POST AND COMMENT. NO GOING OFF ON TANGENTS. NO INSULTING THE HOST OR OTHER COMMENTERS. THEMS THE RULES. ABIDE BY THEM OR ELSE.
Comment by Jonathan — 1/6/2007 @ 8:45 pm
1. I challenge you to point out in this post where I say that correcting stories that are inaccurate or enemy propaganda will change anything about what’s happening on the ground in Iraq.
You can’t. That’s because it is a strawman that you people keep raising so that you don’t have to deal with the thesis of my post; “fake but accurate.”
How can you speak “truth to power” if the truth means so goddamned little to you?
2. Jonoathan:
Stop with the spam comments already. You’re getting to be annoying. Annoying people don’t last long at this site.
Comment by Rick Moran — 1/6/2007 @ 10:28 pm
Sigh…..
OK, I’m gonna post this again and see if any righties have the huevos to comment, although I seriously freakin’ doubt it.
Is there anyone else here who sees how seriously psychopathic the above quote is?
This comment was made in public and on the record, the person making it has not the self awareness to realize just how shameful it is.
And righties call lefties “whiners”!
All right, go on back to rearranging the deck chairs on that certain ship of the White Star Line.
THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY A SPAM COMMENT. THE REASON IT WAS DELETED IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE IT IS NON GERMANE TO THE POST. STICK WITH THE SUBJECT OF WHAT I WRITE OR RESPOND DIRECTLY TO SOMEONE.
YOU HAVE A DISORGANIZED, CHAOTIC MIND WHICH IS WHY YOU CAN’T SEE HOW OFF TOPIC THIS POST IS. IF YOU WANT TO POST YOUR OWN CRAP, GET YOUR OWN BLOG. DON’T WASTE MY BANDWIDTH BY POSTING IT HERE.
rm
Comment by Jonathan — 1/6/2007 @ 10:37 pm
OK, whatever. I’ve made my point and you know it. That’s all I wanted.
Part of the reality based community since Y2K.
WHAT YOU’VE “MADE” IS AN ASS OF YOURSELF. AND AS FAR AS ME “KNOWING IT” THE ONLY THING I KNOW IS THAT YOUR IRRATIONALITY AND CLUTTERED THINKING IS BOTH BORING AND ANNOYING.
Comment by Jonathan — 1/6/2007 @ 10:55 pm
Jonathan,
Yeah, you’ve made your point all right.
A suggestion. Ask a close family member if you’ve become more or less lucid in the past 24 hours, then, as the case may be, take credit or responsibility for what you’re doing to yourself.
Furthermore, if you’re going to play the victim, it’s only fair to do so with those who are responsible for your predicament.
Now, let’s look at Boehner’s words in their fuller context (from your link):
If you’d been a member of the reality-based community back in 1994, maybe you’d be able to appreciate where Boehner is coming from.
Another gem from your link:
Take a lesson from Stretch. Stop letting bloggers, pundits and entertainers get under your skin and get with the program.
Chip
Comment by Chip — 1/7/2007 @ 1:01 am
Rick
I didn’t say you said anything
What I mean to indicate is that you seem to be obsessing over the truth or falsity of a small story in a war that was born in a sea of falsehoods, hidden agendas and other assorted information atrocities.
Your thesis is right, yet still you are fighting for the window seat on the Hindenburg
didn’t mean to make you mad brother
Comment by bibbleman — 1/7/2007 @ 1:09 am
Chip:
At risk of being charged with spamming, I’ll reply.
I wish you would explain what the above quote really means because it doesn’t make much sense to me. I didn’t quote the whole thing because that part of the quote was more or less meaningless to me.
Do you really wish to argue that Democrats were treated fairly by Republicans in the years since 1994? That’s what you seem to be saying but I want to be sure.
As for Pelosi’s speech regarding bipartisanship and so forth, that’s more or less standard boilerplate political rhetoric which may or may not mean anything significant.
Back to the Jamil Hussein story in order to remain at least somewhat on topic. It looks like AP may well have been in error in their reporting due to using Mr Hussein as a single source. If that is the case then AP should publish a retraction and/or retractions and an apology. Would that be enough to satisfy you or do you require something further from AP?
As I pointed out earlier, the Iraq Study Group Report makes the point that violence in Iraq is being underreported by a factor of about ten, with there being about eleven hundred acts of violence on the day for which they analysed the data while only slightly under one hundred actually made it into the official record.
I’ll freely admit that reporters make mistakes, in every news story of which I have personal knowledge of the subject I have found errors of either fact or interpretation. I can recall before the Gulf War that sixty minutes did a piece on military hardware in which they called into question the reliability of that hardware in a dusty desert environment. It turns out that sixty minutes was dead wrong and the equipment worked very well when it came time to actually use it.
I’m one of those people who nitpicks TV shows and movies. They show a car driving fast on a dirt road with the tires squealing, tires don’t squeal on dirt. They show a Harley riding down the road and it sounds like a two stroke dirt bike. They show a dirt bike and it sounds like a Harley. There was an episode of “Fame” not too long ago, it’s set in New York and they played a basketball game outside. There were palm trees in the background. These sorts of errors ruin my suspension of disbelief and spoil the show for me, and the errors are many and frequent.
I bring that nitpickyness to reading news stories and other information. If the information is not logically self consistent or directly contradicts what I already know then I consider the information source unreliable.
I never really paid attention to the original “burning deaths” story, I saw it on Google News but wasn’t particularly interested and didn’t click on the link. I’m not a ghoul and have little interest in violence for the sake of violence.
I still don’t understand the burning desire of some people to focus on the truth or falsehood of just a few of the overwhelming number of violent stories coming out of Iraq.
I know I ramble, I’m trying to distract myself and I let my thoughts get carried away. The words just pour out of my fingertips without much conscious effort on my part. In real life I’m actually pretty taciturn, belive it or not.
Who is Stretch and what is the program?
Comment by Jonathan — 1/7/2007 @ 3:34 am
“But the Jamil Hussein story is different. Here is someone who, although not an authorized spokesman for the Iraqi government, has been used as a sole source on dozens of stories involving the worst of the war’s violence; sectarian massacres, blood curdling murders, and police or army collusion in the violence. And questioning the judgement of the stable of AP reporters in Iraq who have used Hussein as a sole source these many months – despite his distance from most of the incidents among other problems – would seem to me to be a reasonable and responsible way to hold AP to standards they themselves have set.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. Single sourcing stories in a war zone, while it may be the best that can be done, (and of course, since then they have provided other interviews to back up their story so it is no longer strictly single sources) is inherently unreliable.
AP, by telling you that their story was single sourced, by IDing the source (albeit cautiously), are teling you that the reliability of the story is not 100%.
However, the hysteria about this one AP source is not, at heart, about media reliability. It is about painting your opponents (or perceived opponents) as unreiable. If you wish to demonstrate that Malkin is more interested in press reliability than promoting her agenda, prehaps you would like to point to examples of her group of truth-seekers aggressively investigating claims that were anti-muslim, pro-Israel, anti-Hizbullah, pro-Republican or pro-Bush in any detail to expose them as falsehoods.
I’m not a betting man, but I’d imagine that you’d have some trouble.
Comment by Drongo — 1/7/2007 @ 3:51 am
From reading all these posts seems most of the libs are out to promote an agenda.
The ap along with the rest of the msm have long since stopped reporting the news as they have all turned into dem pr firms.
Comment by Drewsmom — 1/7/2007 @ 6:32 am
The Future of the New York Times - Illustrated
Need more evidence of the eroding value of the old-line newspaper business? Powerline and American Thinker report that the money-losing sale of the Tribune Company was even worse than previously thought…
Trackback by Doug Ross @ Journal — 1/7/2007 @ 8:12 am
B-Man:
I’m Obsessing over more than 60 stories where Hussein was a source for information not to mention dozens of other stories with hugely conflicting eyewitness accounts and no effort to reconcile them.
This is a free press issue - not a war/peace issue. As I’ve said countless times, even if every story Hussein was a source on proves false, it doesn’t change the reality of what’s happening in Iraq. How many times do I have to say that before people stop throwing it up in my face as a strawman?
Comment by Rick Moran — 1/7/2007 @ 8:39 am
This strawman that folks like Rick believe that Iraq will be rainbows and chocolate ponds if the AP stopped their reliance on subjective belief in certain officials (no seconday confirmation of events in their stories based on Jamil) is just disgusting. He has never said anything of the sort, and the continual use of logical fallacies by the commenters in opposition to Rick is pathetic.
I also find it humorous that the same people who questioned pre-war intel because of no confirmation from outside sources (though technically the yellowcake nonsense was cooked up by the Italians) would then attack the right blogosphere for questioning the AP when there was no proof of specific incidents except for Jamil, who they couldn’t prove existed.
Comment by Shawn — 1/7/2007 @ 10:22 am
“As I’ve said countless times, even if every story Hussein was a source on proves false, it doesn’t change the reality of what’s happening in Iraq. How many times do I have to say that before people stop throwing it up in my face as a strawman?”
I actually think that you are a rather different case. You do seem perfectly happy to question the right as well as the left. In your case it is a strawman. In the case of Malkin et al, it is not.
“I also find it humorous that the same people who questioned pre-war intel because of no confirmation from outside sources (though technically the yellowcake nonsense was cooked up by the Italians) would then attack the right blogosphere for questioning the AP when there was no proof of specific incidents except for Jamil, who they couldn’t prove existed.”
Hmm.
In the one case they were presenting a case for blowing up a country and killing thousands of people. They deliberately and mandaciously created intelligence out of thin air and repressed the evidence that they didn’t like.
In the other you havea news agency without any proposals or requirement to persuade anyone to do anything (as far as I can tell, if AP is suggesting a course of action, please enlighten me).
One is a *tad* more serious than the other, don’t you think?
Comment by Drongo — 1/7/2007 @ 11:59 am
Perhaps the other thing that some miss is that the “reality” of what is happening in Iraq would be different were it not for only one side being shown and the hammering of the false stories.
Perhaps “truth” is a far more complex thing than those on the left believe. Every day the same violence in Iraq happens in New York, Los Angeles, but in sheer ignorance those commentors turn away.
Perhaps if unremitting negativity with NO real support of the republican admnistration or the military were alleviated by something that were not so one sided right from the beginning we would have a different result now.
The real fact is that everyone continues to dance around the subject that such one sided reporting has given comfort and aid to those that hate this country. THAT is a truth that the left side of the aisle will not admit in their need to slime their own country through another “Vietnam”. Fact is you all were NOT right then to do what you did and you are not right now.
Comment by Noelie — 1/7/2007 @ 12:08 pm
well rick
are we violently agreeing?
Comment by bibbleman — 1/7/2007 @ 2:45 pm
“One is a tad more serious than the other, don’t you think?”
That isn’t how one discusses what is true or false. Something is true or false, it doesn’t matter how serious it is.
Comment by Shawn — 1/7/2007 @ 6:24 pm
“That isn’t how one discusses what is true or false. Something is true or false, it doesn’t matter how serious it is.”
1) A serious road accident killed 3 people on the roads in my county yesterday (it didn’t, it is an illustrative point). I offer this as information, draw conclusions on road safety as you will.
2) As a result of the thousands of child murders that occur each day in my county (they don’t, just another illustrative point). I, as an agent of the government, propose that we should imprison all males between the ages of 20 and 40 who have had any suspicions raised against them to ensure the safety of our children.
The two statements make truth claims, but one is obviously a matter for more serious consideration than the other.
Philosophically, we should be concerned about truth, of course, but practicaly some truth claims are more important than others.
“Every day the same violence in Iraq happens in New York, Los Angeles, but in sheer ignorance those commentors turn away.”
Really? I don’t remember stories about car bombings, mass killings, abductions of entire faculty staffs and almost constant assasination attempts against government officials in New York.
I didn’t know it was such a violent place. Glad I don’t live there.
“Perhaps if unremitting negativity with NO real support of the republican admnistration or the military were alleviated by something that were not so one sided right from the beginning we would have a different result now.”
Oh, don’t be ridiculous. The Bush admin got to run this war the way they wanted from the start. I doubt that even a competent group could have successfully run it and eneded up with anything very different from where it is now, but that lot? Honestly? You think the reason that they failed is the media?
Come on…
Comment by Drongo — 1/7/2007 @ 8:06 pm
Sir, what do you think of these developments?
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=19277
Comment by Paeng — 1/7/2007 @ 11:15 pm