Posted on 12/08/2006 1:33:27 PM PST by the anti-liberal
AP: Still not off the hook
Plus: The Question
"Who is Jamil Hussein?" is becoming the new "Who is John Galt?"--a blogospheric refrain that both summarizes and challenges MSM apathy about its questionable war reporting.
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham is the latest to pose the question in the Washington Examiner.
Historian and Army infantry officer Robert Bateman, using the latest AP scandal over its six burning Sunnis report as a hook, has a must-read reminder in the NYPost today about the botched war reporting of the Associated Press:
The most powerful media institution in all of human history is the Associated Press. Its news feed is ubiquitous - used, directly or indirectly, by every U.S. newspaper and TV news program and a vast number of foreign ones, too. AP maintains the largest world-wide coverage, and its reader base is nearly immeasurable. Unfortunately, and repeatedly of late, this behemoth has not only been getting it wrong - but increasingly refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing.
Instead, acting more like a politician or the mega-corporation that it is, the AP crew spins, obfuscates and attacks. Now they're at it again in Iraq.
I have got direct experience of this - from challenging the AP's seriously flawed 1999 "scoop" about the masssacre near the South Korean village of No Gun Ri during the opening days of the Korean War.
Bad things did happen at No Gun Ri, of this there can be no doubt. My own research and other historians', as well as the joint U.S.-Korean government investigation, confirms that a tragedy occurred - there were civilians who were killed there, by our side, and that was wrong.
But the AP's sensationalistic story painted it as a deliberate massacre, done with machine guns at extremely close range.
The most sensational account started in the 57th paragraph of the 3,448-word story, sourced to one Edward Daily. As AP told it, Daily was the only soldier at No Gun Ri who directly received orders from his officers to turn his water-cooled .30 caliber machinegun on the civilians and shoot them down in cold blood at point-blank range.
Daily's account was chilling. It was also - as AP should have known - a fantasy.
The AP story took at face value Daily's claims that he was a combat infantryman who won a battlefield commission just a few days after the events at No Gun Ri, and had been awarded the Distinguished Cross and three Purple-Hearts.
In reality, he was an enlisted mechanic in an entirely different unit, nowhere near No Gun Ri. He had fabricated his biography and credentials as well as his entire account of the events at No Gun Ri.
When I later confronted AP editors with the facts and records that showed their source Daily to be a fraud, they blew me off. What would a historian know about this topic after all, or a soldier?
The AP didn't issue a retraction, or even attempt to reinvestigate; and it certainly didn't withdraw the story from the Pulitzer competition. Instead, it attacked the messenger.
Sound familiar?
Bob Owens looks at the magnitude of the AP's Jamilgate:
This developing Associated Press implosion may go back as far as two years, affecting as many as 60 stories from just this one allegedly fake policeman alone. And Jamil Hussein is just one of more than a dozen potentially fake Iraqi policemen used in news reports the AP disseminates around the world. This does not begin to attempt to account for non-offical sources which the AP will have an even harder time substantiating. Quite literally, almost all AP reporting from Iraq not verified from reporters of other news organizations is now suspect, and with good reason.
Instead of affecting one show on one network watched by 14 million viewers as Rathergate did, "Jamilgate" means the Associated Press may have been delivering news of questionable accuracy to one billion people a day for two years or more. In this evolving instance of faux journalism, "60 Minutes" is now potentially 60 billion false impressions, or more.
A principled, professional news organization owes its consumers the truth. To date, the Associated Press, as voiced by comments from officers international editor John Daniszewski and executive editor Kathleen Carroll, has refused to address the rampant inconsistencies in the "burning men" story, produce physical evidence proving their allegations, or produce star source Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein. Arrogantly, they attack the messenger (both U.S military and Iraqi government sources and bloggers), and insist we must believe them, even though they give us no compelling reason to do so, and many reasons to doubt them.
Related: Hot Air has video of Mark Steyn's appearance on O'Reilly last night slamming the AP.
Meanwhile, AP editors have resurrected Green Helmet Guy.
Who is Jamil Hussein?
What a waste of time.
Michelle Malkin
Bump!
And never loses his mental faculties!
I suspect much of the problem is that most universities where "journalism" is taught are themselves very "liberal" "minded". Just as most school teachers come from these same universities.
No problem! 150 yrs old is one thing, 150 and still sharp is another!
I actually stopped watching television altogether - how much of just the commercials alone are intellectually and emotionally unhealthy (in a so-called "liberal" kind of way)?
Someone really needs to track this guy down (if he exists) before AP runs a headline:
Capt Jamil Hussein Killed by US Forces
end of story
Michelle is one of the best conservative pundits out there. My hat is off to her.
Even so, there should at least be a paper trail related to his identity, dead or alive.
Sometimes I go to her site first then come here, sometimes I come here first then go there.
I'm kidding, of course. This episode will eventually get resolved but in the meantime, who's going to go check the paperwork? Associated Press or Reuters?
I can envision an oversight organization whose purpose is to check the veracity of stories submitted by organizations, such as the AP, before they're allowed to dispersed them to various publications. Such oversight and checks could be a kind of 'stamp of approval' to reassure readers of the veracity of the material they're reading.
Heck, if I had the means I'd form such an organization. People need to be able to trust the validity of reports before they can depend on them.
Weepocrats are everywhere.
I hope you've brought a lot of ammo with you (silver stakes?)
HF
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.