Curt at Flopping Aces has a definitive posting on where we are with the hunt for Jamil Hussein. He notes recent developments, including Confederate Yankee's demands for AP to take major corrective actions, along with a tantalizing possibility that Hussein was in cahoots with the fedayeen Saddam.
He also notes that the AP is consistently reporting casualties at twice the rate of the Iraqi or MNF-I. Something has to give here. Someone isn't telling the full story, and it would behoove everyone to get the facts straight. If the media is consistently reporting inaccurate information, it makes it all but worthless as a source.
What do we have thus far? There may be several Jamil Husseins, and one of them might not even be a Hussein. How exactly is AP sourcing its stories under such circumstances? Well, they've figured out that they wont take as much flack if they simply run the anonymizer and don't attribute their stories to anyone. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. It might make it more difficult for bloggers to track down the sources of various incidents that are alleged to have occurred, but the stories have to be substantiated in some form or another. If X number of people were killed or wounded in an attack, there would be a paper trail. Let's see it. Police or hospital records? MNF-I or Iraqi military response to scenes of bombings? It's there for reporters who actually want to report instead of inventing or exaggerating news.
This goes beyond whether Jamil Hussein exists (after all, if you throw enough money around in Baghdad these days, you could get invented Jamil Hussein(s)). It's about the verification of multiple news stories that have questionable sources. You would think that AP would want their stories verified, but their continued stonewalling makes it clear that they're worried that their reporting will turn out to be less than stellar.
Others blogging: Patterico, Hot Air, Winds of Change, Jules Crittenden.
UPDATE:
Wuzzadem takes down the AP frame by frame.
UPDATE:
In a far more serious update, it would appear AP is trying to cover up its tracks by rewriting its earlier articles to delete confirmation of burned bodies by morgue workers. Now, why would AP do this? The original version can still be found at the USA Today. Ace calls this amateur hour but posted the flaming skull because it would appear to be a purposeful act to hide their malfeasance. I'd call this purposefully withholding and/or altering evidence after the fact. Instead of using the Reuters playbook of handling a crisis, they're running with the CBS News one. We know how the CBS Rathergate story ended. Black eyes for CBS News and Dan Rather forced out along with Mary Mapes.
UPDATE:
Others picking up the story of the AP trying to rewrite its coverage and the Jamil Hussein story in general: Don Surber, Mary Katherine Ham, Pajamas Media,
Cassandra is still not willing to jump on the bandwagon, and I can understand her reluctance, but here's the thing; the AP is acting in a mighty suspicious way if they didn't do anything wrong in their reporting, editing, and processing of the story.
UPDATE:
Allah at Hot Air also wonders whether AP is covering its tracks, but thinks that the omission of key details included in earlier reporting and subsequently stealthily removed suggests that AP wasn't confident of the facts. The question would then become why didn't AP issue clarifications or retractions of those key details which would otherwise have provided color on the story. Others picking up the story: Wake Up America, Bill's Bites, and Patterico.
Technorati: fauxtography, jamil hussein, journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment