Where Responsibility Lies

Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee wrote an interesting posting yesterday about whether he should consider releasing the true identity of Jamil Hussein. Predictably, the usual suspects slammed him for outing the true identity even though he did no such thing. Bob was simply posting in contemplation of what he might do. No action to publish the name was taken. For those late to the game, Jamil Hussein is a pseudonym given to an individual by the AP, but which was never stated in any of the AP reports that used him as a source.

What responsibility do bloggers have to protect the identity of a source that isn't credible? What responsibilities does the AP have to maintain its journalistic integrity? Why does the AP continue to use, let alone protect, such sources?

I thought Bob raised some interesting points for and against the release of Hussein's true identity. I would side with maintaining the anonymity of the name as I wouldn't want to put the man's safety in danger any more than it already is.

However, the onus on this whole matter is on the Associated Press, not Bob Owens or any other bloggers out there. The AP is the entity that set this whole matter in motion with the use of sources whose identities were pseudonyms in violation of their stated policies - setting up the Great Jamil Hussein Goose Chase. It's pretty difficult to catch a ghost when you don't even know the ghost's name.

AP has to account for why it continues to stand by the Burning Six story and the other stories sourced to 'Jamil Hussein.' In other instances, where a media outlet has been burned by a source, they would out the source to show them to be a fake or fraud - or opening them up to legal action. That could be the route taken here, but AP doesn't seek to do that either.

Instead, we get a situation where the AP has its cake and is eating it as well. They protect his anonymity while declaring that nothing was wrong, ignoring that the whole thing was an exaggeration and potentially induced by Hussein's loyalties that may lie elsewhere.

It's also a sorry state of affairs when the AP and their supporters attack the messenger and not the assertions made (and sustained by the actual
evidence).

UPDATE:
Leave it to the AP to issue a non-correction correction. They're admitting that their original reporting was incorrect, but doing so not only without noting that the original reporting was wrong, but stating as fact that, wonders of wonders, the damaged mosques are still standing. Curt at Flopping Aces isn't impressed. Neither is Charles at LGF or Bryan at Hot Air (who personally visited the sites in question).

Michelle Malkin (who also personally visited the sites in question) has a lengthy response but starting with this:

The Associated Press puts its advocacy spin and institutional arrogance on naked display in a story hot off the wires. You know those four mosques that AP reporter Qais Al Bashir and AP source Capt. Jamil Hussein claimed had been "destroyed" and "torched" and "burned and blew up"? The ones we showed were attacked, but not destroyed, in our Hot Air video report and NY Post column 10 days ago?

Well, newsflash: The AP has just acknowledged that the "destroyed" mosques are still standing. The headline: "Sunni Mosques Still Show Damage in Iraq." Here's the lead paragraph, which mischaracterizes the AP's initial reporting and description of the mosques...

So, on top of misleading readers as to the content of the story, they go on to mischaracterize and mislead as to what the military and Iraqis did.

Further, this continues to be a violation of AP policy relating to corrections. That's been a big part of the problem from the outset.

CORRECTIONS/CORRECTIVES:

Staffers must notify supervisory editors as soon as possible of errors or potential errors, whether in their work or that of a colleague. Every effort should be made to contact the staffer and his or her supervisor before a correction is moved.

When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible. When we make a correction in the current cycle, we point out the error and its fix in the editor's note. A correction must always be labeled a correction in the editor's note. We do not use euphemisms such as "recasts," "fixes," "clarifies" or "changes" when correcting a factual error.

A corrective corrects a mistake from a previous cycle. The AP asks papers or broadcasters that used the erroneous information to use the corrective, too.