Patterico's Pontifications

12/3/2006

N.Y. Times Smugly Analyzes the Jamil Hussein Controversy

Filed under: General,Media Bias,War — Patterico @ 10:13 pm



The Jamil Hussein saga has finally hit the pages of the New York Times. And what a smug, circle-the-wagons piece it is, too.

Read it all to get the full flavor, but for now, this morsel of Big Media arrogance accurately captures the attitude:

It is also true that the institution conducting America’s multibillion gamble in Iraq — the military — says that this standout of atrocities never happened, while a venerable, trusted news agency has twice interviewed witnesses who said, in extensive, vivid detail, that it did.

Note the differing descriptions of the two sides. Is there any doubt in your mind where the author of the piece comes down?

Of course, the witnesses are unnamed. But there is a “venerable, trusted news agency” behind their anonymous assertions, so rest easy. Anonymous sources have never been wrong before! And anyway, they couldn’t come up with “extensive, vivid detail” unless it were true.

The piece also says that, according to the AP‘s executive editor, “the agency had already done all it could to respond to the uncertainties by vigorously re-reporting the article . . . .” The author of the New York Times piece seems to agree. Apparently it never occurred to either of these stellar journalists that there is, in fact, one thing the AP could do — but, notably, hasn’t. And that is to produce Jamil Hussein.

Curt from Flopping Aces responds here. A good portion of the rest of the blogosphere is about to follow right behind him.

UPDATE: I recommend posts by Allah and Tom Blumer, both of whom employ wagon-circling terminology to describe the N.Y. Times piece.

10 Responses to “N.Y. Times Smugly Analyzes the Jamil Hussein Controversy”

  1. CENTCOM says AP’s “Iraqi police source” isn’t Iraqi police …

    (Part 8 — Continued from this post.) Who Is Qais al-Bashir?(Just go read it. Bigger things started breaking before I had time to link to it.) ***N.Y. Times Smugly Analyzes the Jamil Hussein Controversy Patterico The Jamil Hussein saga has…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd) — 12/3/2006 @ 11:07 pm

  2. […] Patterico — “Apparently it never occurred to either of these stellar journalists that there is, in fact, one thing the AP could do — but, notably, hasn’t. And that is to produce Jamil Hussein.” […]

    BizzyBlog » Quote of The Day: Mary Katharine Ham on Why Bogus ‘Police Captain’ Jamil Hussein Matters (Plus Other Updates) (34f45e) — 12/4/2006 @ 4:55 am

  3. AP and Bloggers Face Off on Flaming Sunnis…

    Tom Zeller has a detailed look at a recent flap between bloggers and the mainstream press over an AP story about six Sunni worshipers who were allegedly “doused in kerosene and burned alive by Shiite attackers.” Curt at Flopping Aces, cite…

    Outside The Beltway | OTB (30d6b6) — 12/4/2006 @ 6:54 am

  4. People are dying by the dozens every day and you get caught up in one story?

    GERGEN: Yes, I do. I think Nick Kristof is right on this. But I must tell you that the pendulum has swung on this. There was a sense, in the lead-up to the war, in which the press, I think, was guilty of cheerleading. We were waving the flags and it was almost unpatriotic to question the possibility of war with Iraq. And then during the time of the invasion itself, when the reporters were embedded, you know, many of them fell in love with the military and I think they reported very accurately.

    But there was no question that they were swayed by what they had seen. But since they have been there, I do think the press has been on the cutting edge, been the leading indicator of saying it’s not going as well as the administration says. And for those that think that the press is being too harsh, we now have the leak of the Hadley memo this week, which shows, within the administration itself, there’s a real difference between what they’re telling each other internally and what they’re saying publicly.
    The internal reporting inside the administration is much grimmer and much more similar to what the press says than what the administration has officially been saying.

    Where’s your commentary on the Bush Maliki fiaso? Where’s your comment on that idiot Hadley.

    You just go on and choose to ignore people and news and facts you don’t approve of. If you’re going to defend this admisnstration give us the big pcture. You offer up critiques of little skirmishes on in a loser’s war and then note someone’s comment about Bolton: “Bad things happen when you lose your majority.” and add “Yes they do.” But Bolton helped to get us into this mess you are refusing to comment on, so your little battles cover for the bigger loss. If you weren’t defending that blithering idiot it wouldn’t matter but you are. Give us a justification.

    AF (8f7ccc) — 12/4/2006 @ 7:39 am

  5. The New York Slimes what else can one ever expect from a liberal left-wing news paper like this?

    krazy kagu (3067be) — 12/4/2006 @ 7:44 am

  6. Sigh. I am reminded of the Nixon coverage. The “News” seemed to get lost in the necessary exercise of the reporters, writers, et al, making sure that they put their bona fides up front to show that they had personal animosity towards Nixon, thus their “analysis” was coming from a legitmate place, namely their animosity towards Nixon. Are these not the same persons who would have us (meaning others, you know, those idiots in the military) engage in foreign “military adventurism” in Darfur? Perhaps in getting what they want, abject pull out in Iraq, they will get what I want – a harsh internal reassessment of what it requires to be an American – and a house cleaning of those who refuse to contribute to our glorious future, comrade. Opps, did I say comrade? I meant Citizen – but don’t worry, my heart is in the right place (I care so much….).

    Californio (6e7055) — 12/4/2006 @ 9:51 am

  7. Smug Coverage…

    Tom Zeller, writing for the Business section of the Times, questions the AP and its continued insistence on the accuracy and veracity of stories provided to it by one Jamil Hussein but can’t help but take unnecessary swipes at the bloggers who raised….

    A Blog For All (59ce3a) — 12/4/2006 @ 11:08 am

  8. Supporting Enemy Propaganda–NYT…

    Please notice that the NYT piece and the page that has the email from Wong are BOTH from Tom Zeller. So it cannot be claimed that Zeller wasn’t aware of this email, he deliberately left it out of the article in question!!!…

    Wake up America--Media Lies (057ec1) — 12/4/2006 @ 11:31 am

  9. […] UPDATE: Patterico’s Pontifications » N.Y. Times Smugly Analyzes the Jamil Hussein Controversy Apparently it never occurred to either of these stellar journalists that there is, in fact, one thing the AP could do — but, notably, hasn’t. And that is to produce Jamil Hussein. These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

    Daily Pundit » Five Years From Now, Will People Will Hoot At the AP For Questioning the Blogosphere? (c3dd54) — 12/4/2006 @ 12:26 pm

  10. More Fine Distinctions From the Drive-By Media…

    Take a look at this Reuters headline and see if the same thing catches your eye as caught mine: U.S.-led raid, suicide bomber kill at least 12 Afghans My first thought was, whose brilliant idea was it to allow suicide……

    Big Lizards (5ca406) — 12/12/2006 @ 3:48 am


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0764 secs.