AP (and Now Sadly, No!) Owes a Correction
Recently I quoted an AP story that reported that Sunnis had claimed that four mosques were “destroyed” in Hurriya back in November. I then said:
I understand that some ill-informed leftist bloggers have claimed, without proof, that this language was out there for 20 minutes and never made it into an actual story. I’m not linking these morons out of principle. You can easily find their stupid posts yourself. The name of their moronblog rhymes with the phrase “Madly Ho.” My response to these dunderheads is simple. Uh, ill-informed leftist bloggers? Meet Lexis/Nexis.
OK, fine. I’ll break my rule, just this once — for the entertainment value.
I was referring to this post, in which Sadly, No! blogger D. Aristophanes said that the term “destroyed” is
a term that appeared in a raw AP feed for approximately 20 minutes, and which was removed before a single story was published.
In my recent post, I said that Sadly, No! was wrong to say that this language was out there for 20 minutes and never made it into an actual story. Then Gavin M. doubled down — big-time. Referring to my post, he said:
You know how sometimes you run across something and you’re like, Damn, that’s a whole new flavor of stupid…?
My post was stupid, Gavin claimed, because I questioned D. Aristophanes’s assertion that the article had a brief 20-minute existence as a “raw feed.” (A “raw feed” is different from those cooked articles, which are subject to journalistic standards and such. In raw feeds, you’re allowed to say any old damn thing, so the moronbloggers’ logic goes. This is because, after the raw feed appears, it immediately self-destructs like those messages on the Mission: Impossible! TV shows — never to be seen again.) Here’s Gavin’s caption to my screenshot of three entries for the article on Nexis. Marvel as he describes the short, sad, squalid life of our friend the raw feed:
This AP feed with the imprecise word, ‘destroyed,’ was up for roughly 20 minutes before being supplanted.
I guess that’s true . . . if by “supplanted” you mean picked up by web sites across the world. The article has been published in various places around the country and the globe. It is still available in at least seven places on the Web, in addition to being archived on Nexis without a correction.
DRJ resolves the issue definitively:
Let’s recap. Here’s the AP report that I think we’re talking about:
“Sunnis Say Shiites Burn Their Buildings
By QAIS AL-BASHIR
ASSOCIATED PRESSBAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – Sunni residents in a volatile northwest Baghdad neighborhood claimed Friday that revenge-seeking Shiite militiamen had destroyed four Sunni mosques, burned homes and killed many people, while the Shiite-dominated police force stood by and did nothing.
The reports were the most serious allegations of retribution in Baghdad the day after Sunni insurgents killed 215 people and wounded 257 with five car bombs and mortar fire in the capital’s Sadr City Shiite slum.
Police officials in the region told Associated Press reporters that nothing had happened in the Hurriyah district, a once-mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhood that has increasingly come under the control of the Mahdi Army of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
The Sunni residents, who would not allow use of their names for fear of retribution, said militiamen were blocking them from entering burned homes to claim the bodies of victims killed in the fires.”
I’m posting this at 1:35PM EST on 2/2/2007. Right now, this 11/24/2006 report is still posted at the websites of the San Diego Union Tribune, the Las Vegas Sun, the Philadelphia Intelligencer Phillyburbs.com, and Boston’s WHDH7 News. In addition, the report is also present in the worldwide media at the websites of Yahoo’s Asia News, Ireland’s BreakingNews:ie, and Canada’s Ottawa Recorder.
This AP-bylined report is still up at all these websites and there are probably more I missed.
To recap, according to the geniuses at Sadly, No!, this was merely “a raw AP feed” which appeared “for approximately 20 minutes, and which was removed before a single story was published” — except that it appeared in Canada, Asia, Ireland, Philadelphia, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Boston — and is still archived on Nexis without correction.
Damn, that’s a whole new flavor of stupid!
P.S. The defense advanced by some of their commenters is that the story was accurate, and needs no correction, because Sunni residents did claim that Shiite militiamen had destroyed four Sunni mosques. In comments, Gavin seems to accept this as a valid argument — but I’m waiting to see whether he will actually commit to an argument this stupid in a post. Let’s hope he does, so I can take joy in reminding him of the times he demanded corrections from conservatives for accurately repeating inaccurate statements by others.
Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see how he words his post acknowledging that the entire basis of his post mocking me was, well, flatly wrong. Hopefully he’ll use some leetspeak and do a lot of exclamation points mixed in with the number “1.” If that schtick was clever the first time, why then, it’s bound to be extra clever the 2,843rd time.
UPDATE 2-3-07 12:23 p.m.: This Sadly No! post continues to say that the word “destroyed” is “a term that appeared in a raw AP feed for approximately 20 minutes, and which was removed before a single story was published.” And Gavin’s post still says: “Above: This AP feed with the imprecise word, ‘destroyed,’ was up for roughly 20 minutes before being supplanted.” I’m sure the careful factcheckers at Sadly, No! will be correcting those erroneous statements posthaste.
But even if they don’t, that’s OK by their standards, because those posts have been “supplanted” by this one, which acknowledges that the story did run in some places. As long as the truth appears somewhere on the Sadly, No! web site, it’s OK to leave blatant errors up in other places.
By the way, let’s not pretend that the new post is honest. It also pretends that the AP‘s error was slight — an odd stance, given the fact that the AP recently reported only “slight damage” at one supposedly “destroyed” mosque, and nothing more than a broken window at another supposedly “destroyed” mosque. Not to mention the contemporaneous pictures showing worshippers praying in one of the mosques — one day after the attack that supposedly “destroyed” it.
But the folks at Sadly, No! will maintain until the day they die that these are inconsequential errors — hardly worth mentioning, really. “Destroyed” is really almost just like “slightly damaged” or “has a broken window.” Why? Because the Supreme Overarching Goal is to run down Michelle Malkin, and never ever to admit that she was right about anything. Next to that goal, little things like truth and accuracy are minor annoyances.
UPDATE x2: Welcome to Instapundit readers!
Good job, P!!
Kicking Gavin’s a55…. lol
rrsafety (09e9d0) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:15 amIf I, in a professional capacity, assert a fact that I later discover to be incorrect and retract, but not before third parties echo my words, do others have any recourse against me for their statements? Does the nature of the retraction, attempts to contact the third parties, etc. influence this? (I’m assuming for this hypothetical that this is something like a news report, rather than, say, a medical recommendation, legal filing or an architectural diagram.)
This is a serious question – I dont know the answer.
fishbane (3389fc) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:56 amIn my recent experience — only marginally related to blogging — what I expect is that Gavin M. will not only not acknowledge that he was wrong, but will redouble his efforts to try to make you admit you were wrong despite your having proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you were not.
If you ever encounter such a person in tech support, do what I should have done and ask to talk to someone else.
McGehee (5664e1) — 2/3/2007 @ 7:42 amfishbane,
If you retract publically, I’d say no. Those quoting you have responsibility to investigate the accuracy (and currency) of the quote, and in the process SHOULD discover your retraction. Mistakes happen, that’s fine.
But in this case AP hasn’t exactly done that. In this case AP hasn’t really even emulated that. In this case AP has obtusely refused to set the record straight, playing little games to change the story to something closer to the truth without ever flat saying “our information was wrong, we originally overstated the situation.”
The corrections don’t fit the meme they want to support. Can’t have that. This is all about “truth,” not facts.
Dan S (205dac) — 2/3/2007 @ 7:48 am[…] UPDATE: Patterico writes: P.S. The defense advanced by some of their commenters is that the story was accurate, and needs no correction, because Sunni residents did claim that Shiite militiamen had destroyed four Sunni mosques. […]
Sadly, No! » The Correction the AP Should Give (d83a19) — 2/3/2007 @ 8:29 amI am amazed that Sadly No and others would even bother to defend this obvious error, compounding their own intellectual dishonesty. The story was out there on newspaper Web sites (I read it myself when the controversy first arose). No amount of mockery and hand-waving will make that simple fact go away.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 2/3/2007 @ 9:34 amWow Patterico you really show ’em!
salvage (89689b) — 2/3/2007 @ 10:24 amEverything is archived online, so there’s no reason to expect the early feed to vanish. The immolation/mosque attack story was in rolling coverage. Death tolls from “officials” GO DOWN from original statements in wire service “Re-Sends.” On the night in question, it probably wasn’t clear how badly damaged the buildings were as follow-up reporting came back in conflict. AP split the difference and took the one safe out: the mosques had been “damaged,” “burned” or “attacked.” That, at least, was unchallenged. In any case, the AP clients would have seen a top-line setting out what had been “fixed” at the time the second draft was fed. I’d be surprised if other alterations couldn’t be identified and vivisectioned. But little more than what AP did is customary in same-cycle, rolling coverage. The clients/editors had the prerogative to highlight AP modifications. Any of them and all of them.
Your fight with Sadly, No! infantilizes the trivial, if that’s possible. A food fight is an unbecoming New Media archetype.
Ed (dc811a) — 2/3/2007 @ 10:30 amShhhh Ed… food fights are fun to watch, stop bringing reason and logic into it.
salvage (89689b) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:07 amI am amazed that Sadly No and others would even bother to defend this obvious error, compounding their own intellectual dishonesty. The story was out there on newspaper Web sites (I read it myself when the controversy first arose). No amount of mockery and hand-waving will make that simple fact go away.
Bradley,
The Sadly, No! commenters are out to test that theory. “How about *this* amount of mockery and hand-waving? No? How about *this* amount?”
Don’t be amazed. For people with integrity, it is interesting to watch the gyrations they go through. But it all makes sense once you understand the motivation: making Michelle Malkin look bad. Everything else is secondary, including the refusal by the Associated Press to correct clear errors in its war reporting.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:20 amA food fight is an unbecoming New Media archetype.
Well, this is why I have this rule that I usually follow.
Look at this way. You have a pack of howling, feces-flinging monkeys. Normally you keep a wide berth and try to ignore them. But one of those times they try to throw the feces at you — and you have the choice to ignore it, or redirect the feces so that it splatters right on their faces.
It’s a guilty pleasure to do the latter on occasion, and that’s what I’ve done here. I realize that there’s nothing dignified about it. It’s still better practice to ignore the monkeys as a general rule. I mean, they’re monkeys. But I still gotta say that I enjoy the sight of them standing there covered in their own feces.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:24 amI know that we can wait for a correction, or an acknowledgement of error from the AP or from the folks at “Sadly No”. We can wait and wait. But will it happen?. . .
Sadly No!
Bill M (afe2c3) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:27 amPatterico,
I think Gavin agrees with your point that the “Sunnis said” language isn’t a valid defense:
I may be the only one that feels this way, but it’s nice to see a dialogue between blogs with different views that can nevertheless reach common ground.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 12:20 pmIt may have been Brad R. that agreed with you, not Gavin. Brad wrote the post but I’m not sure who wrote the update.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 12:21 pmThe AP’s non-correction correction (Updated and bumped)…
Part 47 of my Jamilgate series. Continued from this post. This may be the last post I write about Jamilgate [or not]. What else is there to say? al-AP got caught in a lie and is never going to fess…
Bill's Bites (72c8fd) — 2/3/2007 @ 12:27 pmOn the topic of whether it matters if the AP “got it right” on this story the first time, I agree that the media should update its reports when new information becomes available. I also think that the media should make corrections when the mistakes are material. As an aside, sometimes the media corrects things that to me seem insignificant, but I’ve always understood they did this because they cared about their reputation for accuracy.
Thus, why should we care that the AP’s first version of the burning Sunnis’ story was a bit off? For the same reason we cared that the alleged victim in the Duke lacrosse case has given multiple versions. The fact that the reports changed in a short period of time makes most people question the reliability of the story itself.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I believe something happened in Hurriyah that day but I don’t know exactly what it was. Here’s my Sadly No comment on this subject:
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 12:33 pmWelcome to the bizarro world of left-wing “truthiness”. That’s all that matters to these moonbats. THEY ARE NEVER WRONG, HENCE THEY NEVER HAVE TO APOLOGIZE.
They will merely shift the argument with just a few keystrokes blaming America that a third world dictator passed gas because the price of beans are cheaper than corn as a result of capitalist (read: American) price fixing.
Oh, and the Bush TANG Rathergate memos have never been “disproven” and are henceforth recognized to be “false but accurate”. And don’t you forget that kool-aid™ sipping “progressives” are a reality-based community? Buwhahahahaha!
Hankmesiter (4b484f) — 2/3/2007 @ 12:34 pmBTW, if these obfuscating AP apologists are going to use the AP-was-only-quoting-the-residents gambit, then they better darn well explain why in the original report it wasn’t noted by the professional (ahem) journalists/editors at AP that the residents’ claims COULD NOT be independently verified at the time the story was logged online.
Now is that too hard to do or are we simply seeing more evidence of a lamestream media narrative? Professional incompetence … liars with an agenda? You decide.
I’m constantly amazed how any official explanation by the Bush Administration, U.S. military, and conservatives in general always results in extreme skepticism on the part of the lamestream media, but whenever Muslims/Arabs/Iraqi make pronouncements without the least shred of evidence to back their claims, they are unimpeachable sources to the MSM. Gee, no wonder al Jazeera has had it so easy in years past given the unimpeachable credentials of those in the Muslim world who never, never, never have an ax to grind.
Hankmesiter (4b484f) — 2/3/2007 @ 12:46 pmWhy are bloggers on the left such jackasses?
Anyone?
Cover Me, Porkins (e9828e) — 2/3/2007 @ 1:00 pmRemember, this is the same “brain trust” that put so much emphasis on TruthNot!/Jason Leopold’s “Rove Indicted” fairytale.
Gabriel (02257a) — 2/3/2007 @ 1:00 pmThis whole episode would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. Major news outlets employ journalist who are up to 90% Democrat in the major markets, and that majority skews their reporting, and they won’t admit it and won’t correct it. We depend on “truthiness” to decide how to vote and the left wing thinks that is just fine. To combat this I ignore all “breaking news from Iraq” reports until the MSM has time to be corrected by the blogosphere. So far, I have not gone wrong with that system. The “destroyed instead of damamged” story is just the tip of the iceberg. We have been overwealmed with “stem cell instead of embryonic stem cell”, “immigrant instead of illegal immigrant” and “youths instead of muslim radicals” stories for decades, and there seems to be little progress toward the truth.
tyree (2f24e5) — 2/3/2007 @ 1:53 pm[…] Welp, I tried to be somewhat polite with Pattycakes here, because he did in fact catch us in an “oopsie.” But now he’s just asking for it: By the way, let’s not pretend that the new post is honest. It also pretends that the AP’s error was slight — an odd stance, given the fact that the AP recently reported only “slight damage” at one supposedly “destroyed” mosque, and nothing more than a broken window at another supposedly “destroyed” mosque. […]
Sadly, No! » Bring it, Pattycakes (d83a19) — 2/3/2007 @ 2:04 pmYeah, but see, your name is Pattycakes.
[Yeah, there’s even a whole new post that has no substance — it’s just a chance to 1) misread what I said, 2) make some unwarranted assumptions about my views on media bias — and of course 3) to call me “Pattycakes,” which is the real point of the otherwise pointless post. Which is the height of cleverness. No wonder SN! is such a top humor site. Between leetspeak, exclamation points mixed with the number 1, and clever names like “Pattycakes,” it’s a hotbed of comedy GENIUS, I tells ya.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head. It’s like we’re all in fourth grade again. — P]
Jim Treacher (15574e) — 2/3/2007 @ 3:12 pmOh, patterico. Why did I take all that time to explain things to you last night? I’m glad you’re not saying the AP reported those mosques’ destruction as fact anymore, at least, but can’t you just accept you were wrong and let it drop?
[“Anymore”? Like I ever did? Learn some reading comprehension skills or provide some links. Do you guys ever get tired of being wrong? — P]
I, and the SN! boys, admit we were wrong about the report not getting picked up. Now can you admit you were wrong about the actual content of the report? You’re halfway there, you just refuse to acknowledge what it means. The AP did not report these mosques were destroyed. They reported that Sunni residents in the area said and claimed these mosques were destroyed. They were, instead, attacked and heavily damaged, while the external structure remains standing. The Sunnis’ claim was either overstated or the result of a hasty translation of an adjective. You like to mock the “20 minute” claim, yet you ignore that means this report of slightly overstated claims was updated with better info at most 30 minutes later. Have you never watched news break before, patterico? Sometimes initial reports are wrong or somewhat misleading. That’s why they file additional reports as better info from better sources comes in. That’s the nature of the news. If anyone is finding this one archived version of a report that CLEARLY STATES it does not have a definitive account of the events in question and taking it as the absolute truth in the matter, the mistake is theirs, not the AP’s.
I know you want to dismiss my point that the AP did not report the mosques’ destruction, but rather claims of destruction, but that doesn’t make it go away. You’re wrong, at a very fundamental level.
[No, I am not. You are wrong on the most fundamental level possible, and you’re digging yourself a mighty deep hole by continuing to repeat this crap. Find me an exact quote and we’ll talk.
The problem is that the later claims didn’t acknowledge that the earlier claims were wrong, and could be read consistently with them. Let me use an analogy — even thoughI know you don’t understand analogies and will attempt to “refute” it by saying that it’s not exactly the same situation. I report that brad was killed last night. In actual fact, brad was only wounded and taken to the hospital. 30 minutes later, I report that brad was shot. But I don’t explain that he is still alive, and I don’t note that I previously incorrectly said he was dead. My second report may be accurate, as far as it goes — but anyone who reads both of my reports will believe that he was shot and killed, because the second report doesn’t correct the first.
Honestly, this really just isn’t that hard. If you guys weren’t so blinded by ideology, this would (I hope) be really, really obvious and intuitive. But it’s amazing how ideology addles people’s reasoning abilities. — P]
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 3:14 pmBrad,
I’m willing to meet the AP halfway on the “destroyed” issue but its reporter, Qais al-Bashir, should first explain why he used that word in his original article. Was he relying on personal observation? Or was his report based on rumors learned in a phone call from a source or acquaintance who heard it from someone else?
In other words, the change from “destroyed” to “damaged” is a symptom that suggests some AP reports were based on rumor. If that’s the case, how long has the AP been doing this?
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 3:27 pmThe second word of the title is “say”. Then in the lead sentence the assertions of the Sunnis are characterized as “claims”, which I take to mean unverified. That the US military and Iraqi gov’t denied the reports, while not convincing, at least make it even clearer the initial report was not based on firsthand reporting or the info of established sources.
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 3:37 pmI don’t think it’s proper to say the word “destroyed” was changed. What changed was that the claims of the local Sunnis were not repeated. The only way the word itself could be said to have changed would be if the claims of the Sunnis were repeated but their substance was different. This wasn’t the case.
I say this respectfully because you’ve made a good faith effort to engage on substance, DRJ, but I think you misunderstand what’s happened here. I’m not trying to be self-superior, I was fooled up until yesterday, too, in the sense of accepting the basic premise.
The AP didn’t change the word, there wasn’t a hint of guilty conscience here. They used better info as the basis of later reports which allowed them to not rely on or repeat the unsourced claims of local Sunnis.
Brad’s approach is to say that his opponents are completely wrong about the shape of the planet because they used to claim it was a sphere and now, in complete contradiction, allege it is an oblate spheroid. Therefore, they cannot be trusted and the Earth is flat.
Bleepless (a52481) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:19 pmEven Gavin and SN! Brad R. don’t accept another brad’s theory that it’s okley-dokeley to repeat falsehoods as long as they are attributed to someone else.
It’s amazing that he not only continues to find this a valid argument, but brags about it on SN!, even though that site’s proprietors are smart enough to realize what an idiot argument it is.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:23 pmNah, patterico, they came around before giving it up. Hunt through your various tribute threads, they finally noticed you movin the goalposts.
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:25 pmOn November 24, Al-Sharqiyah television reported that Shi’ite militiamen attacked a Sunni mosque in the Al-Hurriyah neighborhood of Baghdad and allegedly burned several Sunni Arabs alive. That probably set AP to calling its sources. The editor should have added “reports that cannot be independently verified” to Sunni residents’ claim of mosques being destroyed. Victims tend to exaggerate.
The rest of this bon mot flinging is disproportionate to the offense. The bureau pulled back the story. They had filed in haste and someone likely got reamed. Baghdad is a place where almost nothing “can be independently verified” without some risk to colleagues’ lives.
By the way, I counted three factual errors in Maureen Dowd’s column today. Will she ever publicly atone for having called the departing US commander “General William Casey?” Did that only make the early National Edition?
Discuss.
Ed (0c6264) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:25 pmThanks, Brad. I think I understand your point – that the story evolved into a more accurate picture over the course of a day or two, and that makes sense.
My point is that “Sunnis say” can be open to different interpretations. For instance, it might be that Qais al-Bashir went to the Hurriyah mosque and interviewed Sunnis at the scene, who said the mosque was destroyed. Perhaps al-Bashier looked at the mosque and agreed it had been damaged to the point of destruction, and wrote his story. On the other hand, perhaps a Sunni acquaintance called Qais al-Bashier and said “The ** mosque was destroyed today” or even “I heard the ** mosque was destroyed today.”
Now that this story has attracted so much attention, I think the AP should clarify the evolution of this story. Furthermore, in the future, perhaps the AP reports can make the nature of its sources more clear – perhaps not the names, for security reasons, but whether the source was first-, second-, or third-hand.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:29 pmEd,
How did they “pull back” the story?
That’s bullshit, and you don’t usually spout bullshit.
They issued another story with a different, not necssarily inconsistent description. See my analogy of brad getting shot.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:29 pmOr, so as not to put words in mouths, I should say Brad Altrocket conceded someone who made a point closely related to mine had good points to make.
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:29 pmShould I issue an apology to Bradrocket?
Well, the one thing this makes me realize is the AP should perhaps update some of their procedures to reflect how the net affects reporting of the news. It’d probably be of benefit if the AP figured out how to either add brief updates or a link to a better sourced report on the the same events to archived reports, so as to avoid problems such as these. But that’s a very different move than Patterico wants.
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:35 pmEd:
I agree Baghdad is dangerous and I don’t want to endanger reporters’ lives. But the AP should realize that if it has to change its standards to protect its reporters, those changes should be clearly stated. And if a reporter made a mistake – even for a good reason – it should be publicly corrected rather than overlooked.
Information is a reporter’s product and accuracy is the standard of their profession. To ignore journalistic standards would be no different than asking a patient to ignore a doctor’s malpractice in a war zone. We might understand and even forgive it, but that doesn’t make it something we should ignore.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:36 pmIn my “brad was shot” analogy, it could be that doctors said brad was killed. But if a news organization learns brad wasn’t killed, it doesn’t fix the error to say brad was shot — unless you admit that you reported brad was killed and you were wrong.
And sure, that doesn’t mean the paper literally reported “brad was killed” as “fact.” But they still described brad as killed, albeit attributed to a doctor.
The point is: readers would still think Brad was killed until they were clearly told otherwise.
This isn’t hard. It really isn’t.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:37 pmEd,
The issue is not reporting inaccurate info to begin with. That happens all the time. No biggie.
But when you stubbornly refuse to admit error, even when it’s clear you wer wrong — *that’s* when you have credibility problems.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:39 pmMaybe if you made better analogies I’d be more willing to agree to them, Patterico. You craft them to fit the situation as you see it, but, as I keep saying, I don’t agree with your understanding of the reality of this. Your me getting shot analogy is missing you reporting claims of me getting killed. And I don’t agree with calling the AP sloppy after the fact.
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:41 pmAnyways, this is the same impasse as last night, so enough, me done. Have fun storming the castle, boys.
BTW, Ed, how do you know the TV report is the source for this story? You may be right but I would appreciate a link.
The AP-Qais al-Bashir byline is dated 11/24/06 at 7:09 AM. This could have happened overnight but isn’t it possible the TV report came after the AP report and/or was based on the same Sunni sources that Qais al-Bashir used?
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:43 pmPatterico,
FWIW I thought your “Brad was killed/shot” analogy was effective.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:48 pmAsk your pal Brad R. whether Jamil Hussein was ever arrested.
I read that “fact” on Sadly, No! Good propaganda for the left, to be sure. But I’ve seen no evidence of it in any actual news stories. And no, Media Matters is not actual news.
These clowns are so careless. How careless are they? Well, they keep saying that the raw feed was out there for “20” minutes. Actually, Mary Katharine Ham tracked the evolution of the story in this post and gave the times. It was actually a 30-minute delay. Now, the actual amount of the delay is not important, obviously — though idiot monkeybloggers would probably accuse me of saying it is. Why do I bring it up, then? Because this shows that they accept assertions from their commenters without research. They got the time of 20 minutes from one of their commenters. He said it, they lapped it up without research, and the rest is history.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:49 pmDRJ,
Your patience is amazing. You go over there and politely set forth some facts, and soon people are cursing at you with the f-word, and calling you a dim bulb, etc. All because you had the nerve to present facts that undercut their arguments.
The contrast between your class and their lack thereof is stark.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:51 pmBrad #34:
I know Brad left but I’m going to say it anyway: They have a procedure for this. It’s called a correction.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:52 pmFine. They pulled back the ‘mosque destroyed’ angle, substituted a less risky “mosque damaged” one and re-fed the piece. That initial treatment endures in infamy, archived as a hambone for the blogosphere to chew on. This will one day replace old “I Love Lucy” episodes in a far-off galaxy as a cultural insight.
[It’s like reporting someone dead, and later saying they were shot, without saying they’re still alive. The initial story retains its misleading character without a correction.
The error itself is not what’s important. It’s how the AP handled the error. This became a very big controversy. The head of the AP went very public with her claims that the AP stood by its story — yet they seemed to quietly back away from the one part of the story that could be verified or debunked: the Sunni claim of four destroyed mosques. When it was debunked, they still refused to issue a correction, and ideology-addled brains on the left employed various forms of sophistry to justify this indefensible act. To the extent this story is important, *that’s* why.
I will add, Ed, that if it’s standard practice for the AP to make material changes in stories without alerting clients to the reasons for the change, they need to change their standard practices.
A little more introspection and a little less triumphalism would serve the AP (and SN!) well. — P]
Ed (0c6264) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:53 pmIf AP had corrected its errors when they were first spotted, by now this would all be ancient history.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 2/3/2007 @ 4:55 pmPatterico,
I appreciate your comment. It didn’t bother me as much as I thought it would. A few commenters were open-minded enough to talk seriously, and that made it worth the one-time-only visit.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:00 pmThis is too effective a means of procrastination for me not to fall prey to coming back, but a correction is not what I’m talking about. Corrections are for mistakes. Patterico can ridicule my point for not being Sadly, Kosher!, which is in itself debatable but not worth the effort, but I just don’t agree a mistake was made. It’s the difference between clarification and correction. In a way you’re right, and they do have a procedure for this. It’s called issuing further reports based on more definitive information. Initial reports from the scene of a disaster tend to contain some distortions, even in the US, that’s why they’re qualified as such. If the AP had stopped reporting on the events in question and just said, goodnite folks, after that first report then I’d agree fully with Patterico. But they didn’t, they kept working and got it right half an hour later.
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:09 pmIf you were watching cnn, or let’s say fox, on a breaking event, and after relaying initial reports they later got better information and changed to reporting that, should they interrupt their coverage for an apology/correction for having shared initial reports that overstated the damage? Trying to find fault with the AP here doesn’t make sense to me.
Cheney’s Smokin’ Gun Pointed At Bush…
Cheney’s Handwritten Notes Implicate Bush in Plame Affair
PJF (758363) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:23 pmBrad:
Story #1:
Story #2:
How does story #2 inform readers that the mosques were not destroyed when burned?????
I submit that any reader who read both stories would believe four mosques had been destroyed. By being burned.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:27 pmBrad,
Okay, I see the distinction between a clarification and a correction. But if the AP had a reasonable basis for its first report and was able to clarify it in later reports, why didn’t it say that?
For instance, the AP could have included a clarification such as this: “Early reports stated the Hurriyah mosque was destroyed but upon [inspection/further reports from neighbors/whatever] the mosque was [burned, damaged by mortars or gunfire/whatever].” Like many of your Sadly No! commenters, I think the AP wanted that first report to disappear and acted accordingly.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:28 pmOr put another way, what Patterico said.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:29 pmBrad #47:
How do we know they got it right 30 minutes later? On 11/24-25/06, there were a series of AP (and one Reuters) reports that included varying claims of destruction, burning, immolations, 24 killed (including women and children), Sunni-Shiite gunbattles and Shiite mortar attacks. Which report got it right?
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:38 pmStory number one is titled “Sunnis say …”
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:39 pmStory number one says “Sunni residents … claimed”
Later in story number one, the Iraqi gov’t is quoted denying the events took place. If someone read story number one and took that as reporting destruction of the mosques as fact, I think the fault lies with them. As for whether story number two clarifies it sufficiently, to begin with, please post the link for the full story you’re cherrypicking from. Second, explain why the relatively small semantic difference between destruction by firebombing and terrible damage by firebombing is so important as to require a separate correction of something never asserted as fact?
If you want an analogy, patterico, replace Iraq with Mississippi and mosques with churches, and tell me whether you’d pick this nit about reports of firebombing Baptist churches in the south, and whether the churches were destroyed vs ‘only’ gutted.
Presumably the latest one? If you want to criticize the AP, and the news media in general, for being in too much of a rush to get initial reports about an event on the wire in general, go right ahead. Pressure to be first is part of the industry, but that doesn’t mean its effects are beneficial. But that’s how it works, and it’s not part of any kind of liberal agenda.
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:47 pmI think that its just terrible that the AP seems to have gotten some details of “possibly” damaged mosques wrong, when there we something like 130 folks killed by bombs today. We definitly need to keep our priorities straight here.
[But the complaint is not that they got details wrong, my snarky friend. It’s that they got details wrong, knew they did, and arrogantly refused to correct them. You can always argue that there’s something more important to discuss. Whether God exists is more important than whether 130 died today. The Holocaust is more important. But here you are discussing relative trivia. Not a convincing argument. — P]
M. Carey (8c382b) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:50 pmBrad,
You want links? Here are some links:
1. You already have links to the AP reports that the 4 mosques were destroyed.
2. This AP article posted by ABC News detailed attacks on Sunni mosques in Baghdad, including mortar attacks and an attack on a Hurriyah mosque, the district in which the immolations allegedly occurred. The article also contained a Jamil Hussein report of violence in another district but did not report that Sunnis had been burned alive.
3. This later AP article reported at SFGate.com did not report that people had been burned but did report attacks on Sunni mosques and on the Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni organization. The article also reported that the mortar attacks on the Association of Muslim Scholars set nearby houses on fire and that the attack on the Hurriyah mosque involved mortars. The death tolls in this article were similar to later reports that included the Sunni immolation deaths.
4. Another AP article in the San Diego Union-Tribune reported “heavy mortar fire” in Hurriyah.
5. This AP article posted at WKRN Nashville was, perhaps, among the first to report the burning of the 6 Sunnis. It also alleges that four mosques and several homes in Hurriyah were burned, and that three other Sunni mosques in Baghdad were also attacked – apparently a total of 7 mosques.
6. In more restrained coverage, the New York Times reported the burned Sunni story and quoted the only identified witness, Imad al-Hashemi, from a telephone interview on al-Jazeera. The Times’ article also noted that a Hurriyah resident claimed the burned home in Hurriyah belonged to a former Baath Party member.
7. Contrast the foregoing AP reports with Reuters’ report on November 24, 2006, which recounted the burning of Sunni mosques and homes but did not mention the burning of 6 Sunnis. The article also stated that, during this time period, rumors about the violence were widespread and “[m]ost Baghdadis stayed fearfully at home, exchanging often wildly varied and unsettling rumor about the violence by telephone.”
Also note that Reuters quoted Imad al-Din al-Hashemi, a man whose name is remarkably similar to the person quoted in the New York Times article. If it is the same person, it is surprising that Mr. al-Hashemi only noted RPG attacks and did not mention in the Reuters’ interview that Sunnis were burned alive in Hurriyah.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:51 pmMy second report may be accurate, as far as it goes — but anyone who reads both of my reports will believe that he was shot and killed, because the second report doesn’t correct the first.
I might be the only one who finds this argument completely unconvincing. In order to come to this conclusion, the reader who hears “killed” in the first report and “shot” in the second has to assume that the right thing to do is form a conjunction of the two reports, thus coming to believe “shot and killed.” But, to anyone familiar with the context, the conjunction operator is the wrong way to go. (Given how successive news reports work, given the way stories break, that’s not the relationship between the two assertions.) Furthermore, saying “shot” but not “killed” in the second report, had the victim been killed by gunshot, would be literally true, but it would violate a relevance implicature; thus we have reason to think, reading the second report, that the victim was shot but remains alive. Of course, for the sake of clarity it would be wise to add a disclaimer about the earlier false report. But this is not to say that any reasonable person who reads both reports would think that the victim is dead.
FL (1d0b05) — 2/3/2007 @ 5:51 pmHell, now I’m getting sucked in. Here are two examples meant to illustrate the first part of 56.
If we’re listening to a play-by-play of the game and I hear the announcer make these three claims:
(1) Grossman drops back;
(2) he fakes;
(3) he throws deep
The correct thing to do is to conjoin them and interpret the announcer as expressing the following claim: Grossman drops back, fakes, and throws deep. But in other contexts it’s misleading to conjoin the assertions:
(1*) It’s a bird
(2*) it’s a plane
(3*) it’s Superman
Here the best interpretation is not that the announcer is asserting that there are three things, a bird, a plane, and Superman. Each successive report is meant to replace the previous one, and the right conclusion to draw is that there’s only one thing, Superman.
So the question is which context is closer to the breaking masjid story. It seems to me that knowing the relationship between time-slices of a story would strongly suggest that the latter claims should be understood as supplanting the earlier ones, not as being additional conjuncts.
FL (1d0b05) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:00 pmIf you want to make the point that reports from the field in wartime can be confusing, I concede that point. Then again, one could probably find points in the OJ trial that had similarly confusing coverage from multiple sources. Again, if you’re trying to make general points critical of the media I’m not denying they’re there to be made, I just think there’s more appropriate ways to make them.
The link I was asking Patterico for was to the second story he quoted, which presumably is the later AP report.
[The point, for the umpteenth gazillionth time, is not that the AP got something wrong. It is the AP’s refusal to correct a clear error, and how that affects their credibility more generally. That is not a trivial point, given the AP’s size and global reach. — P]
brad (f9246e) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:15 pmGabriel,
Another unstory that has never been retracted.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:15 pmIt might not have occurred to you that if they can’t get the details correct on something like that, they might not get the details correct on, say, how many people were killed by a bomb. Or how many people were burned alive, if any. Not to say it absolutely didn’t happen, but it does shake one’s faith in their absolute credibility.
kl (15574e) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:26 pmBrad,
Here’s a link to Patterico’s story #2.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:29 pm[OK, this is why you don’t engage Sadly, No! — because you get comments like this. It’s too good not to publish. — P]
Oh poor, poor patterfuckface is getting all upset. boo hoo patterpussy.
You’re a moron and you don’t know how to read. I just checked your ranking and it’s clear that your itsy bitsy piece of shit of a blog has no impact on the rational part of the universe. so keep lying to the people, I’m sure all 10 who read this trash will love you for it.
pattercunt
[P.S. The commenter leaves an e-mail of “pitterpatterfucker@douchepatter.com.” — P]
patterpussyhead (3b7e29) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:38 pmBrad,
If you want to use the “fog of war” as an excuse for every problem or mistake, why can’t you give the military and the Bush Administration the same consideration?
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:38 pmM.Carey #55:
We can’t know who has the best plan to fix things in Iraq unless we know exactly what’s happening. It’s not enough to know that people died if we don’t understand why and to whom it’s happening.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 6:57 pmI will add, Ed, that if it’s standard practice for the AP to make material changes in stories without alerting clients to the reasons for the change, they need to change their standard practices.
“Material changes” is vacant term. Dateline, punctuation and identification errors can and do materially change a story. And it’s not “standard practice” to fail to alert editors, as noted over and over. The clients were almost certainly alerted with a topline idenitfying what was being replaced or revised.
There’s a stylebook menu of alerts from “Re-Send” to “Mandatory Kill,” depending on things like how much is being fixed, how late/early in the cycle the new material crossed and whether a potential legal problem was spotted. If a death toll jumped by two or three, it’s likely a “Re-Send: Fixing Death Toll..” If Zell Miller called to challenge a critic’s published attack, the AP might re-cast with the Miller quote and a “Mandatory Kill” so the older version didn’t inadvertantly survive. It would still be archived in cyberspace. Miller’s quote might lead the next day’s write. If the article called Miller a “retired Marine lieutenant” instead of a captain, a “Re-Send” would fix it. The topline would NOT say how and why the lower rank was mistakenly inserted. And AP sure as hell wouldn’t topline: “Zell called and we blame the intern in Atlanta who in turn says he wasn’t breastfed as a child.”
You want transparency? You can’t handle transparency.
Ed (0c6264) — 2/3/2007 @ 7:52 pmEd,
Knowing what you know now, do you think the AP should clarify, correct, or do nothing regarding its coverage in the destroyed mosques/burning Sunnis story?
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 8:06 pmI’m probably going to kick myself for getting involved in this, especially at this late hour, but… can someone please verify something for me?
As far as I can tell, the word “destroyed” was only ever used in reports that appeared before Jamil got quoted. In the report in which Jamil was quoted, they were not described as “destroyed”. And further, for all other reports after it, no mosques were ever again described as “destroyed”.
Is that correct? If someone could please provide a link showing the opposite of what I have asserted, I would be very grateful.
elendil (2279ca) — 2/3/2007 @ 8:46 pmI’ve already said a clause such as, “In reports that cannot be independently verified,” should have preceded the Sunni residents’ claim of mosques being destroyed. Victims tend to exaggerate.
I was surprised and pleased AP tasked someone to survey the sites and update the buildings’ condition eight weeks after the siege. No one else seems to be. They were obviously under pressure from enough clients who were in turn getting an earful from readers who spend large dayparts on blogs like this. I’d never heard of Sadly, No! before yesterday.
With every AP revisiting of the story, new and uglier blog hostilities ignite. Of what possible use would a late-date confessional serve closed minds along this DMZ?
Ed (0c6264) — 2/3/2007 @ 8:55 pmI was surprised and pleased AP tasked someone to survey the sites and update the buildings’ condition eight weeks after the siege.
I’m sure it had nothing to do with Malkin’s evidence. They stonewall for two months, and shortly after she produces evidence that the mosques weren’t destroyed, they finally send someone to check on the mosques’ condition.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 9:14 pmEd,
I recall your earlier comment regarding how you think the AP should have written this report but my question concerned what you think the AP should do now, given that it did not initially provide your qualifiers or explanations.
Are you a journalist? You speak as if you have some familiarity with the profession. If so, it’s my impression that you think the AP should do nothing at this point. I’m interested in the general journalistic standards and the specific AP standards that cause you to reach that conclusion.
Elendil,
I am not an authority on Jamil Hussein articles but I believe he was identified as a source in reports that mosques were attacked with mortars and burned, but I do not think he was a named source for the initial report that mosques were destroyed.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 9:20 pmThank you for your response, DRJ, I appreciate it. Your comment supports my position, but I’d really like someone to refute it. I will wait here a little while longer to see if anyone else will respond. I’d particularly like to know what Patterico thinks. I suspect that this issue might be crucial to understanding just where the conflict lies between the two groups, and hopefully reconciling the two narratives.
elendil (2279ca) — 2/3/2007 @ 9:30 pmSuch politeness. Of course, on Sadly, No! you’re calling me “Patty” repeatedly, like an eight-year-old. But here you’re very polite. How sweet.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 9:37 pmElendil,
It would be helpful if you would state your position.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 9:47 pmPatterico: You are referring to my comments at the bottom of this post? Sadly, No has a culture of giving right-wing bloggers alternative names[1]. “Patty” doesn’t strike me as particularly offensive, but you are right, it is a bit juvenile. I didn’t call you “Patty” here because I read comment 23 above about calling you “Pattycakes”, and I figured it wasn’t a good idea in light of that, and considering that I’m here as a guest asking you to answer a question.
So, to the question, I trust by reading my comment at Sadly No that you understand what I’m getting at? What’s your response?
[1] Also “Malkin Thing” is a reference to an exchange waay back on their comment threads. From memory, someone said “I don’t understand this Malkin thing you guys are on about” and someone else responded, ending with “… and around here, we usually refer to her as “Michelle””. [shrugs]
elendil (2279ca) — 2/3/2007 @ 9:57 pmDRJ: Well, one of Michelle Malkin’s arguments against trusting Jamil as a good source is that he was the source of a demonstratably false report. She writes: The Sunni mosques that as Hussein claimed and AP reported as “destroyed,” “torched” and “burned and [blown] up” are all still standing. So the credibility of every AP story relying on Jamil Hussein remains dubious.
However, if the receipt of Jamil’s account not only comes after the erroneous “destroyed” mosques account, but also coincides with its correction, then maybe the issue of whether they were destroyed or not is a red-herring regarding Jamil’s credibility?
elendil (2279ca) — 2/3/2007 @ 10:04 pmElendil,
I know your main goal is to get a response from Patterico, and I suspect you will take whatever he says and parade it before your friends at Sadly No! as proof that either he or Michelle Malkin are wrong. But I think we both know that Michelle Malkin’s point has always been that the mosques that the AP claimed were destroyed/torched/burned are still standing, some with relatively minor damage, and her efforts were not based on parsing “destroyed vs. damaged” as you seem to suggest.
Your desire to impeach Michelle Malkin using Patterico is interesting but it makes it impossible to believe you have approached this discussion in good faith. That’s a shame, because it could have been a good discussion.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 10:14 pmDRJ: My argument is not about parsing the difference between “destroyed” and “damaged”. I, like everyone else, agree that they were damaged but not destroyed. My argument is about what Michelle is implying about AP’s error, calling them “destroyed”, and how that relates to Jamil’s cred as a witness.
I haven’t been following this closely, so I have no idea whether or not the argument I’m making is correct. That’s why I’m here trying to get the other side’s perspective. If “destroyed” was attributable to Jamil, then I am wrong. I want to know if that’s the case.
As to my personal motives: I don’t know Patterico so I have no motive against him, but it’s no secret that I don’t like Michelle Malkin because of her position on rendition and torture. To my mind, they make her unreliable morally and logic-wise, which makes her a bad opinion writer. If I do find that Michelle has made an error of logic in this case, then I most certainly will tell everyone that I can, just as I have regarding her errors on human rights. I want people to aproach Michelle’s writing with more skepticism, as I don’t trust her ‘cred as a witness’.
A discussion in good faith is hard to find in these partisan times; is what I’ve said above unreasonable?
elendil (2279ca) — 2/3/2007 @ 10:33 pmShorter Elendil:
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 10:39 pmDRJ,
I respect high-minded platitudes as much as the next person, but this long ago turned into a blogger street fight. It’s no longer as much about showing up AP as it is about showing up a rival. The role of Sitemeter foil holds little appeal for me.
The blogosphere is important as a counterweight to corporate media excess, abuse and arrogance. I trust it will find its voice.
Ed (0c6264) — 2/3/2007 @ 10:41 pmPatterico: The worst I called you was “Patty”, but even if I was the Devil incarnate, if my argument cannot be refuted, then it cannot be refuted. The truth is the truth no matter who points it out, even a degenerate patty-caller like me.
So, I’m asking you simply: do you have anything to say about it? Because honestly, it’s an open invitation for you to strengthen your position. And if you can do that, even an evil person like me will be forced to concede that I got it wrong.
elendil (2279ca) — 2/3/2007 @ 10:53 pmEd: If showing up a rival is questioning their credibility, then I’m guilty as charged. I am indeed questioning Michelle’s credibility, just as her initiating this whole thing was about her questioning the credibility of the AP.
elendil (2279ca) — 2/3/2007 @ 10:58 pmI want to make my comment at 81 more clear and direct. Change it to:
… So, I’m asking you simply: do you have any evidence of the description “destroyed” being attributed to Jamil? or even just appearing in the wire after Jamil’s version of events was received?
elendil (2279ca) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:05 pm“Material changes” is vacant term. Dateline, punctuation and identification errors can and do materially change a story. And it’s not “standard practice” to fail to alert editors, as noted over and over. The clients were almost certainly alerted with a topline idenitfying what was being replaced or revised.
There’s a stylebook menu of alerts from “Re-Send” to “Mandatory Kill,” depending on things like how much is being fixed, how late/early in the cycle the new material crossed and whether a potential legal problem was spotted. If a death toll jumped by two or three, it’s likely a “Re-Send: Fixing Death Toll..” If Zell Miller called to challenge a critic’s published attack, the AP might re-cast with the Miller quote and a “Mandatory Kill” so the older version didn’t inadvertantly survive. It would still be archived in cyberspace. Miller’s quote might lead the next day’s write. If the article called Miller a “retired Marine lieutenant” instead of a captain, a “Re-Send” would fix it. The topline would NOT say how and why the lower rank was mistakenly inserted. And AP sure as hell wouldn’t topline: “Zell called and we blame the intern in Atlanta who in turn says he wasn’t breastfed as a child.”
Ed:
The AP has standards for corrections, which I have previously linked. This fits the stated standard, but there’s no correction. It’s that simple.
The fact that some lefty moronbloggers can’t see this, or that they will defend the AP with their dying breaths, doesn’t change the basic facts regarding the important issue: the AP’s lack of observance of basic journalistic standards in this matter.
If I were with the AP, I’d be terribly embarrassed about all of this.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:06 pmI will add, Ed, that if it’s standard practice for the AP to make material changes in stories without alerting clients to the reasons for the change, they need to change their standard practices.
I agree that the AP needs to hold to at least the standards of the Executive branch of government in our State. To expect otherwise would be wrong and call our (somewhat ad hoc, but functional) goverance system in to questions that we probably can’t afford.
I eagerly await the calls for the same scrutiny being applied to the Executive as the 4th Estate, or, alternately but much more predictably, explanations as to why Failure to Posess a Clenis entitles one to exceed constitutional and statutory law. (And I’m not even what is usually called a ‘liberal’, and hated the guy.)
fishbane (3389fc) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:10 pmElendil,
As I said before, I don’t think Jamil Hussein was a named source for the AP’s report that the mosques were destroyed, although it’s possible he was an unnamed source. He appears to have been a source that the mosques were “burned and blew up.”
Michelle Malkin has focused on the status of the mosques, an inquiry that neither Patterico nor I could undertake since we didn’t go to Iraq, and she has provided evidence that the mosques were not destroyed/burned/blown up in the sense that most people would understand those concepts. Patterico and I have focused on the duties the AP owes its clients and readers. There is an overlap between the two but they are not identical inquiries. Thus, by trying to use Patterico to impeach Michelle Malkin, I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:12 pmFishbane,
Do you understand the government can withhold information for purposes of national security? Despite the actions of the New York Times, the media cannot.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:16 pmThe AP has standards for corrections which I have previously linked.
And the relevant citation appears to be:
Can you cite the editor’s note from the November 24 overwrite that did not satisfy this standard?
Ed (0c6264) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:31 pmDo you understand the government can withhold information for purposes of national security? Despite the actions of the New York Times, the media cannot.
I of course understand your first point, as any sane human would. What I don’t understand is how the NYT somehow failed to stop the media from disclosing Dangerous Information.
OK, grammar snark aside, I do understand what you’re getting at, I think I fundamentally disagree. Media is supposed to be there to disclose. The NYT was much more of a tool of the administration than a threat in the runup to the Iraq attack – look at it, and tell me how Judith Miller was advancing the hippy narrative.
Those of us who advance a formulation of war as being the least best negative sum games between assholes, even if sometimes required, well, TNR seems to drown us out.
fishbane (3389fc) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:31 pmDRJ: I agree that the story is a lot more complex than the single question that I am asking, and whether it’s answered “yes” or “no”, there’s still much more to go before a decent narrative can be made. But first thing’s first. If we’re going to talk across the aisles, we’ve got to establish some sort of basis of agreed-upon facts. I am simply asking Patterico to fact-check me.
Although Patterico might not be as qualified as Malkin regarding the status of the mosques (which I don’t dispute!), he has spent much more time than me reading about it, and he is qualified to answer the simple, straight question that I am asking:
Patterico, have you ever come across the AP describing the mosques as “destroyed” after they received Jamil’s version of what happened, or have you seen them attribute it to him? Has anyone?
The moment that someone says “yes”, and provides me with a link, I will admit that I have made an embarrassing error, and go away.
elendil (2279ca) — 2/3/2007 @ 11:50 pmElendil,
Let me make sure I understand your position:
1. We know the AP initially published a report that 4 mosques were destroyed. The initial version was published online but I don’t know if it was published in print.
2. We assume the AP talked with Jamil Hussein, who may have said the mosques were bombed and burned but not destroyed. Or not. For whatever reason, the AP changed its subsequent online reports to reflect the mosques were bombed and burned, or variations of those terms, but not destroyed.
3. The AP did not issue a correction regarding the destroyed vs. damaged mosques. [I’m unclear if a correction was required according to journalistic standards. I think it was required if the initial report was published in print. It might be required if publication was solely online – I can’t tell.]
4. Thus, you believe that Jamil Hussein was a credible source because his information might have been used by the AP to correct the initially incorrect report of destroyed mosques.
Is that your point?
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/4/2007 @ 12:51 amDRJ: I’m wary of making any conclusions until I get some basic facts down, let alone think them through, but perhaps people here are wary of where I’m going with this, and won’t answer until I “show my hand”. I appreciated you answering me straight up, so I’ve sketched out what I am getting at, and how well my argument would fair depending upon the answer Patterico gives me here. Heh, I guess it’s not very good debating style to sketch your argument out for your “opponent”, but you seem sincerely interested, I’m not a lawyer, and my only opponent is BS. But what I am is dead tired (midnight here), and I’m probably making more typos then sense, so I’m off. Have a good one. You too “Patty” 😉
elendil (2279ca) — 2/4/2007 @ 5:33 amThe “mosques destroyed” angle apparently showed up what AP terms a “live, online story.” As such, they arguably acted within policy:
As to those ‘corrective’ stories:
And was there a paper or broadcaster who used the erroneous information? I gather the AP did not identify any. It therefore could opt to leave the online overwrite untouched – and to the tender mercies of what our patron calls “mornonblogs”. The eyes-on survey of mosques to itemize damage from the November siege was AP’s way of acknowledging bloggers hectored enough clients to revisit the matter. And that “live, online stories” may need a fresh overwrite policy.
Eveybody wins. Nobody’s happy. And page views are through the roof.
Ed (0c6264) — 2/4/2007 @ 7:17 amAnd was there a paper or broadcaster who used the erroneous information?
Ed? This thing you’re commenting on? It’s called a “post.”
Try reading it. It sets forth seven such instances.
Patterico (a8fa4a) — 2/4/2007 @ 7:38 amElendil,
You have once again demonstrated bad faith, this time by refusing to state your position while requiring that Patterico and others state their positions. Bear in mind that reciprocity is the key to a good debate. In addition, you’ve asked that Patterico fact-check you. Is that because you don’t have confidence in your own ability to gather facts or are you playing “gotcha”?
All that aside, I have other commitments today so I’ll proceed to where I think this conversation is leading. It seems part of your goal is to discredit Michelle Malkin in the manner I outlined in comment 91. (If that is not your goal or thought process, you have only yourself to blame since you have refused to clearly state your position.) In addition, you are willing to use Patterico in your attempt to discredit Michelle Malkin. However, you should bear in mind that your efforts will probably do the most harm to the AP. Here’s why:
Let’s assume Jamil Hussein was not an AP source on this story until after the publication of the initial report that “Sunnis claimed” there were 4 destroyed mosques in Hurriyah. If that is true, then what happened to the multiple unnamed Sunni sources that made the initial report? Did the AP dump these sources because they collectively provided bad information, or does the AP make it a practice to publish reports based on unsourced rumors? Either way, these are not good journalistic practices and they cast doubt on the AP’s Baghdad reporting and credibility.
I think it is more likely that Jamil Hussein was the conduit for the initial report that the mosques were destroyed. He was unsourced because he did not have personal knowledge that the mosques had been destroyed – instead, he was relaying information he had been told by “Sunnis [who] claimed” that the mosques were destroyed. The AP published these claims because they came from Jamil Hussein, a source the AP had successfully used for over 2 years. As the story evolved, it became clear the initial reports were exaggerated and the mosques were not destroyed.
I think this story illustrates how the AP sometimes reports news in Iraq. The AP may have good reasons for doing it this way, especially due to security concerns, but it is essentially tabloid journalism. Thus, instead of discrediting Michelle Malkin, you may be helping to prove that the AP does exactly what you claim Michelle Malkin does. As the saying goes, inquiring minds want to know.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/4/2007 @ 10:01 amYou rtealize, of course, that this is how the global news game is played, especially with AP: Fabricate news and twist the truth to support your political agenda and put it out on the wire so that it’s picked up by a myriad of news outlets. Then retract your fabrications so that you can claim you did not distort the news coverage. Meanwhile, mission accomplished: your lies are racing around the globe to achieve your desired end while giving you plausible deniability.
John (1e7b91) — 2/4/2007 @ 11:06 amDRJ: Okay, first, I’ve really had enough of this “bad faith” BS. I know some Americans think anyone to the left of Dick Cheney is a moonbat moron, but give me just a little credit. If I was going to play “gotcha” with Patterico by misrepresenting myself, wouldn’t it have been easier to call myself “AmericanHawk”, have no link to my anti-torture blog (“oh shit, did that give it away?!” *slaps forehead*), and ask the question that way? Or are you implying that Patterico is such an idiot that even with all I’d done, he might not have picked it up, and so I had a duty of care to warning him about my political leanings?
“Warning: the following was written by a person who votes Green, and feels very passionately about human rights. As we know that no liberal can be trusted, be aware that she may by trying to trick you. Answer her questions at your own risk”.
I have stated my position in that link. I’ve been as honest as I can, and you know it. If you can’t deal with the idea of someone being cautious until they know all the facts, then that’s your problem. If you read the last paragraph, you might understand where I’m coming from. Honestly, I suspect the reason you guys are freaking out is that you’re just not used to doing things this way. You’d have no problems with me if I called her a vulgar name and left it at that, or pulled an Beck and insinuated that someone was a terrorist sympathiser. That you’re used to.
Anyway, it’s morning here and I’ve got a day of work ahead of me. Maybe I’ll catch you in 12 hrs or so. I’ll respond to the substance of your reply then.
elendil (2279ca) — 2/4/2007 @ 1:13 pmI’m glad you a person of high integrity, Elendril. Is that why today at Sadly No! you called Patterico “Patty Cakes” after vowing yesterday that the worst you ever called him was Patty? I know, I know. That was yesterday and not a promise of future behavior, but I submit such duplicity is yet another sign of bad faith.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/4/2007 @ 1:24 pmDRJ: (sigh) There’s a simple explanation, but it’s easier to find it if one doesn’t assume a priori that I’m a duplicitous arsehole.
First read this. It says “… Seeing as Sadly No got deprogrammed before I arrived to the party, I’m going to go ask Patty directly.” That was the comment I made on Sadly No right before coming over to Patterico’s. Note the time stamp: 6:36, 4 Feb.
Then, check the time-stamp on my the comment in which I refer to Patterico as “Patty Cakes” (how mean!): 4:41, 4 Feb. That’s nearly two hours before I said I was off to Patterico’s place.
Now, check the time-stamp on my first comment to Patterico this thread. It is post 68. It is stamped 8:46, 3 Feb. That’s nearly a whole day before I said I was going over to his place.
One possible explanation is that I came over to Patterico’s, all innocent like, and had him tell me off for calling him “Patty”. Then nearly a whole day later, I went to Sadly, No and called him that again. I did this even though he had indicated that he was reading the comments at Sadly No, because I’m a liberal, and everyone knows that they aren’t very bright. Then, two hours later, I realised my mistake, but because I’m a liberal (and we all know they’re liars), I decided to cover it up. I posted another comment saying that I was off to Patterico’s, to make it look like I left after I had called him Patty Cakes, rather than before, and hoped no one would notice.
Alternatively, it could be because Sadly, No uses different time-stamps.
I’ll let you decide which is the more parsimonious explanation.
elendil (88e2b4) — 2/4/2007 @ 4:07 pmDRJ: Hrm, something just occurred to me. My response at #92 was written late at night, and it’s poorly worded. But although I did answer your question, you are responding as though I totally avoided it. Is it possible that you misunderstood, and didn’t click the this link that I put in #92? (I stuck it over at Sadly No because of its length).
elendil (88e2b4) — 2/4/2007 @ 5:34 pmPatterico,
AP maintains SEVERAL feed services. Live, online feeds don’t appear in print editions. Editors use the “Write-Thru” culled from the overwrites and updates. Even if The Las Vegas Sun’s website flashed the “mosque damaged” version after the “mosque destroyed” original, the morning paper would run the “Write-Thru,” if available.
With broadcast style different from print, their clients read and use a separate feed. Stories are shorter. Yes, there is content duplication, but all we have to examine is what appeared in the online feed, essentially a work in progress. The mosques destroyed angle showed up in that format. And AP apparently acted within its own guidelines:
A couple things should be obvious: Lots of “papers or broadcasters” operate websites nowadays. And the Associated Press considers play-by-play and game re-cap’s as distinguishable entities with separate protocols. Information echelons in the Internet age. Too esoteric?
[You keep acting as though the AP “corrected” the earlier story. They didn’t. To the contrary, they kept saying they “stood by their story” without mentioning the parts that were wrong. — P]
Ed (f3a8da) — 2/4/2007 @ 5:34 pmEd, you’re a journo or something related? Can I ask you a question? I don’t know anything about raw feeds, and I need to know if I’m misinterpreting something.
Let’s say hypothetically that the descriptor “destroyed” appeared on the raw reports before Jamil was quoted as a source, that it wasn’t used in raw report where he was quoted, and never in any reports that came after his report. Would it be fair to say that attributing the word “destroyed” to Jamil is not a solid conclusion? Would it be fair to say that, on the balance, it’s more likely that Jamil was not the source for the word “destroyed”. And last, is it reasonable to speculate that he may have even been the one who corrected it, or is that going too far?
I’ve waffled on a bit about it here if you really care to read it, but if you could just give me your impression on the paragraph above, I would be very grateful.
elendil (88e2b4) — 2/4/2007 @ 6:33 pmElendil,
I’m sorry I misspelled your name in my last post and I appreciate your renewed effort to discuss this subject in a civil manner. You know my position. Let me know when you reach a conclusion you want to discuss, compare, contrast, etc., and perhaps we can resume our discussion. In the meantime, G’Day Mate.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/4/2007 @ 8:04 pmI’ve reviewed theAP’s Standards and Practices several times in the past 3 weeks and I might be able to accept Ed’s view that the AP’s does not have a duty to issue corrections to online stories – but only if the AP’s initial report of 4 destroyed mosques is considered an online story. That may seem like an easy question to answer, since we’ve only seen the “4 destroyed mosques” story on the web and we don’t know if it made it to print or broadcast, but that might not be as easy to answer as it seems.
For instance, it’s possible that the term “online stories” refers to stories on the AP feed. Once a client buys or uses a story – regardless of whether the client published the story online, in print or by broadcast – then the story might no longer be considered online. I don’t know if this is a correct or an incorrect statement but I think it might be for reasons addressed below.
First, if the initial AP story regarding the 4 destroyed mosques is considered an online story, I agree with Ed that this is the relevant paragraph for online corrections as contained in the AP’s Standards and Practices:
This raises more questions: Did the subsequent AP reports qualify as separate corrective stories? Is any updated story a separate corrective story, whether or not it is labeled as such, or must it be identified as a corrective story? If so, how is that done? The AP reports I read seem like overwrites, not corrective stories, but I admit I don’t know exactly what that term means in theory or practice.
Second, if “online stories” means any story released by the AP that was not published in print or broadcast over the airwaves, even if it is available at the client’s online website, then I’m uncomfortable with the AP’s Standards and Practices on corrections to online stories since I think it conflicts with the AP’s corrections policies. The AP generally requires corrections in specific circumstances, described at various times as “errors or potential errors,” “mistakes,” and “erroneous information.” On its face, it seems no corrections are required for AP reports published online as long as the reports are updated prior to publication in print or release for broadcast. If we read the AP policies to mean that AP stories posted by clients online do not have to be corrected, it renders the general AP corrections’ policies moot. I have a hard time believing the AP intended a loophole like that.
Third, perhaps it’s true that the AP Standards and Practices don’t have a corrections policy for stories that are solely published online, only an updates policy, since policing the internet may seem like herding cats. I don’t see it this way, given that all the AP has to do is provide a correction to those clients who purchased or downloaded the story. But, if this is the policy, I agree with Brad’s view that the AP should develop an “online only” corrections policy.
On a separate topic, the AP’s Standards and Practices regarding anonymous sources apparently wrap up a few loose ends that we have discussed. There are several aspects that I find interesting, but I won’t take up more of Patterico’s bandwidth reprinting all of them here, other than these general provisions:
Since the AP forbids publication of material from anonymous sources that is “opinion or speculation,” the initial report that “Sunnis claimed” 4 mosques were destroyed must have been published as information (which I construe as “fact”) – and not as opinion or speculation – or it was in violation of the AP’s Standards and Practices on anonymous sources. So that almost certainly disposes of the argument that the AP’s report was correct because it was only meant to report what “Sunnis claimed.”
In addition, as provided in item 3, the anonymous source must be “reliable and in a position to have accurate information.” In a subsequent paragraph, the AP’s Standards and Practices amplifies that by requiring that AP reporters who use anonymous sources must “ask how the source knows the information is accurate, ensuring that the source has direct knowledge” and further requires that reporters get approval from a news manager to use the anonymous source. Thus, the anonymous “Sunnis claimed” sources in the initial AP report should have been vetted and approved by at least two people at the AP and found to have direct knowledge of the mosques’ destruction.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/4/2007 @ 8:50 pmDRJ: Crikey, how did you find out I was an Aussie? 🙂 Thanks for your response. I’m home now so I’m going to respond to your post at #95.
3rd paragraph: I think the most parsimonious explanation for AP’s neglecting to explicitly say that the initial “destroyed” mosques was wrong (apart from removing it in subsequent reports) is because it was a small piece of a much bigger story: that mosques were attacked, that people got burnt alive, and that there’s a civil war going on. They had no idea that Michelle would come along and use it to defend herself after her previous claim that Jamil didn’t even exist turned out to be false. I don’t think it’s a matter of “dumping” the initial report so much as refining it. The first report started with “Sunnis claimed…”, which alerts the reader that we’ve got multiple unnamed sources here. That seems a fair way to let the reader about the quality of the information in this initial report. That it was corrected in subsequent reports means that no interested reader, who did a bit of Googling well after the story had settled, would have been deceived into thinking that the mosques were destroyed.
It reminds me somewhat of the initial report of the poor fellow who got shot on the train in London when he was mistaken for a terrorist. I was watching those initial reports, and I later found that they were full of errors. But apart from a few faux news organisations, I never felt that there was any intentional deceit going on by the reporters, because it was clear to me that those descriptions were witness statements, and that this was the initial report. (Although I did find it an enlightening exercise in the reliability of a witness’ statements, but that’s another story).
And again I remember the initial reports on 11 September. I distinctly remember that the first estimates of the number of people killed were much higher than the final number, because I remember being feeling relieved as the number went down and thinking that was a paradoxical thing. Both of these incidents are the closest that I’ve experienced to receiving ‘raw feed’ before Jamilgate, and they both have the dodginess in the first reports that this mosques did on the raw feed. Have you ever had similar experiences with ‘breaking’ news stories? Perhaps you remember the initial misreports in the breaking-news stories I mention above?
4th para: You seem to have contradicted yourself; am I misunderstanding you? You say “it is more likely that Jamil Hussein was the conduit for the initial report that the mosques were destroyed. He was unsourced because he did not have personal knowledge that the mosques had been destroyed“, however, they did in fact source (name) him in subsequent reports, ones in which the mosques were not described as destroyed. Are you saying that he was the cause of the initial misreport, but they didn’t name him until the report was corrected, presumably by someone else who was more reliable, yet went unnamed?
I agree that “As the story evolved, it became clear the initial reports were exaggerated and the mosques were not destroyed“. That this coincided with the receipt of Jamil’s report suggests that he may have played a part in that clarification. At the very least, it suggest that he wasn’t responsible for the error in the initial report.
elendil (2279ca) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:45 amElendil,
I didn’t know you were Australian. I assumed you were English or Australian because you called us Yanks, and I guessed using the time zones as a guide.
I can think of 2 reason that you may be reading too much into the “destroyed” language used by Michelle Malkin. First, we don’t even know if she chose the headline for her NY Post article. Maybe she did, but I’ve read that headlines are sometimes/often written by newspaper staff and not by the authors. Second, I’m not sure Michelle Malkin has focused on or scrutinized the initial “4 mosques destroyed” article as much as we did here. Perhaps she did – I’ll defer to you on that point since I don’t read her blog regularly – but I’ve noticed that even at websites that have written about this, there is a tendency to be inconsistent in terminology because of the sheer volume of confusing and sometimes conflicting AP reports on this story.
It seems we agree this story evolved. I guess I just have a different view than you do of how that happened. You could be right that the AP was told about burned mosques, homes and people from Sunni residents and simply repeated those stories in a series of reports. But I have a hard time understanding how the AP could report the initial story based solely on presumably unknown (to the AP) Sunni residents and still follow its own Standards and Practices. Either the AP trusted its sources to provide reliable information and had a reasonable basis for that trust, or the AP didn’t know them well enough to trust them and verified the story itself. They did one or the other but they can’t mix and match.
Given the circumstances in Baghdad after the Sadr City bombing – including curfews, restrictions on travel, and safety concerns – my guess is that the AP was probably dealing over the phone with a trusted source who initially relied on hearsay from associates, friends or relatives to report destroyed mosques. My further guess is that the trusted source was Jamil Hussein, both because he was a frequent source for reports of violence against Sunnis and also because he stayed in the story. If the initial source was someone else, what happened to them? If it was not Jamil Hussein, then how did he get involved after-the-fact since Hurriyah is not in his police jurisdiction?
Finally, yes, I recall media stories of traumatic events like 9/11, Bali, Katrina, the tsumanis, and others, as well as exaggerations and untruths that came out of those events. I know the media makes mistakes, many of them understandable. Unfortunately, some in the media seem to feel that it doesn’t matter if they say something wrong or violate their own standards as they rush to meet a deadline or be the first to break a story. And too many consumers excuse their lax standards and clumsy mistakes. What can I say? “Everyone does it” didn’t work in grade school and it shouldn’t work for journalism or any reputable profession.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 2:02 amElendil,
At your request, I’ve focused on your concerns but I think it’s worthwhile to remember other points. It will be hard to rehabilitate Jamil Hussein’s credibility even if he was not a source for the claim of 4 destroyed mosques. In fact, let’s assume he played no role in describing the 4 mosques as destroyed and was affirmatively responsible for correcting the earlier report. Nevertheless, he was still sourced for many aspects of this story that have been questioned and have not been corroborated.
The AP reports sourced to Jamil Hussein stated that the mosques were bombed, burned and torched but, as Michelle Malkin showed, damages to three of the four mosques were limited and none of the mosques could be credibly described as torched unless your definition of torched means any burn damage, however limited. In any event, only two of the four mosques sustained what appeared to be relatively minor burn damage.
In addition, Jamil Hussein’s report that the Iraqi police stood by and did nothing has not been corroborated and was disputed by the US military and the Iraqi Army.
Finally, the 6 burned Sunnis story was apparently corroborated by only one named witness, Imad al-Hashemi, who seems to be the same witness interviewed by Reuters on 11/24/06 and who did not report 6 burned Sunnis. Even if Reuters interviewed another person with a similar name (and Iraqi names do sound similar much of the time), he purported to be a witness at the Hurriyah mosque but he reported injuries due to RPG attacks, not immolations.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 10:36 amIt seems to me that we should demand 2 corrections from the AP regarding the initial report.
Correction #1 – The claims made by Sunni residens that 4 mosques were “destroyed” was factually wrong. The mosques weren’t totally destroyed, as we all know by now.
Correction #2 – The claim made by “police officials in the region” that “nothing had happened” were factually wrong – something DID happen, although that something amounted to less than 4 mosques being “destroyed.”
Why hasn’t anyone pointed out the fact that there are two factual errors in the initial article, not one?
Justin (dc3309) — 2/5/2007 @ 11:26 amJustin,
Shouldn’t a correction request regarding “the police said nothing happened” be directed at the police?
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 11:33 amDRJ – sure, I have no problem with asking that the iraqi police admit that they were wrong.
But for the sake of consistency, doesn’t it seem like the AP should also issue a correction for reporting the false police claims, as well as one for the false claims made by the sunni residents? At least two factually innacurate claims were made in the initial report – AP should want to correct them all.
Justin (dc3309) — 2/5/2007 @ 11:47 amHere’s the difference between your corrections and why the AP’s duty to correct varies:
The story in Correction 1 is based on anonymous sources. The AP’s Standards and Practices provides that anonymous sources can only be used to provide information, not opinion or speculation. So when the AP used anonymous sources to say 4 mosques were destroyed, it was reporting as fact the destruction of 4 mosques. The purpose of such a rule is that we can’t go interview unnamed Sunnis so we have to depend on the AP to have accurately and credibly reported the facts.
Conversely, the story in Correction 2 is based on police sources. While we don’t know the specific police officer(s) that means, we know the institution so that is not an anonymous source. We can find the police station and ask for verification and demand a correction, if warranted.
The rules are designed to give readers an ability to verify information and, as we all know, it’s good to trust but it’s also good to verify.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 11:59 amJustin,
In other words, the AP is allowed to report opinion or speculation if it comes from a source that is not anonymous – even if the AP doesn’t agree with the opinion or speculation. I submit the reports that the police denied anything happened fit into that category.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:02 pmBy the way, Justin, can you provide a link for an AP report that the police said nothing happened? I thought the reports said the police “stood by and did nothing” while 6 Sunnis were burned to death. I think that’s different.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:05 pmDRJ – I see, thanks. Who knew we’d learn so much about the news biz from this brouhaha?
Still though, why isn’t there any corresponding outrage or whatever you want to call it directed at the iraqi police for making a false claim in the initial report? Or is there such outrage, and I’ve just missed it? For the sake of consistency, someone should be demanding that the iraqi police issue a correction for their false claim. Maybe Patterico’s up for the job?
Justin (dc3309) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:11 pmJustin,
I assume you were referring to this statement from the initial AP report:
I withdraw my comment 113 and I apologize.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:13 pmDRJ – I was going by the list of stories that you linked to, which Patterico cites in this post. Y’know, the ones dated 11/24/2006, the San Diego Tribune, Las Vegas Sun, Phillyburbs.com, etc. (I’d link to them but I’m not sure how to do it and I don’t want to mess anything up – they’re at the top of this page, where Patterico quotes you…).
Justin (dc3309) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:17 pmJustin,
I’m no Iraq expert but I think there is, at a minimum, disdain for the actions of the police in this case and in general. Much of the Baghdad police force is Shiite-dominated and has an inconsistent record protecting Sunnis. I don’t want to tar all police officers – I suspect there are some good units and police – but there are many who are not.
I think that’s why we see more efforts focused on the Iraqi military, because we think they have a better chance of bringing professional standards, fair treatment and security to the region.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:20 pmDRJ: Thanks for your response. First let me say, I agree with you that this issue I am focusing on — “destroyed” versus “still standing” — is neglecting the other complexities of the story. However, I feel that if I cannot even get some conclusion on this, the easiest aspect of the story, then there’s almost no point in pursuing the other parts, which are much harder to pin down.
I put it to you that my focus upon this aspect is not my preference, but a consequence of how Michelle has framed the latest episode. It may well be that she didn’t write the headline, but she almost certainly wrote the paragraph I quoted from the NYP article, along with the following unrepentant snippet:
She also created this hot air report titled “Hurriya Mosques STILL STANDING” (emph to reflect font size), and presumably wrote this post by herself, in which she refers to “My report on our investigation of the Associated Press’s four destroyed mosques/six immolated Sunnis story is up at the New York Post” (emph mine), which she updated defending her assertion that “destroyed” appeared in early stories from the AP. While I may concede that she might not have written that headline, parsimony forces me to conclude that “destroyed”, as a contrast with “still standing”, is central to her argument. That she chose a headline to reflect the central aspect of her argument seems a reasonable thing to infer.
I say that this “is not my preference” because if were her, I would have been more interested in seeing if the substance of the report could be verified (i.e. there was an attack on Sunni mosques) rather than defending the assertion that Jamil shouldn’t be trusted, especially after having been shown that my earlier assertion that he didn’t even exist was false. But then, if it was me, I would have conceded my error as soon as Jamil was found, and instead of continuing to pursue only the AP, I’d have directed some pointed questions to CENTCOM, who tipped her off in the first place. Questions like: “Why did you mislead me into thinking that Jamil wasn’t an officer?” would be a good place to start. Perhaps followed by “did you yourselves receive false information from the Iraqi police or MoI? Given that both organisations are infested with Shia militias like the Mahdi army, who’ve been conducting a widespread sectarian campaign of torture and summary execution against Sunnis, do you think they may have had a vested interest in defending themselves from a report in the American press that said that Sunni mosques were attacked while they stood by and did nothing?”.
You state my guess is that the AP was probably dealing over the phone with a trusted source who initially relied on hearsay from associates, friends or relatives to report destroyed mosques. My further guess is that the trusted source was Jamil Hussein. I don’t dispute that your guess, that Jamil was the initial source for “destroyed”, is possible. What I dispute is that it’s parsimonious. To illustrate what I mean, let’s try a hypothetical.
Let’s imagine that there was no preceding question about Jamil’s credibility, and that Michelle had no particular motive for showing that Jamil was a poor source. If she had gone to Iraq without these prejudices, and found that the mosques had been attacked and were damaged, would you have thought it odd if she then went and wrote the story she did? Recall that she made “destroyed” the focus of her report, and used it to conclude that this one source, who was quoted after an error was made, and whose quote coincided with its correction, was in fact responsible for the error and could not be trusted. It only makes sense if one believes, a priori, that Jamil is a suspect witness to begin with.
Given that her main argument for that had been undermined, it is my opinion that it reflects poorly on her that she continued to pursue it with such tenuous evidence. I would have been more interested to learn that these Sunni mosques are now under the control of Shias, with photos of Mahdi army leader al-Sadr on the walls, but I had to wait for the AP’s WaPo article for that “detail”. Instead, in my opinion, she seems more interested in trying to salvage her pride[1] by resurrecting an angle that had already proved to be a dead end, rather than getting to the real story. I would have even settled for a measured report discussing the difficulties of getting the truth from parties which are currently engaged in a bloody sectarian war, including a police force who have their own religious/sectarian agendas to pursue. I still don’t know if 6 Sunnis really did die as claimed.
I don’t know who the initial source for “destroyed” is. The AP only says “Sunnis”. If that’s a violation of their standards or their standards are too vague on this, then I hope this kerfuffle will teach them to update their standards to reflect the new reality of online reporting. However, what I do know is that there is insufficient evidence to link “destroyed” to Jamil with any great level of certainly, especially in light of evidence suggesting the opposite. Given that, I certainly don’t think it’s enough to base a NYP article, a Vent video blog, not to mention several posts on, especially when much more interesting questions remain unanswered. I think it should make all of you question Michelle’s credibility.
[1] One irony in this is that she initially had good cause to question Jamil’s cred, and wouldn’t have been humiliated by her error if she had been less strident and exercised moderation and caution in her reporting. But I guess that’s not going to happen from someone who refers to AP as “Associated (with terrorists) Press”.
elendil (2279ca) — 2/6/2007 @ 3:40 amI have other commitments that are going to be keeping me away from the internets for the next four days. I’ll check back after then.
elendil (2279ca) — 2/7/2007 @ 2:08 amWhen you read the initial report, you realize that none of the claims made by the Sunni residents or the Iraqi police are entirely true.
The Iraqi police are an “official institution” so they’re supposed to issue a correction, not the AP. The Sunni residents are quoted anonymously, so technically the AP is supposed to issue a correction for their claims.
The thing is, EVERYONE quoted was wrong, lying, mistaken – whatever. The fact that the AP reported the false claims of both sides doesn’t tell me that AP has an anti-war bias, or an anti-American bias, or a pro-terrorist bias. I just don’t see how anyone can see that sort of bias in the initial report.
Justin (dc3309) — 2/7/2007 @ 11:03 amThis thread certainly ended up at an interesting point. I can only speak for myself but I’m not terribly concerned whether Jamil Hussein, the AP, or Michelle Malkin are biased. I may have speculated about the AP’s motives but I’ve always been primarily interested in whether the AP provided reliable information in this story and, if not, whether it owed its readers a correction. My view was and is that certain aspects of the AP’s reports were not reliable, and I think a correction is in order.
DRJ (605076) — 2/7/2007 @ 11:21 amDRJ – I’m curious, why don’t you also want to see the Iraqi police issue a correction for the false claims they made in the initial report. Is it because the U.S. has taken the shiite side in this civil war?
Justin (dc3309) — 2/7/2007 @ 4:48 pmJustin,
I hope the Iraqi police will someday develop a competent police force, a dependable recordkeeping system, and the ability to disseminate reliable information. It’s too soon to tell if that will happen. In fact, I think it’s unfair to expect that level of professionalism given Iraq’s history and the relatively short amount of time that has elapsed since Iraq was liberated from Saddam Hussein’s rule. More important, I don’t rely on information from the Iraqi police so I’m not going to spend time seeking a correction when public affairs is the least of the Iraqi police force’s worries.
But I still hold out hope that the Baghdad AP can and will provide me with reliable information. If bloggers put pressure on the AP, then perhaps the next time it will resist the temptation to print rumor as fact.
DRJ (605076) — 2/7/2007 @ 6:15 pm“More important, I don’t rely on information from the Iraqi police…”
No offense DRJ, but this strikes me as a very odd thing to say. Of course we rely on the Iraqi police for information. I can’t say exactly what percentage of day to day info comes from Iraqi police sources vs. some other dept of the Iraqi govt vs. the US military, but I bet it’s significant. Simply put, the Iraqi police are a major primary source of info. A major source of info from a shiite point of view, to be sure, but major source nonetheless.
We should absolutely want them to be as accurate as possible – at least as much as we should want the AP to be accurate. Actually, in a way I think I want them to be more accurate and more reliable than the AP since it’s my tax dollars that are funding them. Hey, if I’m going to help fund a shiite militia dressed up as an official institution of a fledgling state, then I prefer it didn’t actively lie to me. We can all dream, I suppose.
Justin (7e78f4) — 2/8/2007 @ 12:14 amOkay, Justin. You make a good point plus the Iraqi police won’t improve if people don’t press them to do better. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that my influence with the AP, however slight it is, is greater than my non-existent influence with the Iraqi police.
DRJ (605076) — 2/8/2007 @ 12:23 amJohn Hinderaker at Powerline has a post on a completely different topic that addresses the problem with evolving AP stories:
Thus, this isn’t solely a Jamil Hussein issue, and I think it’s something the AP needs to address.
DRJ (605076) — 2/10/2007 @ 3:34 pm