“This raises obvious questions about the practice of putting out news stories and then changing or correcting them on the fly. Like: how are newspapers who rely on the Associated Press supposed to know when a story is actually finished and accurate? I assume that many newspapers may have gone to press with an early, susequently[sic]-revised or corrected version of the story.”

Thus, this isn’t solely a Jamil Hussein issue, and I think it’s something the AP needs to address.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Well, Bryan Preston and I visited the area during our Iraq trip last week. Several mosques did, in fact, come under attack by Mahdi Army forces. But the “destroyed” mosques all still stand.

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”.

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.