Another Reason Not to Trust the Reporting Coming Out of Iraq
Curt from Flopping Aces has the story of the day, though you have to scroll all the way to UPDATE XI near the bottom of this post to see it. Allah at Hot Air calls it a “bombshell,” and that was precisely my reaction when I heard about it.
Here’s the short version: an “Iraqi Police Captain” whom the AP has been quoting for months — is not, in fact, with the Iraqi Police or the Ministry of the Interior.
Which means he may well be an insurgent posing as a police officer.
See Dubya is following up on the AP reporter in posts here and here.
The latter post is a little bombshell of its own (a “bomblet”?), since See Dubya has found a connection between that AP reporter and the incident in Ramadi I have been discussing here in recent days.
I spoke with Curt on the phone about this today at lunch. I have the names of a couple other alleged police officials I’d like to check.
Good news: I may have someone at CENTCOM willing to answer those questions. I got an e-mail today (also left as a comment on my site) which I view as a very positive step by the military media folks:
Sir,
I understand you ran into a bit of difficulty with our press desk last week.
I hope we can consider that water under the bridge and as you say, it is an isolated incident. I would like to invite you to join our mailing list and get in the loop with the CENTCOM Blog Team.
CENTCOM does indeed recognize the importance and value of blogs especially when it comes to getting out positive news in what seems to be an overwhelming sea of negative coverage of events in Iraq and the Global War on Terror in general.
U.S. Central Command Public Affairs has a team of three individuals, an officer and two enlisted, whose main responsibilities are to reach out to those of you who operate blogs that discuss and write about matters in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.
I do wish the events that lead to this would have been handled differently, your request should have been routed to us but, what is done is done. I can say that the event did generate a memo from the Deputy Director,
“We treat bloggers as we do “traditional media’ in all respects.
If you interact with bloggers please direct them to the appropriate staff section as you would traditional media.”
For future reference, please directly media inquires to the blog team,
Capt. Anthony Deiss deisaa@centcom.mil
Spc. Patrick Ziegler zieglepa@centcom.mil
Spc. Chris Erickson erickscj@centcom.mil
electronicmedia@centcom.milV/R
Spc. Patrick A. Ziegler
U.S. Central Command
Public Affairs
I encourage bloggers to use these folks — but try not to overwhelm them.
Thanks to Spc. Ziegler for the note.
And stay tuned.
Excellent work, P2!
I hope they add me to their list! Seriously – sign me up, gentlemen.
BTW – did you see that NBC has officially chosen to call the situation in Iraq a “Civil War” ? I’d be curious to know what the CentCom folks think of that.
The Liberal Avenger (c93dac) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:41 pmOh – here’s a link to the NBC story:
[Link]
The Liberal Avenger (c93dac) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:42 pmIs the U.S. Army the only trustworthy source of information on Iraq?
I thought they openly ran their own propaganda machine.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:50 pm[…] Patterico’s Pontifications […]
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Getting The News From The Enemy, Update (986d71) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:55 pmIt is too bad that we (the public) can’t use something like the RICO statute to sue the AP and others for fraud. At some point in this disgraceful episode, they must have lost their 1st Amendment protection. And we wonder why people scarf up the National Enquirer? At least there, you know what you’re getting.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:33 pmInteresting. None of those folks are who I talked at Centcom today about the very real problem that nothing they issue as news releases, press releases, or other stories is making it to Google News. But I’ll keep working through my contact unless I need further help (this person appeared to be very understanding and willing to help).
Here’s my post on the Google News non-presence (except for the “horn of Africa,” for crying out loud:
Tom Blumer (df3157) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:59 pmWhy Is Almost All of Centcom.mil Not Being Picked up by Google News?
Oh, and the problem noted in #6 is probably (but not definitely) the case in Yahoo! News.
Tom Blumer (df3157) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:00 pmAP Faking The News…
The fauxtography and phony stories worked to get Israel out of Lebanon. Now the AP is trying to do the same thing to the U.S. in Iraq. And what about any troops accused by the same frauds for crimes they didn’t commit?
Sensible Mom (72c8fd) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:04 pm…
I think Hezbollah’s anti-tank missiles drove Israel out of Lebanaon, mom.
If things are going great in Iraq, we can bring our troops home, right?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:15 pmI agree with Sensible Mom that the incessant media drumbeat in exposing so-called Israeli atrocities in Lebanon made Israel more susceptible to pressure to leave and thus accelerated the withdrawal timetable.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:20 pmI agree that it’s wise to question news coming out of Iraq, since no one can go out of the green zones without military protection. It’s too dangerous for reporters to cover the chaos.
Psyberian (97730d) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:35 pmJust be glad we did,nt have to relie on these crooked liberal left-wing news media back in WW II they would have geven away americas NORMANDY INVASION of JUNE 6TH 1944
krazy kagu (5b69ac) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:32 pm[…] Sister Toldjah Just Barking Mad Protein Wisdom Patterico’s Pontifications The Anchoress Redstate Pajamas Media The Belmont Club The Political Pit Bull Powerline Sigmund, Carl & Alfred Bizzyblog Bill’s Bites Random Jottings The Thunder Run Villainous Company Urban Grounds OP For Y.A.C.R.W.B NoisyRoom Chapomatic […]
Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar » MSM not wrong, just on the otherside. pt 296 War Crimes edition. (77a09a) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:39 pmSince I work for a paper that picks up AP, I’m hoping that there is another explanation. I would especially like to know their response to this.
Edward Barrera (c516e0) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:27 pmDon’t trust the MSM when it comes to Iraq…
Leave it to Los Angeles area law enforcement to get to the truth of what the Associated (with terrorists) Press reports out of Iraq. It seems that an Iraqi police official has been supplying the AP with lots of quotes…
Cop The Truth (72c8fd) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:54 pmWhen Is a Reporter Not a Reporter?…
When the MSM is too damned lazy to get the story themselves, that’s when.
It’s very sobering to realize that much of the news coming out of Iraq is completely unreliable.
Indeed.
……
Gulf Coast Pundit (31a5b1) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:20 pmAre you suggesting that things in Iraq are appreciably better than what the overall tone of reporting from Iraq indicate? If so, I’d like some evidence of this.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/28/2006 @ 3:41 amHorace wins funny/stupid post of the day, no?
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 11/28/2006 @ 9:03 amYep, Horace is pretty much three years behind the debate and wants the rest of us to re-re-re-re-repeat it all for him. No thanks. You either know about the thousands of infrastructure projects, the huge boom (no pun intended) in personal income and access to goods, the comparative peace in 15-16 of the 18 Iraqi provinces (especially for the Kurds), or like Horace, you DON’T. Or pretend not to so you can strike a pose.
Well to hell with that and to hell with the malfeasance of the ideologically rotten MSM “gatekeepers”. We’ll use bloggers in the country and folks like Michael Yon or Bill of INDC Journal and direct info from CENTCOM etc to gather the news / facts that the MSM refuses to report on.
rayra (b5b0d1) — 11/28/2006 @ 9:38 amHorace’s solipsism is humorous (at best). It just boggles the mind that a person can still type while having their head buried deep into the sand.
No one is “suggesting that things in Iraq are appreciably better”, Horace. What is suggested is that a total fabrication written by a world news organization should have some form of accountability.
Most of the worlds reader-ship invisioned six sunnis being burned alive. IT WAS A TOTAL LIE!
Where’s the credibility? Patterico and others have been pointing out the out-right fabrications by the LA Times and the MSM for some time now and the lemmings are sucking it up—-as the truth.
Rovin (317330) — 11/28/2006 @ 9:41 amWe don’t know if Capt. Jamil Hussein is an actual spokesman or not.
Just because some flunky at Centcom says he isn’t doesn’t mean much.
There’s also the posibility he’s a real spokesman who uses a false name to protect himself and his family.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/28/2006 @ 9:52 amNeville’s taking a run at Horace’s title.
I had no idea there was such competitive fire among this site’s resident Corkys. Good job, Horace! Great try, Neville! Pudding for both of you!
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 11/28/2006 @ 10:18 amDon’t spoil your conspiracy theory, sponge?
Magical thinking is what got us into the Iraq fiasco in the first place.
You guys don’t seem to realize how dangerous it is.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/28/2006 @ 10:24 amNeville,
I think it’s unlikely that Capt. Hussein was a real spokesman who used a false identity for security reasons. I’m sure there is risk for every government official in Iraq but they could have easily used an “unidentified sources” attribution rather than create a fictitious name for their spokesman. If official Iraqi sources used a fictitious Capt. Hussein as a spokesman, one of the consequences is that everything Capt. Hussein said is now called into question.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/28/2006 @ 10:32 amConsidering the leaders of the Iraqi miitary, even those with a rank as high as general, go by fake names when speaking to the press, it wouldn’t be strange for a lowly police captain to do the same thing.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/28/2006 @ 10:35 amYou seem certain that high-ranking Iraqi officials use fictitious names when speaking with the press so I’m not going to disagree with you. But I would appreciate a link to substantiate your claim and educate me.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/28/2006 @ 10:40 amMagical thinking is what got us into the Iraq fiasco in the first place.
It’s a test of wills, Corky, and the international Left threw in the towel a long time ago. You guys go ahead and whine, you’ve a right to be heard.
Of course, it’s the insurgents who’re actually paying attention, so you might have to take some responsibility for this “fiasco” yourself.
If it weren’t for the spineless, BDS-plagued Left, we’d be out of that dusthole by now.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 11/28/2006 @ 10:41 amsponge,
If the U.S. military had decided to provide the press with an accurate count of civilian losses in Iraq, there wouldn’t be a problem.
The Iraqi police are an American creation. If the press is indeed quoting a phony source, it is just another failure on our part, not the press.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/28/2006 @ 10:50 amYou truly are a ‘tard, aren’t you.
You believe that if the press has been duped by a “source”, it’s the fault of the U.S.. That’s beyond parody.
Horace, get your helmet and get back on the bus. You’re yesterdays news. Neville’s the man here for truly Downs-inspired analysis.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 11/28/2006 @ 10:56 amBlaming the press for our failures in Iraq, sponge?
Typical.
Here’s the official website of the Iraqi Ministry of Interior:
http://www.moiiraq.com/
See why the press has to seek out its own sources now?
Let’s imagine how we could be winning the information battle?
A functional website would be a good first step, don’t you think?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/28/2006 @ 11:20 amBetween the name and the stupidity of your posts, I have concluded you’re a parody, and an amusing one.
Only a parody could deflect blame from the media to a website. That’s some good stuff, Appeasement-boy.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 11/28/2006 @ 11:24 amNeville,
Here are a couple of Iraqi government links I found:
National Council of Iraq (good luck reading it unless you speak Arabic)
Iraqi Kurdistan regional government
There may be more Arabic sties but I don’t speak it so I can’t find them. I assume some media organizations have people that do speak Arabic and hopefully they choose to read more than just al-Jazeera.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/28/2006 @ 11:44 amHere’s a list of Iraqi government sites:
http://tinyurl.com/ylfhyh
Every police force in America has an official spokesman and they regularly brief the press.
If the Iraqi Ministry of Interior can’t be bothered to even put up a website, they can’t blame the press for what gets reported.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/28/2006 @ 11:51 amNeville,
You do realize that the press actually was able to report before the internet existed, don’t you? And they can also file reports from countries that have restricted electricity and other conveniences we take for granted. Where’s that can-do, go-anywhere-for-a-story spirit journalists pride themselves on?
DRJ (0df497) — 11/28/2006 @ 11:56 amI called AP. They said they stand behind the story and sources in other stories. They said they will be releasing a story soon with more details. I couldn’t send a comment to flopping aces. But as soon as they post it, so will I at http://www.sgvtribune.com
Edward Barrera (0b6502) — 11/28/2006 @ 11:57 amEdward Barrera,
Can you clarify whether AP stands behind the reports in which Capt. Hussein has appeared as a spokesman, or AP stands behind the fact that Capt. Hussein is who he says he is, or both?
DRJ (0df497) — 11/28/2006 @ 12:05 pmHiding where it’s always been, in a bar in the capitol waiting for local stringers to spoon-feed them their stories. Same as Saigon, same as the Raffles hotel during WWII.
And what point is there in
rayra (b5b0d1) — 11/28/2006 @ 12:09 pmdiscussingmasturbating along with a wanker that chooses the nic ‘Neville Chamberlain’? It’s obviously there / here just to argue / dissemble.They gave me a blanket statement on the sources they have used. I originally called them to ask about questions on the burned Sunnis story, since we ran it Saturday. They then added that other questions on sources would also be answered. I’m assuming they meant that they were be backing all sources. As for specific names, we’ll have to wait.
Edward Barrera (0b6502) — 11/28/2006 @ 12:11 pmRayra,
Okay, that was funny but surely you don’t want to deny me my little online vices … uh, I mean … chats?
DRJ (0df497) — 11/28/2006 @ 12:12 pmThe websites under construction = license for media to make shit up.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 11/28/2006 @ 12:12 pmEdward,
Thanks. We’ll wait and see.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/28/2006 @ 12:13 pm“Where’s that can-do, go-anywhere-for-a-story spirit journalists pride themselves on?”
-DRJ
When it comes to wars, the US Military removed that “can-do, go-anywhere-for-a-story spirit” from the equation. You see, there was this little was called Vietnam, and in this little war, the press was free to report on whatever seemed most relevant at the time. The problem was, the most relevant things to report on often didn’t reflect well on the US military (who would’ve thought that people get maimed, raped, and killed in wars?).
Now, the US military is proactive. They had a problem with the free press in war zones: they solved it.
Embedded Journalist. The New Eunuch.
You guys think the news coming out of Iraq is bad now? Imagine what it would be like if US reporters were allowed into the streets to find things out for themselves.
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 11/28/2006 @ 12:52 pmLev, is it your claim that the military is not “allowing” reporters on the street in Iraq?
I gotta see a link for that, Bub.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 11/28/2006 @ 1:14 pmThe Third Book of Moses wrote;
As nearly as I can tell, you have just conceded that the news we are getting from our professional journalists in Iraq cannot be trusted. If that is the case, why are you assuming that the real news must be worse? After all, you have no reliable information on which to take such a judgement.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/28/2006 @ 1:36 pmDRJ asked:
In the Green Zone hotel bars.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/28/2006 @ 1:41 pmIn the Third Book of Moses it is written:
Yeah, I’d call it proactive in actually letting the journalists see what is going on.
Think about what you’ve written, Levi. The military takes journalists along, who can report what they’ve seen with their own eyes, what they’ve photographed themselves; you don’t trust that because it tends to show the military in action in a good light. On the other hand, you have the stories which are not so flattering to the President’s policies, which you have admitted come from journalists who don’t go out and see things for themselves, but rely on stringers of unknown training and expertise, as well as uncertain motives.
Which of the two has the better opportunity to report truthfully?
Dana (3e4784) — 11/28/2006 @ 1:47 pmAn AP denial:
steve (2b2eab) — 11/28/2006 @ 2:06 pm[…] Patterico updated with a message from teh CENTCOM Electronic Media Engagement Team. Sir, […]
CENTCOM is back in the game « The D-Ring: Where the military and new media collide (1f4f89) — 11/28/2006 @ 4:29 pm“The military takes journalists along, who can report what they’ve seen with their own eyes, what they’ve photographed themselves; you don’t trust that because it tends to show the military in action in a good light.”
-Dana
Do you think that journalists would photograph the coffins of dead soldiers if given the opportunity?
That’s my point. If you are surrounded by a group of people intent on limiting certain types of information, those types of information are going to be much harder to come by, and much harder to get out in the open.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/28/2006 @ 5:08 pmLevi, the military doesn’t let the coffins be photographed, because it’s considered an invasion of privacy. Since the military provides the statistics of how many soldiers get killed, and releases the identities of the deceased after their families have been notified, I can’t see that as somehow covering up anything.
You wrote:
As opposed to drinking bad Tom Collinses in a hotel bar, and never getting to see anything?
Your arguments have put you in the strange position of claiming that reporters who accompany American troops and see things with their own eyes are unreliable sources of information, while apparently accepting the reporting (and even thinking it is mild) of people who never see anything, and get their information second hand (at best) from sources of dubious motives. That’s just a plain hard position to justify.
Dana (e7aa47) — 11/28/2006 @ 6:12 pm“Levi, the military doesn’t let the coffins be photographed, because it’s considered an invasion of privacy”
-Dana
This may sound callous, Dana, but something tells me the soldiers in those coffins aren’t going to protest. It is important for Americans to see the realities of war, and a flag-draped coffin is a much more poignant message than a body count ticker.
“Your arguments have put you in the strange position of claiming that reporters who accompany American troops and see things with their own eyes are unreliable sources of information, while apparently accepting the reporting (and even thinking it is mild) of people who never see anything, and get their information second hand (at best) from sources of dubious motives. That’s just a plain hard position to justify.”
-Dana
Understand that I have the same contempt for the sit-on-their-ass media as you do. I am thinking about going into journalism when I get out of school, so I really don’t like the idea of being associated with a bunch of boozed-up freeloaders.
However, I believe that embedded journalists produce a weaker strain of news than the free-roaming journalists of Vietnam. I think that, if given the opportunity, many reporters would be zipping around Baghad without military escort, and that the news coming out of the area would be much more relevant.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/29/2006 @ 7:49 amStill waiting on that link, Lev…
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 11/29/2006 @ 8:11 amLeviticus,
I think the privacy concerns are for the surviving family members as well as the deceased servicemember. We also show respect for the dead by avoiding papparazzi events where the media competes to photograph a military coffin.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/29/2006 @ 8:20 amSorry, sponge. I didn’t see your first request.
It wasn’t my intention to state that embedded journalists were being kept out of the action, only to state that they were in conditions where negative reporting of US military action was frowned upon.
Also, there’s the question of whether or not an embedded journalist will remain objective when he has to rely on US soldiers for protection.
Also, here are a couple of links for good measure
(I realize you may not be able to take “The Inquisitor” seriously [which is fine], and the American Journalism review article is pretty long, but each has sections that emphasize a crackdown on free roaming reporters after Vietnam).
The Inquisitor
and
American Journalism Review
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/29/2006 @ 9:54 amIt looks to me like you don’t have much of a point at all, Lev. You seem to posit that the military is discouraging reporting from war zones by embedding journalists, which makes little sense. And you seem to be claiming we’re somehow discouraging reporters from beating the streets for news, then present no evidence of at all.
If the military is trying to hide atrocities, which you definitely imply in your post of yesterday, I fail to see how embedding journalist with combat units will accomplish that. I can only assume you saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the military using innuendo, so you took it.
I would note that this innuendo required you to bend the facts to the breaking point, and thus invalidates your point completely. For the life of me, I cannot understand how opponents of the war can so frequently take aim at their hated President but end up hitting the U.S. military, who are fighting for their freedom.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 11/29/2006 @ 10:38 amSponge, did you look at the links I gave you?
The Wikipedia article states that
“…there is a natural cultural bias of American journalists in favor of military troops of their own country and that journalists do like to satisfy the government upon which they rely for information, as well as the public on whom they depend commercially.”
Also, it states that
Leviticus (525d66) — 11/30/2006 @ 6:31 amoops, sorry. wasn’t quite finished yet.
Anyway, the Wikipedia article also states that
“An MoD-commissioned commercial analysis of the print output produced by embeds shows that 90% of their reporting was either “positive or neutral”.”
The Dallas Morning News article states that
“Other critics have raised the question about the journalists’ loss of objectivity, noting they must rely on the troops for their own protection.”
The Inquisitor article is fairly biased, so I won’t quote it as though it is anything authoritative, but you should look at it nonetheless.
Finally, the American Journalism Review article states that
“Over the past two decades, journalists have chafed under tight restrictions for covering American military operations, a stark contrast to the much freer access of the Vietnam era.”
It cites a specific instance in Afghanistan where
“…journalists at a Marine base inside the country were locked in a warehouse to keep them from reporting on U.S. troops hit by friendly fire.”
My overall point is that since Vietnam, reporters have had restricted access to war zones, access controlled by the military. This doesn’t always make for the most meaningful news.
I don’t understand how I “bent the facts to the breaking point” over the course of the past few posts. I provided you with links from which you could draw your own conclusions, just as I drew mine.
Please, enlighten me as to the gist of your arbitrary little jab.
Leviticus (525d66) — 11/30/2006 @ 6:46 am…sponge? Hello?
(echo)
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 12/1/2006 @ 7:47 amA great many people posting here seem to believe that US jouranlists in Iraq are deliberately distorting the situation there in order to make it appear worse than it actually is. Not being in Iraq myself, I am in no position to judge the accuracy of this belief. However, one distrubing–and indisputable–fact seems to speak against any belief that things in Iraq are not so bad: the USA continues to require something along the lines of 150,000 troops there; also that the presence of those troops is not having an effect toward decreasing the violence. Clearly, things must be pretty bad in Iraq–and are not improving–or else the USA would be withdrawing troops.
Mark (072da5) — 12/1/2006 @ 2:07 pm[…] We brought a whiff of this saga to you with the post about the L.A. Times last week. Apparently the poison goes even deeper: Via Patterico: […]
Infidels Are Cool » Blog Archive » News Out of Iraq: Don’t Believe Anything From the AP (afad56) — 12/3/2006 @ 4:50 pm[…] UPDATE x5: Commenter m.croche notes that I did, initially, accept the military/Ministry of the Interior claim that Jamil Hussein was not with the Iraqi police or the MOI. I got a lot more suspicious three days later, when the MOI spokesman showed up on the list of unverified sources. If anything, this is a reminder to be skeptical of everything, regardless of the source. I think many of us assumed that MOI knew what they were talking about at first. That was a bad assumption. Thanks to croche for noting that. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Breaking: Jamil Hussein Has Been Found (421107) — 1/5/2007 @ 1:09 am