actually, I agree - produce Jamail. Of cours,e he might not want to be paraded around and targeted for execution, but that's because he's a wuss.
I guess I consider the fact that teh AP did find other witnesses to corroborate and to provide more details to be definitive, and you don't. Everything teh AP says is a lie, in your view; it's a faceless org that wants to humiliate America and tuck the terrorists into bed with a blanket and teddy. To me, the AP is a corps of journalists all playing by established rules and sure, prone to human mistake but doing the best they can.
All your counterfacts are from one source: a government minister. How do you knwo there werent funeral processions (also known as Big Moving Targets or Suicide Marches. Duh...)? How do you know that the photos are fake or that theres no burned spot in teh middle of the road? You don't. You're just swallowing one set of spin while accusing me of swallowing another. Hell we dont even knnow for sure yet if the Baghdad Sniper really was caught or not yet. But if an Information Minister says it, I guess it must be true.
And it's pretty convenient an omission on your part about why the second witness might have disavowed his story. And tehsignificance of some residents denying teh story is negligible; presumably they too are wusses who dont want to get their own asses killed.
How do you knwo there werent funeral processions (also known as Big Moving Targets or Suicide Marches. Duh...)?
If there were funeral processions why doesn't the AP report it to prove their case?
But, to me, Aziz, it seems you've got all your bases covered. If they can't produce Jamil it's because he's afraid. If there's no funeral procession it's because they're targets. Anyone coming out on from the Iraqi government or our military can't betrusted because this story makes them look bad. But the word of a false Iraqi office is just peachy to believe!
I understand being sceptical but it seems to be you're bending over backward to support the AP story when a lot of common sense questions are not being answered or, worse still, ignored by the AP.
But, to me, Aziz, it seems you've got all your bases covered. If they can't produce Jamil it's because he's afraid. If there's no funeral procession it's because they're targets. Anyone coming out on from the Iraqi government or our military can't betrusted because this story makes them look bad. But the word of a false Iraqi office is just peachy to believe!
no. you're inventing standards for proof beyond what is reasonable: numerous witnesses, who can be anonymous to protect their safety. Since you have declared that the AP lies as an axiom, then its not surprising you interpret these standards as "inventing evidence" but that is a cynicism I dont share.
and if the iraqi officer was definitively found to be a fake, then yes i would indeed dismiss it. But the AP vouches for it and there hasnt been any real proof otherwise.
But my position is simple - the iraqi officer is now irrelevant since there are other witnesses. The only way I'll accept that the AP is lying is if you demonstrate to me that the autors of the story and the followup are themselves frauds or have been engaged in shoddy reporting in the past. And thats perfectly possible! I would much prefer, frankly, that six people werent dragged out of a mosque and burned alive, okay? even if that means that President Bush gets to come to my house and do a victory dance on my lawn, and I have to let him guest blog on my site in huge purple letters "aziz pwned by 8u5h!!!"
This guy at the very least looks suspect. He's coming up in a list of 'officials' that evidently aren't official, and showing up in reports of 'reporters' who seem to be of the caliber of the photo faker a few months ago.
But, according to Aziz, the guy doesn't matter because the AP found witnesses too afraid to go public! Since they went from fake source to obfuscated source they must be telling the truth!
actually, I agree - produce Jamail. Of cours,e he might not want to be paraded around and targeted for execution, but that's because he's a wuss.
I see, so he's a very visible police captain who doesn't mind being quoted numerous times in the AP for months, but actually proving he exists puts him in danger? Hah.
All your counterfacts are from one source: a government minister.
Not true, they're mostly from U.S. soldiers.
How do you know that the photos are fake or that theres no burned spot in teh middle of the road?
Well, we haven't SEEN any photos. How do you know Martians aren't parading on the street, wearing human skulls? Generally we assume things haven't happened unless there's some proof of them.
And it's pretty convenient an omission on your part about why the second witness might have disavowed his story.
Ummm, maybe he disavowed it BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. Ever think of that? You can't just automatically scream "OPPRESSION!!" every time an Iraqi government official enters the picture.
Hell we dont even knnow for sure yet if the Baghdad Sniper really was caught or not yet. But if an Information Minister says it, I guess it must be true.
Right. And we don't really know there was a Moon landing -- but if NASA says it, it must be true! Generally, we give officials in an elected government the benefit of the doubt.
standards for proof beyond what is reasonable: numerous witnesses, who can be anonymous to protect their safety.
Oh great, then I have numerous witnesses who say you've been blending puppies every morning for breakfast. These witnesses will be kept anonymous to protect their safety.
What? You don't like my standard of proof?
Asking for more than biased witnesses who mostly don't exist or recant -- and again, according to the NYT some phone interviewees say it DID NOT happen -- is not unreasonable.
Here is another story in relation to this incident where other neighbors have denied the incident happened also.
“In the evening, a resident named Imad al-Hashemi said in a telephone interview on Al Jazeera, the Arab news network, that gunmen had doused some people with gasoline and set them on fire. Other residents contacted by telephone denied this.”
Bottom line, there are three or four 'officials' who over the last few months have been reporting huge death tolls who might not even exist. This is a considerable accusation.
Michelle Malkin pointed out yesterday that Multi-Forces Iraq and Iraqi officials have a long list of problematic Iraqi Police/Ministry of Interior spokesmen quoted by the AP and other news services that the military says it cannot verify as legitimate employees. This list of IP/MOI problematic sources is published at Flopping Aces and includes these two spokesmen:
* Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the Interior Ministry spokesman (a.k.a. Police Brigadier Abd al-Karim Khalaf, Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, Brig. Abdel-Karim Khalaf)
* Lt. Thaer Mahmoud, head of a police section responsible for releasing daily death tolls
These two men have been giving death tolls to the press but are not official spokesmen for the MNF-Iraq or the Iraqi government. Since the AP started using these questionable Iraqi spokesmen the death rates in Iraq have gone up 300%! Is there a correlation or is it just coincidence?
Aziz, is it possible in your world view that the AP is generally a corps of journalists all playing by established rules and sure, prone to human mistake but doing the best they can, but that one of their mistakes was hiring a 'stringer' who simply invented false propaganda and when 'caught' tried to invent some more?
Stephen Glass with malice?
This would seem to fit the 'facts' that we know quite well. 'Witnesses' can be produced on demand, but when selected more randomly from residents via telephone the don't exist. A false police captain goes without question until the story becomes fabulous enought that someone checks on him?
That doesn't seem like an unreasonable scenario to me.
We of course don't know (so far as I have seen) is if the AP checking involved the same reporter or not, if it was seperate reporters, absent any manipulation by the first it would require a wider conspiracy that would become less easy to believe. However, if an editor said, hey, who are your sources I need to check them, and the original reporter had 'coached' sources who knew what to say it is quite possible that this 'human' editor could be fooled.
Using Rumsfeld to support your position? Doesn't that strike you as odd?
I'm not clear on where I invoked Donald Rumsfeld here. But why would Donald Rumsfeld be lying about something anyway? I mean sure he was a master of spin and triplespeak, but I would be shocked if he was ever actually deliberately dishonest about something.
But I'm glad to see you admit that you don't need evidence to come to your conclusions. But that isn't called fact. It's faith.
You're almost as good as Rumsfeld in the spin department, though. I stated that I consider the AP report to be evidence enough, because I generally do trust the system and the professionals in it, and dont buy into the facile equivalence you paint, namely that anyone who dares report "bad news" is a propagandist and that anyone who reports "good news" is the beacon of truth.
You're arguing for an impossibly high standard of evidence, and its a standard you will never apply to news you approve of.
And for what its worth, I have not accused the minister of internal affairs of lying. If you parse his statements he qualifies every single statement - we "havent been able to confirm", etc. He is covering his ass, too.
the guy doesn't matter because the AP found witnesses too afraid to go public! Since they went from fake source to obfuscated source they must be telling the truth!
oh, please. anonymous source is not equal to obfuscated source. In fact they listed the ages and the professions of their new sources, and those sources' tales agreed on teh key details of the incident.
As I said above, you invoke an impossible standard of proof when it suits you. No anonymous sources! No bad news! video and photos! Are you really willing to be bound by such constraints? I'll be paying attention to future news stories you trumpet...
Buddy, the guy's name is on a list of people who report "bad news" from Iraq. Thats likely the only reason they are "suspect". But I for one would prefer that the guy be verified and am ready to say "frak him" if hes not legit. Still, even in that case, the actual AP authors woudl have to be shown to be liars or have a history of problematic reporting before I'd dismiss the tale, given that they produced two witnesses the first time, and three the second.
TallDAve:
I see, so he's a very visible police captain who doesn't mind being quoted numerous times in the AP for months, but actually proving he exists puts him in danger?
unquestionably it puts him in danger to appear at a certain place and talk to the US media. Hes already in consdierable danger as it is, but any exposure increases it. Thats just obvious. All Iraqi police are heroes for the risks they take in their service; they are all marked.
Though one might also argue that Jamail is an alias for his own protection... I'm pretty sure that Deep Throat wasnt actually Deep Throat's name either.
All your counterfacts are from one source: a government minister.
Not true, they're mostly from U.S. soldiers.
Hmm. I saw the letter from Lt. Dean, but he only questioned the existence of Jamail. The far more detailed critique was from the MOI minister. the press conference by Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf Al-Kenani, Iraqi Ministry of Interior spokesman, is mmy primary counter-reference. When have any US soldiers other than Lt. Dean - who limited his critique solely to the authenticity of Capt Jamail - weighed in on the other factual matters under dispute? If theres something I've missed then point it out to me. I would place a lot more cred on the word of a soldier in the street if they were serving in the area.
Well, we haven't SEEN any photos. How do you know Martians aren't parading on the street, wearing human skulls? Generally we assume things haven't happened unless there's some proof of them.
so you also subscribe to the "photos as minimum evidence" standard for reporting? Do you apply that standard equally to all news stories you quote approvingly?
Ummm, maybe he disavowed it BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. Ever think of that? You can't just automatically scream "OPPRESSION!!" every time an Iraqi government official enters the picture.
Well, if the Iraqi government was not corrupt, if the police werent infiltrated with insurgents, if the Maliki administration had some balls about the Shi'a detha squads problem, and they werent so gungho about censoring the open press, then maybe I'd cut them more slack.
And we don't really know there was a Moon landing -- but if NASA says it, it must be true! Generally, we give officials in an elected government the benefit of the doubt.
um, no we don't. IN fact we should treat government officials with maximum skepticism, and agents of a free press who abide by standard rules of journalism as our champions. You might disagree; thats fine, too. You're free to demand whatever minimum standard you want and to believe uncritically everything any minister ever says as long as its in tune with your opinion. But in that case I'm less fact-challenged than you are.
And I was giving the AP the benefit of the doubt too, until the military said "Hey that never happened and this guy doesn't exist."
except that the military - specifically Lt Dean - never said that. They just said "we cant verify that one of your sources isnt who he said he is. Please provide more sourcing or retract" and the AP subsequently provided more sourcing. End of story.
Well, we don't know for sure, but the MOI has said they didn't hear of any. Or for that matter, any funerals period.
Of course, the most likely explanation is that there haven't been any funeral processions or funerals because no one died.
no, unless the MOI is God-Omniscient, the most likely explanantion is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Dave J,
Aziz, is it possible in your world view that the AP is generally a corps of journalists all playing by established rules and sure, prone to human mistake but doing the best they can, but that one of their mistakes was hiring a 'stringer' who simply invented false propaganda and when 'caught' tried to invent some more?
Dave its absolutely possible and I am certain that a large fraction of teh reporting - maybe as high as 40-60% - might be compromised in exactly the way your describe. And prior to the AP's followup, I thought this story was in that category. But the followup pretty much ended the debate.
But the fact that such stringers ARE out there and ARE poisoning the well doesnt mean that the incidents arent happening, or that Baghdad isnt a nightmare, or that the war isnt being lost. The reason I've been so vociferous on this one is because of teh insistence that the AP/media reporting is the sole reason why public opinion is against the war. In other words, the Dolchstosslegende narrative redux.
In fact DaveJ I think that its still possible that the AP ggot taken for a ride by Jamail. But the probability that they got taken for multiple rides is much lower. If their story hinges on teh first two sources alone then I'd be calling BS also.
Aziz, I don't think you're reading my links. The MOI has said, point blank, there is no Captain Jamil Hussein. He does not exist.
the most likely explanantion is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Absence of evidence also isn't a basis on which to report a major news story.
But the fact that such stringers ARE out there and ARE poisoning the well doesnt mean that the incidents arent happening
No one argued that, but nice strawman you've knocked down there.
or that Baghdad isnt a nightmare, or that the war isnt being lost.
Baghdad has been a nightmare for decades. The war was won in three weeks, this is a very difficult and deadly rebuilding effort in which considerable progress is made every month despite the ongoing violence.
The reason I've been so vociferous on this one is because of teh insistence that the AP/media reporting is the sole reason why public opinion is against the war.
Yes, I'm sure the overwhelming emphasis on the negative and the repeating of insurgent propaganda has absolutely no effect on public opinion, just as it had no effect in Vietnam. The fact that this effect is a cornerstone of eney strategy is merely a coincidence.
In fact DaveJ I think that its still possible that the AP ggot taken for a ride by Jamail. But the probability that they got taken for multiple rides is much lower.
Sure... until you consider the fact that the enemy's policy is to spread disinformation.
Isn't the most likely explanation to all of this that Capt Jamail was using a pseudonym for his safety, or because he knew he wasn't approved to talk to the press, and isn't the logical thing for the AP to do to fess up to that? That they haven't has actually raised my suspicions on the whole thing. If they did, it would be a little egg on their face, but the story would more or less go away. As it is, their posturing and misrepresenting the MOI's position make them look guilty of something.
unquestionably it puts him in danger to appear at a certain place and talk to the US media
Gah! He supposedly met them IN HIS OFFICE!! He could just invite them back!
unquestionably it puts him in danger to appear at a certain place and talk to the US media. Hes already in consdierable danger as it is, but any exposure increases it.
Sigh. His job is not secret, Aziz. He's a POLICE CAPTAIN, not a scret undercover agent. He's not in hiding, HE DOESN'T FREAKING EXIST!!
If theres something I've missed then point it out to me. I would place a lot more cred on the word of a soldier in the street if they were serving in the area.
Sigh, sigh, sigh. What do you think it means when the military says they investigated?
Well, if the Iraqi government was not corrupt, if the police werent infiltrated with insurgents, if the Maliki administration had some balls about the Shi'a detha squads problem, and they werent so gungho about censoring the open press, then maybe I'd cut them more slack.
LOL Well, if you can't win the argument on the facts, complain about the Iraqi government's shortcomings. Sory, Aziz, there is no evidence anyone was coerced into changing their story.
so you also subscribe to the "photos as minimum evidence" standard for reporting? Do you apply that standard equally to all news stories you quote approvingly?
Again, I didn't say photos were the minimum acceptable evidence, I just pointed out the evidence in this case seems practically nonexistent. But please feel free to continue to argue against points I don't make.
um, no we don't. IN fact we should treat government officials with maximum skepticism
Sure... when there's some proof what they claim happened didn't happen. Like, for instance, a bunch of people saying it didn't happen.
to believe uncritically everything any minister ever says as long as its in tune with your opinion.
You've just perfectly described yourself, Aziz. Insurgents create a fake news story about an atrocity citing a nonexistent Captain and you're more than happy to swallow that down, despite all the problems with the story. The MOI says something positive and you don't want to believe it, despite the absence of any reason not to other than "skepticism."
Oh well. If you're determined to be immune to reality, so be it.
But if you're referring to the additional witnesses... well, they're contradicted by other witnesses who say in the NYT that nothing like that happened. That's besides the fact the witnesses could have been made up by the same Iraqi stringers that appear to have made up Jamil (does anyone here think Western journalists marched out of the Green Zone into a Sunni area and started asking questions in Arabic?), or hired by insurgents who we know manufacture propaganda.
So we're left with two on the record witnesses, one of whom recanted (the idea he was threatened is dubious at best) and the other of whom appears not to exist. Then we have some off-record witnesses who say it happened, and others who say it didn't. There are no photos or physical evidence that support the story of six immmolated Sunnis and four burned mosques over the ISF version. The ISF and U.S. military found no evidence of anything other than a single thrown molotov, and are demanding a retraction.
Knowing all this, it appears much more likely the story was manufactured.
Aziz, if you're still reading this, would a reasonable burdon on the AP and other media agencies be calling the police stations where the Jamail's of the stories suposedly work, ask for the chief, and ask, "Do you have a policeman named Jamail Hussein at your station?" And it would be nice to have the person who makes this call not have any direct knowledge what the story is about. Certainly, that might not have helped in this case, but every indication is it would have.
Perhaps this might be a good time to take a step back from the “did they or didn't they” discussion to consider the falsifiability of the original claim.
The burden of proof is clearly on the AP (and its sources). They need to produce convincing proof of the destruction of the mosques and the deaths. The most basic facts that should be established are which mosques were destroyed (their names, locations) and the names of the men who were killed. Testimony is useful but only once the facts have been established.
If the basic facts can't be established all we're left with is feces flinging.
agents of a free press who abide by standard rules of journalism as our champions
vs.
agents of a free government (who I got to vote for) who abide by standard and legal rules of conduct who can face jail time and disciplinary action when they mess up as our champions
Hmmmm.
The standard rules of journalism appear to pay excess attention to deadline pressure, rather than finding out the truth. The standard rules do not appear to be taking any advantages of the new medum, like linking to orginal sources, prominent corrections and updates, and comment sections where corrections can be demanded. Not to mention a decided lack of intellectual diversity. Oh, and because of our commitment to a free press, there are, as a pratical matter, no legal restrictions so that the media can be held accountable.
The press suffered from groupthink and lazy reporting during Vietnam. It is now suffering from groupthink and lazy reporting regarding Iraq. The military learned how to do a better job from Vietnam. Did the press? Show me!
I'm sorry, but the military and the other branches of the government are more trustworthy than the press. Since the press sells trust (well, along with the gossip, which probably sells better), I think they have some fixing to do.
Existing journalistic standards seem like automobile safety standards that were never updated to require headlights, turn signals, and brake lights, much less seat belts and air bags. Where are the innovations that should be building trust? Stop updating the look of my newspaper, and start doing some things to improve rapid accuaracy. Oh, and if you've already done them, for goodness sake where are the ads and the cool stories about how you did it in Slate? I know about side curtain air bags and crumple zones. Where are the cool new news gathering technologies?
We passed "ineptitude" some months back - what we've got now is major news organizations determined to broadcast enemy propaganda because it fits the MSM storyline about Iraq.
Thank you for responding to my questions. However, I think you slightly misunderstood the scenario I was proposing. I proposed an AP stringer who, unknown to the AP, was actively trying to create disinformation. This stringer has probably reported accurate news many times, indeed to establish himself he would have had to. In the process, he 'invented' Jamail Hussein. If the stringer was asked to get more sources, one would suppose he could easily do so, either inventing them out of whole cloth or convincing associates to lie about it.
In this scenario, 'Jamail' didn't take AP for a ride, the person who invented Jamail did. Much like the Stephen Glass story, which if you are not familiar with you can read about here.
Anyone who argues that bad reporting is the sole reason the public is against the war is certainly wrong. Anyone who argues that there are not bad things happening in Iraq, is also completely wrong. That some might misuse this story to argue those points may be regretable, but it is absolutely not a reason to defend the story itself. There are a few plausible scenarios that could be constructed that could result in the things that we know with the story still being true. I don't think though that given what we know, you can say that those are the most plausible scenarios. Certainly I don't think you can say 'case closed' at this point.
This is especially true when you have admitted that you want this 'case' to be closed because the story (whether true or not) can be used in ways that you don't like.
12.1.2006 1:00pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
I guess I consider the fact that teh AP did find other witnesses to corroborate and to provide more details to be definitive, and you don't. Everything teh AP says is a lie, in your view; it's a faceless org that wants to humiliate America and tuck the terrorists into bed with a blanket and teddy. To me, the AP is a corps of journalists all playing by established rules and sure, prone to human mistake but doing the best they can.
All your counterfacts are from one source: a government minister. How do you knwo there werent funeral processions (also known as Big Moving Targets or Suicide Marches. Duh...)? How do you know that the photos are fake or that theres no burned spot in teh middle of the road? You don't. You're just swallowing one set of spin while accusing me of swallowing another. Hell we dont even knnow for sure yet if the Baghdad Sniper really was caught or not yet. But if an Information Minister says it, I guess it must be true.
And it's pretty convenient an omission on your part about why the second witness might have disavowed his story. And tehsignificance of some residents denying teh story is negligible; presumably they too are wusses who dont want to get their own asses killed.
If there were funeral processions why doesn't the AP report it to prove their case?
But, to me, Aziz, it seems you've got all your bases covered. If they can't produce Jamil it's because he's afraid. If there's no funeral procession it's because they're targets. Anyone coming out on from the Iraqi government or our military can't betrusted because this story makes them look bad. But the word of a false Iraqi office is just peachy to believe!
I understand being sceptical but it seems to be you're bending over backward to support the AP story when a lot of common sense questions are not being answered or, worse still, ignored by the AP.
no. you're inventing standards for proof beyond what is reasonable: numerous witnesses, who can be anonymous to protect their safety. Since you have declared that the AP lies as an axiom, then its not surprising you interpret these standards as "inventing evidence" but that is a cynicism I dont share.
and if the iraqi officer was definitively found to be a fake, then yes i would indeed dismiss it. But the AP vouches for it and there hasnt been any real proof otherwise.
But my position is simple - the iraqi officer is now irrelevant since there are other witnesses. The only way I'll accept that the AP is lying is if you demonstrate to me that the autors of the story and the followup are themselves frauds or have been engaged in shoddy reporting in the past. And thats perfectly possible! I would much prefer, frankly, that six people werent dragged out of a mosque and burned alive, okay? even if that means that President Bush gets to come to my house and do a victory dance on my lawn, and I have to let him guest blog on my site in huge purple letters "aziz pwned by 8u5h!!!"
is the AP omniscient? if there were processions, would the AP know?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But I'm glad to see you admit that you don't need evidence to come to your conclusions. But that isn't called fact. It's faith.
I see, so he's a very visible police captain who doesn't mind being quoted numerous times in the AP for months, but actually proving he exists puts him in danger? Hah.
All your counterfacts are from one source: a government minister.
Not true, they're mostly from U.S. soldiers.
How do you know that the photos are fake or that theres no burned spot in teh middle of the road?
Well, we haven't SEEN any photos. How do you know Martians aren't parading on the street, wearing human skulls? Generally we assume things haven't happened unless there's some proof of them.
And it's pretty convenient an omission on your part about why the second witness might have disavowed his story.
Ummm, maybe he disavowed it BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. Ever think of that? You can't just automatically scream "OPPRESSION!!" every time an Iraqi government official enters the picture.
Hell we dont even knnow for sure yet if the Baghdad Sniper really was caught or not yet. But if an Information Minister says it, I guess it must be true.
Right. And we don't really know there was a Moon landing -- but if NASA says it, it must be true! Generally, we give officials in an elected government the benefit of the doubt.
Your arguments are awfully fact-challenged, Aziz.
Oh great, then I have numerous witnesses who say you've been blending puppies every morning for breakfast. These witnesses will be kept anonymous to protect their safety.
What? You don't like my standard of proof?
Asking for more than biased witnesses who mostly don't exist or recant -- and again, according to the NYT some phone interviewees say it DID NOT happen -- is not unreasonable.
Bottom line, there are three or four 'officials' who over the last few months have been reporting huge death tolls who might not even exist. This is a considerable accusation.
And I was giving the AP the benefit of the doubt too, until the military said "Hey that never happened and this guy doesn't exist."
Well, we don't know for sure, but the MOI has said they didn't hear of any. Or for that matter, any funerals period.
Of course, the most likely explanation is that there haven't been any funeral processions or funerals because no one died.
Stephen Glass with malice?
This would seem to fit the 'facts' that we know quite well. 'Witnesses' can be produced on demand, but when selected more randomly from residents via telephone the don't exist. A false police captain goes without question until the story becomes fabulous enought that someone checks on him?
That doesn't seem like an unreasonable scenario to me.
We of course don't know (so far as I have seen) is if the AP checking involved the same reporter or not, if it was seperate reporters, absent any manipulation by the first it would require a wider conspiracy that would become less easy to believe. However, if an editor said, hey, who are your sources I need to check them, and the original reporter had 'coached' sources who knew what to say it is quite possible that this 'human' editor could be fooled.
Using Rumsfeld to support your position? Doesn't that strike you as odd?
I'm not clear on where I invoked Donald Rumsfeld here. But why would Donald Rumsfeld be lying about something anyway? I mean sure he was a master of spin and triplespeak, but I would be shocked if he was ever actually deliberately dishonest about something.
But I'm glad to see you admit that you don't need evidence to come to your conclusions. But that isn't called fact. It's faith.
You're almost as good as Rumsfeld in the spin department, though. I stated that I consider the AP report to be evidence enough, because I generally do trust the system and the professionals in it, and dont buy into the facile equivalence you paint, namely that anyone who dares report "bad news" is a propagandist and that anyone who reports "good news" is the beacon of truth.
You're arguing for an impossibly high standard of evidence, and its a standard you will never apply to news you approve of.
And for what its worth, I have not accused the minister of internal affairs of lying. If you parse his statements he qualifies every single statement - we "havent been able to confirm", etc. He is covering his ass, too.
the guy doesn't matter because the AP found witnesses too afraid to go public! Since they went from fake source to obfuscated source they must be telling the truth!
oh, please. anonymous source is not equal to obfuscated source. In fact they listed the ages and the professions of their new sources, and those sources' tales agreed on teh key details of the incident.
As I said above, you invoke an impossible standard of proof when it suits you. No anonymous sources! No bad news! video and photos! Are you really willing to be bound by such constraints? I'll be paying attention to future news stories you trumpet...
Buddy, the guy's name is on a list of people who report "bad news" from Iraq. Thats likely the only reason they are "suspect". But I for one would prefer that the guy be verified and am ready to say "frak him" if hes not legit. Still, even in that case, the actual AP authors woudl have to be shown to be liars or have a history of problematic reporting before I'd dismiss the tale, given that they produced two witnesses the first time, and three the second.
TallDAve:
I see, so he's a very visible police captain who doesn't mind being quoted numerous times in the AP for months, but actually proving he exists puts him in danger?
unquestionably it puts him in danger to appear at a certain place and talk to the US media. Hes already in consdierable danger as it is, but any exposure increases it. Thats just obvious. All Iraqi police are heroes for the risks they take in their service; they are all marked.
Though one might also argue that Jamail is an alias for his own protection... I'm pretty sure that Deep Throat wasnt actually Deep Throat's name either.
Not true, they're mostly from U.S. soldiers.
Hmm. I saw the letter from Lt. Dean, but he only questioned the existence of Jamail. The far more detailed critique was from the MOI minister. the press conference by Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf Al-Kenani, Iraqi Ministry of Interior spokesman, is mmy primary counter-reference. When have any US soldiers other than Lt. Dean - who limited his critique solely to the authenticity of Capt Jamail - weighed in on the other factual matters under dispute? If theres something I've missed then point it out to me. I would place a lot more cred on the word of a soldier in the street if they were serving in the area.
Well, we haven't SEEN any photos. How do you know Martians aren't parading on the street, wearing human skulls? Generally we assume things haven't happened unless there's some proof of them.
so you also subscribe to the "photos as minimum evidence" standard for reporting? Do you apply that standard equally to all news stories you quote approvingly?
Ummm, maybe he disavowed it BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE. Ever think of that? You can't just automatically scream "OPPRESSION!!" every time an Iraqi government official enters the picture.
Well, if the Iraqi government was not corrupt, if the police werent infiltrated with insurgents, if the Maliki administration had some balls about the Shi'a detha squads problem, and they werent so gungho about censoring the open press, then maybe I'd cut them more slack.
And we don't really know there was a Moon landing -- but if NASA says it, it must be true! Generally, we give officials in an elected government the benefit of the doubt.
um, no we don't. IN fact we should treat government officials with maximum skepticism, and agents of a free press who abide by standard rules of journalism as our champions. You might disagree; thats fine, too. You're free to demand whatever minimum standard you want and to believe uncritically everything any minister ever says as long as its in tune with your opinion. But in that case I'm less fact-challenged than you are.
Your arguments are awfully fact-challenged, Aziz.
except that the military - specifically Lt Dean - never said that. They just said "we cant verify that one of your sources isnt who he said he is. Please provide more sourcing or retract" and the AP subsequently provided more sourcing. End of story.
Well, we don't know for sure, but the MOI has said they didn't hear of any. Or for that matter, any funerals period.
Of course, the most likely explanation is that there haven't been any funeral processions or funerals because no one died.
no, unless the MOI is God-Omniscient, the most likely explanantion is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Dave J,
Aziz, is it possible in your world view that the AP is generally a corps of journalists all playing by established rules and sure, prone to human mistake but doing the best they can, but that one of their mistakes was hiring a 'stringer' who simply invented false propaganda and when 'caught' tried to invent some more?
Dave its absolutely possible and I am certain that a large fraction of teh reporting - maybe as high as 40-60% - might be compromised in exactly the way your describe. And prior to the AP's followup, I thought this story was in that category. But the followup pretty much ended the debate.
But the fact that such stringers ARE out there and ARE poisoning the well doesnt mean that the incidents arent happening, or that Baghdad isnt a nightmare, or that the war isnt being lost. The reason I've been so vociferous on this one is because of teh insistence that the AP/media reporting is the sole reason why public opinion is against the war. In other words, the Dolchstosslegende narrative redux.
In fact DaveJ I think that its still possible that the AP ggot taken for a ride by Jamail. But the probability that they got taken for multiple rides is much lower. If their story hinges on teh first two sources alone then I'd be calling BS also.
the most likely explanantion is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Absence of evidence also isn't a basis on which to report a major news story.
But the fact that such stringers ARE out there and ARE poisoning the well doesnt mean that the incidents arent happening
No one argued that, but nice strawman you've knocked down there.
or that Baghdad isnt a nightmare, or that the war isnt being lost.
Baghdad has been a nightmare for decades. The war was won in three weeks, this is a very difficult and deadly rebuilding effort in which considerable progress is made every month despite the ongoing violence.
The reason I've been so vociferous on this one is because of teh insistence that the AP/media reporting is the sole reason why public opinion is against the war.
Yes, I'm sure the overwhelming emphasis on the negative and the repeating of insurgent propaganda has absolutely no effect on public opinion, just as it had no effect in Vietnam. The fact that this effect is a cornerstone of eney strategy is merely a coincidence.
In fact DaveJ I think that its still possible that the AP ggot taken for a ride by Jamail. But the probability that they got taken for multiple rides is much lower.
Sure... until you consider the fact that the enemy's policy is to spread disinformation.
Gah! He supposedly met them IN HIS OFFICE!! He could just invite them back!
unquestionably it puts him in danger to appear at a certain place and talk to the US media. Hes already in consdierable danger as it is, but any exposure increases it.
Sigh. His job is not secret, Aziz. He's a POLICE CAPTAIN, not a scret undercover agent. He's not in hiding, HE DOESN'T FREAKING EXIST!!
If theres something I've missed then point it out to me. I would place a lot more cred on the word of a soldier in the street if they were serving in the area.
Sigh, sigh, sigh. What do you think it means when the military says they investigated?
Well, if the Iraqi government was not corrupt, if the police werent infiltrated with insurgents, if the Maliki administration had some balls about the Shi'a detha squads problem, and they werent so gungho about censoring the open press, then maybe I'd cut them more slack.
LOL Well, if you can't win the argument on the facts, complain about the Iraqi government's shortcomings. Sory, Aziz, there is no evidence anyone was coerced into changing their story.
so you also subscribe to the "photos as minimum evidence" standard for reporting? Do you apply that standard equally to all news stories you quote approvingly?
Again, I didn't say photos were the minimum acceptable evidence, I just pointed out the evidence in this case seems practically nonexistent. But please feel free to continue to argue against points I don't make.
um, no we don't. IN fact we should treat government officials with maximum skepticism
Sure... when there's some proof what they claim happened didn't happen. Like, for instance, a bunch of people saying it didn't happen.
to believe uncritically everything any minister ever says as long as its in tune with your opinion.
You've just perfectly described yourself, Aziz. Insurgents create a fake news story about an atrocity citing a nonexistent Captain and you're more than happy to swallow that down, despite all the problems with the story. The MOI says something positive and you don't want to believe it, despite the absence of any reason not to other than "skepticism."
Oh well. If you're determined to be immune to reality, so be it.
Initially that seemed possible, but the AP seemed to rule that out themselves by making it clear they believed that was his actual, official name.
What seems most likely now is that he was invented by an Iraqi stringer, who also manufactured this entire incident.
Who knows, maybe he doesn't even work for the insurgents. Jayson Blair made up all kinds of stuff just out of laziness.
Aziz, I can't be bothered to respond to your points if you won't read the links. The followup has already been debunked all over the blogosphere.
So we're left with two on the record witnesses, one of whom recanted (the idea he was threatened is dubious at best) and the other of whom appears not to exist. Then we have some off-record witnesses who say it happened, and others who say it didn't. There are no photos or physical evidence that support the story of six immmolated Sunnis and four burned mosques over the ISF version. The ISF and U.S. military found no evidence of anything other than a single thrown molotov, and are demanding a retraction.
Knowing all this, it appears much more likely the story was manufactured.
The burden of proof is clearly on the AP (and its sources). They need to produce convincing proof of the destruction of the mosques and the deaths. The most basic facts that should be established are which mosques were destroyed (their names, locations) and the names of the men who were killed. Testimony is useful but only once the facts have been established.
If the basic facts can't be established all we're left with is feces flinging.
vs.
agents of a free government (who I got to vote for) who abide by standard and legal rules of conduct who can face jail time and disciplinary action when they mess up as our champions
Hmmmm.
The standard rules of journalism appear to pay excess attention to deadline pressure, rather than finding out the truth. The standard rules do not appear to be taking any advantages of the new medum, like linking to orginal sources, prominent corrections and updates, and comment sections where corrections can be demanded. Not to mention a decided lack of intellectual diversity. Oh, and because of our commitment to a free press, there are, as a pratical matter, no legal restrictions so that the media can be held accountable.
The press suffered from groupthink and lazy reporting during Vietnam. It is now suffering from groupthink and lazy reporting regarding Iraq. The military learned how to do a better job from Vietnam. Did the press? Show me!
I'm sorry, but the military and the other branches of the government are more trustworthy than the press. Since the press sells trust (well, along with the gossip, which probably sells better), I think they have some fixing to do.
Existing journalistic standards seem like automobile safety standards that were never updated to require headlights, turn signals, and brake lights, much less seat belts and air bags. Where are the innovations that should be building trust? Stop updating the look of my newspaper, and start doing some things to improve rapid accuaracy. Oh, and if you've already done them, for goodness sake where are the ads and the cool stories about how you did it in Slate? I know about side curtain air bags and crumple zones. Where are the cool new news gathering technologies?
Yours,
Wince
Thank you for responding to my questions. However, I think you slightly misunderstood the scenario I was proposing. I proposed an AP stringer who, unknown to the AP, was actively trying to create disinformation. This stringer has probably reported accurate news many times, indeed to establish himself he would have had to. In the process, he 'invented' Jamail Hussein. If the stringer was asked to get more sources, one would suppose he could easily do so, either inventing them out of whole cloth or convincing associates to lie about it.
In this scenario, 'Jamail' didn't take AP for a ride, the person who invented Jamail did. Much like the Stephen Glass story, which if you are not familiar with you can read about here.
Anyone who argues that bad reporting is the sole reason the public is against the war is certainly wrong. Anyone who argues that there are not bad things happening in Iraq, is also completely wrong. That some might misuse this story to argue those points may be regretable, but it is absolutely not a reason to defend the story itself. There are a few plausible scenarios that could be constructed that could result in the things that we know with the story still being true. I don't think though that given what we know, you can say that those are the most plausible scenarios. Certainly I don't think you can say 'case closed' at this point.
This is especially true when you have admitted that you want this 'case' to be closed because the story (whether true or not) can be used in ways that you don't like.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.