I can no longer access IS from work so the following was posted earlier today on another blog. Since it is a follow-up to something I have been writing about here I am cross-posting with some very light editing.

Here is more of the the saga of Capt. Jamil Hussien.  An AP source whose identity was questioned by Curt at Flopping Aces; the apparent inability of the US Military (CENTCOM), the Iraqi Police, or the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior to verify his existence has cause quite a stir in the blogosphere.  Today Tom Zeller Jr. weighs in on the New York Times The Lede Blog, stating:

another battle is brewing. This one pits conservative bloggers and the military’s communications machine against the Associated Press — and the media at large.

He goes on to give the background of the immolation story which touched off the questioning of Capt. Hussien as a source and then states:

(For its part, The New York Times took note of the incident on Saturday, in a larger story about the mosque burnings, this way: “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.”)

Effectively verifying the Military’s version of events, but even given this Zeller appears to stand with the AP on the credibility of it’s story. 

I responded as follows (with a little editing in brackets):

I have been following the Jamil Hussien story via http://floppingaces.net and http://michellemalkin.com.

The questions that are arisng do not concern just one story but a series of stories stretching back to April of this year, which is the first time this sources name appears in print despite his being a source for years. All the stories are written by the same individual Qais al-Bashir, and according to APs own response he is the only one who seems to have met Capt. Hussien. The stories [<strike>are</strike>] also all give the impression of worsening sectarian violence.

Given the recent history of the media (Jayson Blair, Adnan Hajj, Bilal Hussien) as well as the known plans of Al-Qaeda to wage an information war I don’t think [it is unreasonable <strike>the</strike> that] questions are being raised. Especially if the current portrayls of an Iraq spinning out of control are exaggerated by sloppy reporting or an active media disinformation program.

Other items to consider:

A Mahdi Army Press Release denies the incident

A key witness in the original AP story later recanted

Capt Hussien originally said the attack in question continued until American forces arrived and stopped it. This is the way AP originally reported it, they later said that no American forces were present and base part of their defense of Capt Hussien on the fact that no Americans were present so how can they deny the attack to place.
Later defenses of the story by the AP have changed the source to “a captain”

The witnesses who are quoted as confirming the original story are anonymous.

To my knowledge no editor or other management offical at AP has independently verified Capt. Hussiens bona fides.

Finally as you yourself point out the New York Times could not verify the story.

Thanks for your time

chad
http://independentsources.com

BTW - Did you really mean to imply that the US media is at war with the US Military. That is what your opening paragraph does.

Since comments are moderated at The Lede I am not sure mine will make it into print. 

To me this is important not because Capt. Hussien may or may not exist, but because certain events which are having a huge impact  on the American Psyche and support for the war in Iraq / War on Terror may not have happened.  I am not in Iraq so I have to rely on second hand reporting.  If that reporting is inaccurate my perceptions are skewed and that is important.

Disclaimer-  I am not in any way, shape or form disputing that Iraq is in the midst of a bloody cycle of violence.  I might even agree that it is a civil war, although the one thing that would really make me call it that is hasn’t occurred yet (a breakdown of the government along sectarian lines).  All I am saying is that when people in whom trust has been placed to present an accurate picture of events potentially allow themselves to be compromised it is concerning.

Updated 11/30/2006 1:43 PM
I have been found wanting by the New York Times. I submitted my comments twice and they have not been posted. I’m not sure why I felt they were on-topic, brought out information not covered in Mr. Zeller’s piece, and were not abusive, but apparently I was wrong.

Updated 11/30/2006 7:00 PM

AP has responded to the Ministry of the Interior announcement:

From Kathleen Carroll, Executive Editor, The Associated Press

We are satisfied with our reporting on this incident. If Iraqi and U.S. military spokesmen choose to disregard AP’s on-the-ground reporting, that is certainly their choice to make, but it is a puzzling one given the facts.

AP journalists have repeatedly been to the Hurriyah neighborhood, a small Sunni enclave within a larger Shiia area of Baghdad . Residents there have told us in detail about the attack on the mosque and that six people were burned alive during it. Images taken later that day and again this week show a burned mosque and graffiti that says “blood wanted,” similar to that found on the homes of Iraqis driven out of neighborhoods where they are a minority. We have also spoken repeatedly to a police captain who is known to AP and has been a reliable source of accurate information in the past and he has confirmed the attack.

By contrast, the U.S. military and Iraqi government spokesmen attack our reporting because that captain’s name is not on their list of authorized spokespeople. Their implication that we may have given money to the captain is false. The AP does not pay for information. Period.

Further, the Iraqi spokesman said today that reporting on the such atrocities “shows that the security situation is worse than it really is.” He is speaking from a capital city where dozens of bodies are discovered every day showing signs of terrible torture. Where people are gunned down in their cars, dragged from their homes or blown apart in public places every single day.

At the end of the day, we have AP journalists with reporting and images from the actual neighborhood versus official spokesmen saying the story cannot be true because it is damaging and because one of the sources is not on a list of people approved to talk to the press. Good reporting relies on more than government-approved sources.

We stand behind our reporting.

Why is it puzzling? The facts are in question. Even the New York Times questioned the story. As many others have said the way to solve this issue is simple - produce Capt. Hussien, produce the burned bodies, or produce an editor who has met Captain Hussien and who has verfied his credentials.

The second issue above is a red herring, no one denies a mosque was burned, there is question on whether 4 mosques were burned and whether 6 Sunnis were burned alive.

Third item - To my amatuer mind that is absolutely correct good reporting does rely on more than just government approved spokespeople. However they shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand because their statements don’t fit your narrative.

Now on to another item. Allah at Hot Air points out that the person who gave the briefing today had appeared on CENTCOMs list of suspect sources. CENTCOM has responded stating that the list is a working list and the General who gave today’s briefing has been verified since his original inclusion. While seeming to buoy the APs claims about Capt. Jamil Hussien I would say that there is a big difference between someone saying “at the time he was an unverfied source” and saying “He is not a police officer” Others will disagree I am sure.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 30th, 2006 at 7:41 pm by Chad and is filed under Brilliant, but uncategorizable. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.