Legitamacy is actually spelled legitimacy, but that's what I'd expect from someone with a name spelled monkyboy.

Lest anyone think pajama mama has been hitting the sauce, monkyboy's stupid, and frankly irrelevant comment was deleted.

AP == (A)all (P)hony

"The task for the Associated Press here is clear, immediate, and pressing: they must show, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their Captain Jamil Hussein is a living, breathing, legitimate member of the Iraqi Police."

Or they just need the body of a male about the right age and claim he was assassinated by the military in revenge for his Speaking Truth to Power.

So does this mean that there is no fighting and death and civil war and tortured bodies found in the streets of Iraq? Because if there isn't, I want my $300 billion back.

You never had $300 billion.

If you believe anything that comes from the ASSociated (with terrorists) Press without checking the facts somewhere else you are very foolish. Between Iraq and Lebanon they have proven themselves wrong more than right. That's not good for an organization that is supposed to supply the streight truthful news to thousand of news organizations.

CY - I'm inclined to agree with you. If these horrific murders happened, show us the proof.

One thing, if the murders are a hoax is there some implied conclusion I'm missing? What does it matter if some muslims slaughtered some other muslims in this one case? Its not like we're not seeing a lot of that these days. Or is the point the non-reliability of a wire service (such a quaint term)?

Serious question and NOT trollbait.

sami, the point is the flawed (and suspected non-existent) system of checks and balances used to create news stories in contested zones of the Middle East.

CY: Excellent point. As I said here (http://junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2006_11_26.html#006256 ) I'm certain this "Captain Jamil Hussein" will be extremely eager to clear up his employment status with the MOI, and the least the AP could do for someone who's been so helpful to them for so long is to make sure he gets his salary and pension straightened out!

Serious question and NOT trollbait.

Posted by sami at November 29, 2006 08:08 PM

It's kind of two fold. 1. It puts into question all the stories coming from Iraqi embedded journalests, (not all are wrong mind you, but should be looked at).

2. It could be used as propaganda against our forces over there. If proven un-true and spread out to the general Iraqi public, it could go a long way to helping win back some of the "hearts and minds".

When we have our own press fighting this, makes you question their values.

So far, I would say that AP has FAILED to provide the burden of proof that Capt. Hussein is an actual Iraqi policeman. Hell, when Al-Reuters sprang to the defense of Green Helmet Guy, they were able to get a closeup photo and an interview with the guy, who turned out to be a civil defense worker for Lebanon. Of, course all that proved was that he was a civil defense worker who pimped out dead babies for Hezbollah, but at least I know he is a real human being. Whether he has a soul or not is still in question.

CY & RetiredNavy -
I appreciate the response.

Any influential agency, whether the press or the govt or schools, should have checks and balances to prevent exactly those problems inherent in your answers. In these examples - With our govt, its a 3-legged stool; With schools, it is (should be) parents; With the press it is us.

A consumer of information has the responsibility of skepticism. Trust but verify - diverse sources being the method I know. In the case of the burning men, NPR and other sources reported that there was no verification that the murders took place, so...

I really appreciated your post, CY, because I really hadn't put it in that light. I thought pretty much the same you did when I heard about this one witness who claims to be a cop - odd. You would think if a guy was doing a richard pryor that we might hear of from multiple credible sources. Your underlying them of the application of checks and balances to the press caused me to examine my own perception of the role of reporters in a war zone (and elsewhere).

RetiredNavy - the use of information published by a free press as propaganda is the risk arising from the 1st amendment. I don't think it would be such a problem if we hadn't screwed up so bad. When we invaded Iraq the embedded press was damn near a recrutment center for the US military. Maybe the pendulum has swung back too far and maybe it hasn't but it still swings both ways.

Regards
t.

A remarkable example of twisting yourself into a pretzel. AP may be wrong on a story; hence AP is always suspect. By that logic, the Administration is always suspect (but that doesn't seem to be the case here).

If AP is wrong about this one story as you claim, how does that invalidate all their other reporting? Or if the standard is, they were wrong once, they must always be wrong or suspect, will you then apply that same logic to the Administration which has been wrong more than once?

I don't expect a civilized answer. In fact, seeing as how you don't like anyone pointing out simple logical inconsistencies, I expect you'll probably delete this comment and ban me.

UPDATE:

LGF has a letter from CentCom posted. Here it is:

From: MNC-I PAO Victory Main JOC [mailto:MNF-IPAOVictoryMainJOC@iraq.centcom.mil] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:14 AM To: [deleted] Cc: MNC-I PAO Victory Main JOC Subject: RE: [U] RE: Could you confirm that the letter below was sent by CENTCOM

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Sir:

I have just learned from Mr. Costlow, mentioned below, that Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the official Ministry of Interior spokesmen, will begin his regularly scheduled press conference at noon tomorrow with a statement that Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an MOI employee.

Yesterday, coincidently, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior issued a press release warning of spreading propaganda aimed at broadcasters. The text of this statement follows:

A Statement from the Ministry of Interior

After media became free in Iraq and expressed the will of all without the government interfering, unfortunately, some satellite TV channels began misleading public opinion and disclosing chaos for a particular political agenda, by broadcasting propaganda that harms people and tries to shake the trust in security forces.

Such satellite channels are trying to affect Iraqi unity and claim that information was stated by a security source without mentioning the source. Information sources should be well-known and reliable, and to avoid repeating such unfair actions, MOI warns the media and insists on defending the people’s security and safety. MOI will take all immediate preventive procedures against media that broadcast propaganda, because such media intend to repress the will of Iraqis in fighting terror and crime.

We would like to mention that such procedures we do not consider as chaining true free media, but it is a legal defense for Iraqi security and the safety of our people.

If you have any additional questions, please let us know.

Vr,
LT Dean

Michael B. Dean
Lieutenant, U.S. Navy
MNC-I Joint Operations Center
Public Affairs Officer

michael.dean@iraq.centcom.mil
MNCI-PAO-VictoryMainJOC@iraq.centcom.mil
Multinational Corps - Iraq
Public Affairs Office

Should be an interesting Press Conference.

George,

The point is that with Reuters and the proven photoshopping of their photos, and now the AP with the their sources, where are the checks and balances? They have used this particular "source" as proof in quite a few articles. If it turns out that he is not associated with LEA in Iraq, where does that leave AP? If they are not serious enough about their coverage to check simple facts like these, then why should we trust anything they print?

George, if you remember, when Reuters found out that at least one picture by Adnan Hajj was fake, they retracted ALL of his pictures. If it turns out that Capt. Hussein is NOT a police officer, then AP should do the right thing and retract ALL stories where he was quoted as a single source. Oh, and your Bush Derangement Syndrome tie-in holds no merit.

Posted by George Orwell at November 30, 2006 09:43 AM

A lot of it comes down to credibility. I read more than one news source, compare what I read, and make my own decisions.

If a news source gets one article wrong, admits and corrects it, to me, they get a + in credibility. If they deny, deny, deny and say their reporters are above reproach with "annonomous" informers, it's a - in credibility.

The more a source gets -'s, the more suspect they are.

I didn't say all articles were bad or wrong, but when the credibility starts going south and they don't back up their stories, that tells me it's suspect.

Mistakes are one thing, denial and adament refusals to correct them are another.

Specter,

Anyone with half-a-brain needs to take anything put out by any major institution with a grain of salt. That goes without saying. If ten stories are attributed to Capt Hussein, and he turns out to be a fraud, that still doesn't discredit all the other stories run by the AP which do not use him as a source. Again, get your news from more than one source. Or is the position here that the Drudge Report is the only viable news service (see story of Bush photoshopped into Burkah).

BTT,

Your saying my analogy doesn't hold water does not make it so. If you hold AP suspect for their reporting because they may or may not have reported a fabricated story, then you must logically hold the Administration suspect for their fabricated stories, i.e. aluminium tubes for Nuclear reactors, Yellow Cake from Niger, the War in Iraq would be over in 6 months, take your pick. There are numerous examples of the Administration fabricating stories. More, I dare say, than the AP.

As for my Bush Derangement Syndrome: Pot meet Kettle.

RetiredNavy said:
"A lot of it comes down to credibility. I read more than one news source, compare what I read, and make my own decisions."

Yes. As I said in my earlier post - we have the responsibility to be skeptical of anybody or any agency providing information whether it be the press, the government or your aunt mabel. Diversity of source is key.

it be the press, the government or your aunt mabel. Diversity of source is key.

Posted by sam at November 30, 2006 10:40 AM

True, Everyone has an agenda. Everyone has an opinion as well.

I like these post/coments so I can read good discussions. I jump in now and again but know my opinion is only as valuable as the next person's so largely remain quiet.

George, your "civilized answer" awaits.

What is amazing...utterly stunning about the left's race to defend the indefensible...is that it almost always has the fellow traveler of a back-tie with trashing America.

Who are these people? What makes them tick? And also, somewhat staggering...is that they use PHONY AND FALSE AND DISTORTED AND FAKE "news" stories...to back up their positions for defending...phony, false, fake and distorted news stories.

Is there anyone breathing, with at least one firing syapse...that doesn't believe that Joe Wilson has been completely and utterly discredited? This isn't even worthwhile of a good, solid, meaty debate.

How can anyone sit there with a straight face and suggest that the wire services, and ALL the leftist news agencies haven't shown a distinct PATTERN of intentionally (or with callous and reckless disregard for the truth), sending out distorted, phony, fake, misleading, erroneous and slanted information on America and Israel?

It's funny, George Orwell was a Socialist, but not an echo chamber. He wrote passionately about the abuses of Socialism, because he wanted it to be pure and free from the disease of the echo chamber, where "because we are leftists, all that we do is right and all that disagree are wrong".

The modern day leftist adopts only his name, not his principles.

The leftist Ministry of Media is a den of snakes. They hire news distorters and filter out truth through their prism of World Populism and feed it to the chirping little baby birds waiting for their pre-digested, regurgitated echo chamber pablum. And the little baby birds are trained to chirp louder and the cacophony of leftist lies reverberates in the dense, dense forest of their lives.

George, let me fix up your analogy for you. The issue is single-source intelligence here. AP is using a single alleged Iraqi Policeman for their stories. If it turns out he is NOT a policeman, then every story based on that single source must be questioned. But no one here is suggesting that every story from the AP is wrong. Now, let's jump back to your beef with Bush. SOME of the intelligence on the runup to the war WAS based on a single source. Some of those single sources, like good old Curveball were discredited. This means that all of the intel based on HIS stories should be questioned. But that certainly does NOT mean that EVERYTHING about Iraq was a lie. Curveball might have been wrong about weapons labs, but he didn't talk about the terrorists training at Salman Pak, or about nuclear scientists with banned materiels buried in their gardens. All of that is true.

cfbleachers;

You are insane. Nuff said.

BTT;

Again, there actually was more than one source, the other sources wishing to remain anonymous, if you read the piece and not just the spin. The only source not anonymous is this Capt. Hussein. Again, I'm not arguing he's real or fake (you've already made up your mind about that), I am arguing that one fake source doesn't discredit all AP reporting. Or, if it does, then the same applies to all institutions which have used the same standard (that includes the Administration).

I am arguing that one fake source doesn't discredit all AP reporting. Or, if it does, then the same applies to all institutions which have used the same standard (that includes the Administration).

Posted by George Orwell at November 30, 2006 11:47 AM

I'll type this slow.

We're not saying that one bad source doesn't discredit other stories, them not recanting or producing proof of the stories makes them suspected fabrications, if they fabcricate some without shame, the rest of their stories should be taken with a grain of salt, doesnt mean they are fabricated, but should be scrutinized.

No one said they are all lies except you.

George,

You are such a card! LOL. Again - NOBODY here said all of the stories posted by AP are suspect. You said it yourself - take it with a grain of salt.

I do not just rely on Drudge, nor any single news source. You don't know me so you'll have to take my word on that. If you have read my posts you will find that I back up my positions with links to quite a number of different news sources - sometimes even AP (but rarely).

The problem with your post here, and at the other that CY directed you to, is that most major news organizations do stay in the Green Zone. What they do is hire local stringers to go out and get the news and bring it back. Some are good. Others aren't. I like to have at least one other credible source verify.

As far as anonymous sources go, well that's just it isn't it? They are anonymous. We do not know if they are credible, do we? We don't even know if they are real or imaginary.

The way out for AP on this one is simple. Prove that the good Captain is a real police officer. Not hard if he is. But there was too much reporting on this single story by other supposedly reputable news sources that contradicted AP's account. So, for them, it's put up or shut up time.

Here's the thing RetiredNavy; You say no one said they are all lies, except you. But that's not what I said. I said, anyone with half-a-brain takes what is fed to him by major institutions with a grain of salt. This gose just as firmly for the Administration, schools, you name it. That also goes for admittedly biased bloggers who make statements about how the AP is inventing stories.

It also goes for this site. Almost everyone here is quick to condemn the AP as having printed a fabricated story, yet there appears to be no condemnation of all the fabricated stories that have been fed to us by, among others, the Administration.

It's quite simple: you want it both ways. You want the Media to report the news as you would like it to be, and you want to be able to blame them for either incompetence, fabrication, or bias when it isn't. It has nothing to do with the AP story being right or wrong, fake or real. It has everything to do controlling the debate so that only your talking points are given any credence. You want to hold the press to a standard you don't even hold your government to. Can we say double-standard?

I said, anyone with half-a-brain takes what is fed to him by major institutions with a grain of salt.

I agree with this.

It's quite simple: you want it both ways. You want the Media to report the news as you would like it to be....

I don't want it both ways, I just want them to report the facts without spin and let me make up my own mind.

fabricated stories that have been fed to us by, among others, the Administration.

Depends on the story if I agreed with it or not, I don't take them at face value either, but will believe them over a factless news source.

It has nothing to do with the AP story being right or wrong, fake or real.

To me, it does, I like debate, actually enjoy it but I can't stand faked news pawned off as real because it does skew a HUGE percentage of people's conceptions of reality.

Look at the facts, form an opinion, and debate that. I have no problems with that. I don't have any problem with your opinion varying from mine (defended it for 20 years and would do so again gladly, that doesn't make mine right though).

You want to hold the press to a standard you don't even hold your government to. Can we say double-standard?

I hold them to the same standard, all those with some kind of power should be held to that standard, I never said different.

Well George,

It's getting to the point, since you are so intractable in your statements, that we might just have to pull out the Troll-alert. C'mon - you said:

That also goes for admittedly biased bloggers who make statements about how the AP is inventing stories.

Want me to quote the CNN and Reuters stories on the same incident that made no mention of 6 people burned? And CentCom denies it also. So does the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi LEA. The AP also claimed that 4 mosques had been burned down. Not so. So, is your point here that the AP didn't make this up? Is it that they didn't rely on a source that claimed to be LEA, but probably wasn't? If those aren't your points, then you have to at least admit the story from the AP is quite suspicious, at the very least. If those are your points, well....too bad - you'll take one source (AP) over every other source that reported on the incident. So much for verifying....

Specter and RTT

It's of no use. There is a pattern of leftist news organizations distorting and intentionally misleading...if you point it out and say that it's a gross dereliction of duty and dastardly violation of a public trust.

Someone simply wants to bash America won't listen. They will simply rewrite the 7 Commandments with new language...the information stream should be guardians of the truth...except...when the means justifies the leftist ends. And anyone who doesn't follow this newly written commandment doesn't have "half a brain" or is "insane".

Photo shopping photographs, making up phony police sources, staging phony bomb sites, making up phony statistics of losses, inventing ambulance bombings that didn't occur...are all "one time events" that shouldn't be taken en masse...and by the way..."We hate George Bush, we hate George Bush, we hate George Bush...nyah, nyah."

The whole point of CY's post is to attack the credibility of the AP based upon some possibly fabricated reporting, the argument being that if they did it this time, they will do it again or have already done it in the past, thereby making their credibility suspect and easier to dismiss on any story. You don't have to write those words for the implication to be clear. I don't know how many of you have talked about reading comprehension on this site, but if you cannot see what is implicit in the way CY frames the argument, then you are willfully ignorant and too attached to your biases to debate rationally.

My point in response was and still is, if you argue that credibility is seriously damaged by fabricated stories to the point that you can dismiss future AP stories based upon a possibly fabricated one now, then to be consistent you need to apply the same standard to the Administration.

All responses to my original post have either been an attempt to distract from the original comment or simply to obfuscate.

If you are going to hold the AP to a standard of credibility to which you won't even hold your Government, then there's no further need for discussion since no logical argument will have any effect.

And just as an aside, all you have to do is read any of cfbleachers posts to see what I'm talking about (although I believe many of you might actually agree with him).

George I can only speak for myself, I never said I would disreguard any future AP stories, but unless they improve their track record, clean up a little, I will consider them suspect.

I consider anything that comes out of ANY politicians mouth suspect until proven correct. My idealogies and beliefs lean towards the right, doesn't mean I'm straight-line all the way.

I took CY's post to mean that the story in question is definately suspect and they should produce proof of the story or recant it, or they will face a serious credibility problem.

I agree with that. Why don't you? (Note, I am not asking about equating it to the current administration, just to their own credibility, that's my question to you).

George -
"to be consistent you need to apply the same standard to the Administration."

Of course we need to apply standards accuracy in information to this Admin. I also think CY is correct - tell me things that later prove mendacious or ill-founded and I'm a fool to take you at face value next time. These are not two mutually exclusive viewpoints. IMO, from the comments I've seen not many here disagree.

I disagree with cfb that somehow this sensationalism-seeking is some grand leftist conspiracy. Hogwash - this is American capitalism at its best. Same with the broadcast meda and all those talking heads and gossip columns and on and on. They want ratings - they want readership. AP wants a big fat scoop not to make anybody look bad - Christ, we don't need any help with that in Iraq - but to make bucks. The media is neither monolothic nor driven by idealogy - they are that most conservative of animals - corporations and corporations often over-reach in search of profits.

When I see AP pull this crap or Reuters photoshop smoke over Beirut, I see just another war profiteer.

"My point in response was and still is, if you argue that credibility is seriously damaged by fabricated stories to the point that you can dismiss future AP stories based upon a possibly fabricated one now, then to be consistent you need to apply the same standard to the Administration"

What a load of horse hockey. Why is there a need to tie in the administration on a litany of off the subject leftist talking points...to a discussion of whether the BBC, Reuters, AP, CNN or any other news organization is intentionally distorting facts, dummying up photos, or making up phony "sources" for events that never took place?

This smacks of a "Jimmy started it..."

Why not just stay on task here and discuss the fact that the media has willfully prostituting themselves to advance leftist agendas?

Because it feels awful to discuss that leftists are utilizing the Ministry of Media as a propaganda arm and you simply don't have what it takes to admit it.

The standards are this....we get our news and form our opinions based upon a reliance that the media will be objective and give us facts to make up our minds.

Politicians have a different role. They are advocates for a position. If they lie, we need facts to catch them in those lies. If the people given the public trust to report the facts and truth...to allow us to come to reasoned decisions are liars with an agenda...they are worse than the advocates...whom we expect to try to "sell" us their position.

The media is charged with a public trust. When they bastardize that mandate by projecting a far left agenda and distorting the truth...they are the WORST element, the MOST dangerous.

Get it? If a criminal tries to rob your house, you call a cop. If a cop tries to rob your house...who do you call?

If a politician lies to you, you ask the free press to tell you the truth. If the press lies to you...you have no chance. Get it?

Retired Navy,

It is agreed: The AP needs to prove its story. Now, let's give them some time to do it.

This must be a dumb question, but how do we know this guy isn't using an alias?