July 09, 2007
AP: Screw the Facts, Protect the Narrative
As noted Saturday, the Associated Press has ceased being a wire service of journalists, and has fallen to become little more than an agency of lazy transcriptionists.
Seeking an excuse to explain why AP would run a faked claim of a sectarian massacre based purely upon hearsay, Associated Press Director of Media Relations Paul Colford attempted to claim that these anonymous sources were reliable (obviously, they aren't) and claim that an American military spokesman supported those claims. He has, despite a specific request to do so, failed to provide the name of the alleged military source.
Further, Colford stated that the Associated Press did not run Michael Yon's Bless the Beasts and Children exposure of a real massacre because:
With regard to Michael Yon, the Iraqi police and the U.S. military – to our current knowledge – have issued no statements to the AP about 10-14 bodies being found on June 29 in a village outside Baquba, even though the military, according to Mr. Yon’s online account, were involved in the discovery.
Ah... no press release, then no story?
Why, then, do we need the Associated Press at all?
Sadly, Colford's transcriptionists could have easily verified the story, if they were so inclined.
I'm sure you remember the old axiom, "A picture says a thousand words." Presented in context, this photo shows everything that is wrong with the Associated Press.
On the right in this photo is Associated Press Special Correspondent Robert Reid in the back of a Stryker in Baquba Saturday morning. He was just 3.5 miles from the site where Iraqi and American forces dug up the bodies of between 10-14 men, women and children that locals say were slaughtered by al Qaeda.
Directly across from Reid, taking this picture, is the man that chronicled the grisly discovery in words and in pictures... Michael Yon.
Yon and Reid spoke about the carnage Yon documented. Reid was within four miles of the gravesite excavated, and had precise GPS coordinates to view the site for himself. And yet, when Reid goes to press what does he write about the massacre Yon wrote about in al Hamira?
Not one word.
American military PAOs know well of the massacre Yon documented, from General Petraeus' PAO Col Steven Boylan, to Brigadier General Bergner's PAO Major Elizabeth Robbins, to LTC James Hutton of MNF-I.
The Associated Press, ostensibly a news-gathering organization, did not apparently ask these sources about Yon's account or what their soldiers had witnessed. Nor did they apparently ask any other American or Iraqi PAOs.
Why?
That is a question the Associated Press doesn't seem willing to answer.
Update: Michael Yon has posted his latest dispatch from Baquba, where he discovers that the number of bodies at at al Hamira (or as he later found out the correct spelling, al Ahamir) may have been much larger than the 10-14 originally thought:
Today, there are indications that the massacre might be much bigger than what I initially reported in “Bless the Beasts and Children.” Shortly after I published “Bless the Beasts and Children,” I asked a local Iraqi official about the village and the graves. The Diyala Provincial councilmen, Abdul Jabar, went on video explaining why he believes that there might be hundreds of people buried in the area, and he said the correct spelling is actually al Ahamir. (Most Iraqis’ names seem to have variant spellings.)
It will be interesting to see if that claim turns out to be accurate.
But this isn't the only item of note by Yon.
While Paul Colford and the Associated Press earlier seem to intone that they had no account of the al Ahamir discovery of the bodies of beheaded, massacred families (and thus, were waiting for military PAOs to drop the story), it appears an Iraqi stringer working for AP was in the area the entire time. He places the massacre body count as being much higher (read Yon for the details), and says he informed AP in Baghdad.
Guess who is at AP HQ in Baghdad? Kim Gamel.
I think your frustration lies in an expectation that AP be some kind of fact finding/reporting organization. Once I came to realize that they are nothing more than the a propaganda outlet, the stuff they print no longer bothered me so much.
An information outlet can produce news or opinion or they can print news that is selected and written in such a way as it reinforces an overall opinion and that is basically what AP does.
They have a political agenda that is pretty clear. Once you accept that, the frustration melts away. Just read alternative sources of news.
Posted by: crosspatch at July 9, 2007 12:32 PMThe military has not issued a press release about the bombing in Amerli, either, yet AP seems to be punching out the headlines about it quite well. I'm waiting for MNF info because I'm just a leeetle bit suspicious that there are fewer than 100 dead, far fewer, and not the 150 that AP is reporting.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at July 9, 2007 02:54 PMAP's basis for using an unconfirmed story has to do with content. If it's an allegation that women and children were killed by US bombing, it's fair game. If it might tend to reflect poorly on the enemy, or positively on US forces, can't be used. Simple.
Posted by: McCarroll at July 9, 2007 03:55 PMCrosspatch,
The problem is that most people seem to think that the AP et al are still "objective" or "neutral", when in fact they've become captive to one political point of view.
And so the nation's perception of the fighting in Iraq gets poisoned by the AP's (and others') lies, and John Q. Public doesn't have a clue.
Worse, he doesn't seem to want a clue.
So don't just tune the Lame-stream Media out, pass the word around that there's more to these LSM stories than meets the eye or ear.
Posted by: Hale Adams at July 9, 2007 04:26 PMMcCarroll and Chuck are absolutely correct. The AP is nothing more than a western version of Al Jazeera. Of course that would be the New York Times :)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 9, 2007 04:29 PMWoops that was supposed to read McCarroll and Crosspatch although Chuck has a point too.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 9, 2007 04:30 PMIt would be just so nice to poke the AP in the eye with a sharp stick and fill that weasel's helmet with bile and excrescence - and then take all their jobs away. No more coffee and donuts.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 9, 2007 05:02 PMWell, at least in this case the AP decided NOT to cover it rather than to mis-report it. There are other alternatives, such as going directly to your local paper and pointing them to Mr. Yon's generous offer. It doesn't *have* to be on a wire service to get published.
Posted by: crosspatch at July 9, 2007 05:43 PMWell, what do you expect from AP?
They haven't hit us with a "Free Bilal Hussein" screed in a while. Did their favorite jihad insider get sprung, or did he confess?
Ap is really hoping that the rule of law does NOT get established in Iraq. They have blood on their hands -- American blood, other Coalition blood, and veritable buckets of Iraqi blood.
The Iraqi courts haven't been shy about giving out death sentences. Justice for Bilal Hussein sounds great. Heck, it swings.
Posted by: Kevin R.C. O'Brien at July 9, 2007 06:10 PMPowers-that-be are doing a fine job of messing things up by themselves. No conspiracy required.
Posted by: John Bryan at July 9, 2007 07:14 PMWhen AP doesn't follow its own code of ethics, it is well and fair to point them out as unethical and unwilling to stand up to their own, published standards.
AP is not to be trusted without multiple, reliable sources for confirmation on anything. Until they can find their code of ethics and hold themselves to it and demonstrate it, that is how I treat them. An unethical organization with no standards to speak about, and that goes for *everything* they do.
Posted by: ajacksonian at July 9, 2007 08:39 PMFrom a British perspective (I am) I noted that John Simpson of the BBC has a report up on his interview with General Petraeus in Baqubah today on their website. No mention of the massacre of course despite being within 4 miles of the site, just like AP. No surprise with Simpson and the BBC of course, but worth noting the universality of what Bob is commenting on here.
Posted by: John Riddell at July 10, 2007 08:50 AMJohn Simpson also didn't mention five roadside bombs (about 20-30 killed, mostly policemen it seems), ambushes killing policemen, a suicide car bomb, 3 civilians deaths by US soldiers, a couple of kidnappings of generals, 12 kidnap murders, a gun battle between IED layers and Iraqi police who caught them, and a handful of tortured bodies in and around Bagdhad.
If he isn't going to mention these (Which happened the day of the interview), why on Earth would he mention the Yon story?
I know that if it bleeds it leads, but in Iraq there is so much blood splashing about it is hard to see why this story is so exciting. If you want to big up a story about Iraq improvements, why pick one where, basically, US troops arrive too late to save anyone or catch the bad guys, rather than the one above where Iraqi troops catch and engage a bunch of IED layers.
Posted by: Rafar at July 10, 2007 09:19 AMJust to make it clear look at this page, Monday's security events;
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3516/Iraq_Security_Developments_-_Monday
So why should everyone write about Yon's story when they all pretty much ignore the events in the article above? The descriptions are viceral and the pictures evocative, I'll admit, but, when the stories above are pretty much ignored, what is so special about it?
Posted by: Rafar at July 10, 2007 09:26 AMJohn Simpson also didn't mention five roadside bombs (about 20-30 killed, mostly policemen it seems), ambushes killing policemen, a suicide car bomb, 3 civilians deaths by US soldiers, a couple of kidnappings of generals, 12 kidnap murders, a gun battle between IED layers and Iraqi police who caught them, and a handful of tortured bodies in and around Bagdhad.
Which of course all happened within walking distance of newly found mass graves, right?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 10, 2007 09:39 AM"Which of course all happened within walking distance of newly found mass graves, right?"
You want to walk 4 miles around there?
But no, they all happened that day. And similar happened the day before. And the day before that. And....
In fact Simpson didn't mention any security incidents at all in his piece. Reporters rarely do if you notice. It has become background noise. But he should have mentioned this story because...because what?
Does it not seem likely that people aren't shouting about Yon's story because it is a "Dog bites man" story?
Posted by: Rafar at July 10, 2007 10:01 AMYou want to walk 4 miles around there?
I'd probably take a jeep with A/C.
But no, they all happened that day.
Wow - compelling! I'll bet lots of things happened on that day. Within 4 miles of the reporter though? Not so much.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 11, 2007 06:49 AM"Wow - compelling! I'll bet lots of things happened on that day. Within 4 miles of the reporter though? Not so much."
I'm completely missing your point now I suspect.
Simpson didn't mention any security incidents at all in his report. It wasn't that sort of report, but this lack of mentioning Yon's story is being stitched into the "The MSM want us to lose" storyline regardless.
Just so I can check, while I may not understand your point, you do get mine, don't you? That Yon's story of Al-Q killings is just background noise in terms of a normal day in Iraq.
Posted by: Rafar at July 11, 2007 08:02 AM
