Shocking Twist, and Malkin doesn't have to go to Iraq

[Lanya]

Michael,
This should acquaint you with this story.  It is the right wingosphere gone amok. 

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/credibility-of-right-wing-blogosphere.html

[BT]

Lanya,

I'm sure Mikey is quite familiar with hyperbole, however in this case his quest is the truth.

Why send him down dead end streets?

[Michael Tee]

Well, I followed BT's advice to familiarize myself with the facts of this case "before I embarrass myself further," which I consider a very sportsmanlike warning and want to thank BT for regardless of what I am going to say further on in this post, and I also wanted to thank Lanya for posting the link to the story which I read top to bottom.  And the results of my further familiarizing myself with this story are:

nothing.  Zip.  Zilch.  I already had the basics of this rather simple story.  AP publishes stories using "source" Jamil Hussein an Iraqi captain, the US military and the Iraqi "government" take exceptions to the stories which are about the Iraqi army or Shi'ite death squads protected by them burning Sunnis alive in a mosque, US military claims that Captain Jamil Hussein is not a Baghdad police captain or an employee of the Ministry of the Interior, right-wing nutjobs including Malkin claim the guy is nonexistent and the AP made him up and then the MOI six weeks later admits the guy exists and is their employee.  Maybe got a couple of trivial details wrong or omitted, but that's basically the story and it's basically the story I've been commenting on up to now.

I should say, in my comments which were directed to BT's arguments that the AP was paying (bribing) the MOI to "find" Jamil on its records so as to avoid the embarrassment of having disseminated false news based on fake sources,a great deal of sarcasm was freely employed to ridicule BT's theories.  Some of the sarcasm took the form of re-stating BT's views in a context which would make their ridiculousness even more apparent than they might appear on first reading.  I am wondering now if Lanya and/or BT failed to follow the sarcasm in my posts and felt that I was misstating actual facts or had failed to understand the situation.  If so, the fault would be entirely mine, for writing with insufficient clarity.

However, having re-familiarized myself with a summary of the case as provided by Lanya's link, I have to say that I stand by everything that I've posted up to now on this and if there are errors or fallacies there, please have at me.  Bring it on!!

[Lanya]

Michael,
I thought you were doing fine; I just wanted to post that article by Glenn Greenwald.   He summed it up so well.   
I've been reading about this a lot lately. 

Here's something I'd forgotten:

Meanwhile, Brian Whitaker, Middle East editor at The Guardian of London since 2000, concludes his summary of the latest twist today this way: "Because of the number of reporters quoting Jamil Hussein, the bloggers were in effect alleging a generalised conspiracy by AP's Baghdad staff to deceive the news-reading public - an idea so unlikely as to be almost incredible.

"Interestingly, something similar happened with the hoax allegations relating to the Lebanese ambulances. As the bloggers pursued their claims, the only way they could support their claims was by implicating more and more Red Cross workers in a conspiracy to deceive - a conspiracy that, in the end, existed only in their imaginations.

"Back in Iraq, the good news today is that Capt Jamil Hussein really does exist, and the interior ministry's spokesman has finally and officially confirmed it. The bad news is that they have issued a warrant for his arrest for 'having contacts with the media.'

"Congratulations, bloggers. He won't be talking to AP again now."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528028

[BT]

The are a few minor details you missed. The MOI also said they had no Jamil Huseein on there roles.

AP insisted that he did but failed to produce him for the six weeks or so this controversy took place, in fact he still hasn't been produced. What has happened is the same functionary who said he did not exist , now says he does, conveniently getting AP off the hook.

I'm not sure they get to claim victory on the issue without producing a body.

And Greenwald has been challenged all over the blogosphre. He is one of those who posts on right leaning blogs under assumed names praising himself, yet is so lame he doesn't realize that IPs can be checked. On more than one occasion he has been found having dialogs and lovefests with himself.

[Michael Tee]

<<What has happened is the same functionary who said he did not exist , now says he does, conveniently getting AP off the hook. >>

Well this is consistent with two scenarios, one that AP induced the functionary to change his story in order to cover up for dishonest staff and spare themselves embarrassment.  Not only would this be a very foolish course for AP to follow (it risks further and greater embarrassment when the U.S. military with all the power at its disposal uncovers the flipflop and inculpates AP) but it runs counter to the actions of every other news agency or medium that I am aware of, which are to fire the wrongdoer (who is very easily replaceable,) apologize to its readers and move on.  Frankly, I find it hard to believe that AP would bribe the functionary to cover for its dishonest employees - - it's illogical, unethical, bad for business, and risks immediate exposure.  AND no other news agency or other employer of dishonest journalists has ever, to my knowledge, ever dealt with the situation that way.  Probably for the very reasons I just gave.

The second interpretation is that the U.S. military and/or the Iraqi "government" are once again caught in another of their innumberable stupid and pathetic lies to try to cover up yet another instance of their insane violence and atrocities against innocent civilians.  This is something that HAS happened before, numerous times, and will happen again, numerous times, as long as the U.S. sends its armed thugs and goons to murder, torture, rob and rape in the Third World.  It's an old story, unfortunately, but one that I have no trouble believing, for (a) there is ample historical precedent and (b) it is simple, believable and does not require any stretching of my imagination.  Unlike BT's weird theory.

[Amianthus]

but it runs counter to the actions of every other news agency or medium that I am aware of, which are to fire the wrongdoer (who is very easily replaceable,) apologize to its readers and move on.

This isn't the first time NBC's news division got caught with their fingers in the fabrication cookie jar: In 1993, NBC's "Dateline" aired a story on exploding General Motors pickup trucks. The show alleged that the trucks were unsafe because upon impact they are liable to explode.

However, during their tests, they just couldn't get the darn test truck to explode for the camera. So they hooked up some hidden explosives and staged the segment. NBC didn't admit to the deception until threatened by a lawsuit and public ridicule.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=7805

[Plane]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/ap_says_iraqi_g.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamil_Hussein

Associated Press maintains that after questions about the accuracy of events were raised, they returned and found 'more witnesses who described the attack in particular detail'; these new witnesses are all anonymous,"

I could beleive this or not , this is the kind of crime that is really being committed , it is also the kind of lie that is often being told in justification of other crimes.

Agent Provocateurs are wanting more pointless fighting , what object do they have in mind?

[Michael Tee]

Exploding trucks - - story not clear about WHO planted explosives - - management or the same team that produced the original bad story?  Either way, no one was committing any criminal act by faking an exploding truck and whoever it was risked nothing more than a civil lawsuit and public ridicule.  Bribing a foreign government officer is a federal crime in the U.S.A. and that's a ridiculous risk for management to run when the alternative would be to just fire the offending reporter(s) and take their lumps.  Nobody even remembers the exploding truck story today.

Returning to find more witnesses doesn't strike me as out of ordinary possibilities.  Why would they keep taking more witnesses the first time once they already had enough for the show they were producing?

[BT]

Prior to Jamilgate, Hussein was listed as a source in 61 AP stories. 61 AP stories that were not corroborated by any other news agency. Sounds like he was readily available then. Since the burning at the mosque story, Jamil has not been quoted once.

What is up with that?

[Michael Tee]

Prior to Jamilgate, Hussein was listed as a source in 61 AP stories. 61 AP stories that were not corroborated by any other news agency. Sounds like he was readily available then. Since the burning at the mosque story, Jamil has not been quoted once.

What is up with that?

Easy.  He's more scared of the Iraqi "government" and their U.S. military "advisors" who told him to shut up and make himself scarce than he is of the A.P.  After all, how many people has the A.P. burned alive?

[BT]

Easy.

Not so easy.

He was quoted as a named source in 61 stories prior to that. Over an extended period. If he was afraid of the authorities why be named on record. My guess is he never existed. And his non existence would be brought to light by those meddling bloggers demanding that AP produce their eye witness.

Seems to me the asiest way to make the problem go away is to bribe a whore collaborator with the occupation army to say oh yeah he does exist but he is on the lam because even though we didn't chase him down when he was named in 61 previous stories, the last one was over the line.

[Michael Tee]

Easy.

Not so easy.

He was quoted as a named source in 61 stories prior to that. Over an extended period. If he was afraid of the authorities why be named on record.

It's laughably easy.  How many of the 61 stories were about Sunnis being burned alive in a mosque by the Iraqi "government?"  A child could see what happened.  The guy is quoted on 60 stories that don't attract anyone's ire, and the one "bad" story that shouldn't have gotten out, THAT'S the one that gets the "government" and its U.S. "advisers" a mite peeved.  If they haven't killed the guy by now, they have probably told him to make himself scarce, and if he knows what's good for him, that's EXACTLY what he'll do.  As I said, he has a lot more reason to fear the "government" and its American "advisors" than he does to fear the A.P.

[Lanya]

That's how I see it too.  The 'burned alive' story was the one that got him noticed, which in wartime Iraq is not a good thing. I just hope he's still alive.
The thing that gets me about this is Michelle Malkin and her ilk really do believe that the AP is just making shit up.  Why would they do that? Oh, nothing better to do, I guess.  It's crazy.

[Amianthus]

The thing that gets me about this is Michelle Malkin and her ilk really do believe that the AP is just making shit up.  Why would they do that? Oh, nothing better to do, I guess.  It's crazy.

CBS memos wiped from your mind? The NBC "trucks blowing up" story I mentioned earlier?

The news services have a long history of "making shit up."