Given the recent ugliness over the AP’s use of Iraqi police source Jamail Hussein in some sixty stories, and the resultant firestorm of skepticism over first his existence and, once it was determined that he did indeed exist, his trustworthiness, we’ve seen surprisingly little discussion (outside of the blogosphere) of the practice of cultivating sources in dangerous places, and how news organizations come to trust these sources.
In a piece published on the Washington Post’s Web site Sunday afternoon, (time stamped 2:36 p.m.) which essentially served as the working draft of reporter Ernesto Londono’s page 1 story in the Post this morning, we noticed what might be a nod to the controversy.
In the early Web draft, which focused on the crash of a U.S. military helicopter and the death of all thirteen American service members aboard, were the following passages:
Navy Capt. Frank Pascual, a member of a U.S. media relations team in the United Arab Emirates, told al-Arabiya television that the helicopter was believed to have suffered technical troubles before going down, the Associated Press reported.[emphasis ours]
Arkan al-Mujamai, 28, a day laborer who lives near the crash site, said in a telephone interview that the helicopter was shot down by a group of Sunni Muslim insurgents, one of whom is his uncle.
Mujamai said six Sunni insurgents were planting roadside bombs in the area when they saw a helicopter flying low overhead. One of the insurgents shot it down with a heavy machine gun, he said. Five of the insurgents, including his uncle, were missing Saturday night, and one returned with a wound on the left side of his upper body, he said.
Mujamai has provided The Washington Post with reliable information during past interviews, but his account Saturday could not be independently verified.
Beyond the fact that, as Spencer Ackerman suggests “Didn’t the Post just guarantee that its source is going to an interrogation room?”, what struck us about this passage is the Post’s revelation (which we haven’t seen before) that the source has provided “reliable information during past interviews,” and that “his account Saturday could not be independently verified.”
In the final draft of the article which, as we said, was on the front page of this morning’s paper, this qualifier was reduced to: “[the U.S. military] said they could not confirm accounts by Iraqi officials and civilians who said it was shot down by insurgents in a Sunni Muslim-dominated area of Diyala province.”
Not being privy to the ongoing reporting the Post invariably did on the story throughout the day yesterday, it’s impossible to say why the paper decided to take Mujamai’s account out of the story — an account, we must say, which was fascinating both in its detail and specificity. No doubt the Post had its reasons, but one can’t help but wonder if the AP’s recent travails in using Iraqi sources influenced the Post’s slide from specificity to generality in its reporting on this story.

Of course the AP "Jamil Hussein" story will and SHOULD filter down to reform in the MSM...
The AP STILL hasn't come clean about Hussein's claims... As Michelle Malkin's recent trip to Iraq has conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt..
The AP, relying on Jamil Hussein, initially reported that four mosques had been "destroyed" and that six Sunnis had been "burned alive"..
We now know that the mosques were NOT destroed and there is no evidence that anyone was burned alive... PERIOD..
The AP claimed to have a video to support its screwy lies... But now the organization is simply ignoring questions about the video.. The AP quietly pulled its claims about the destruction of the four mosques... Without correction or explanation, of course...
The AP admitted that it had been in contact with Jamil Hussein throughout the controversy over his existence, yet never posted a single quote from the man...
The AP knew that Hussein was unauthorized to release official information, yet nonethless referred to him as a "police captain", thereby conferring upon him the color of authority, and deliberately withholding the nature of his communications from AP readers..
The AP honchos still claim to "stand behind" Hussein... Well, they sure are, brother!... WAY, WAY behind him!..
Hussein was quoted as a source in more than SIXTY AP articles in the eight months before the controversy broke... But hasn't been quoted a SINGLE time since... EVEN THOUGH the AP has been in direct contact with him...
The AP's coverup of this story is the offspring of smelly yellow journalism that has become the cash crop of the MSM... And the misperception of the MSM elite that they remain immune from scrutiny or accountability, as they were before the blogosphere existed...
Posted by padikiller on Mon 22 Jan 2007 at 01:22 PM
Well via Iraqslogger I went to Michelle Malkins article in the NY post. Her NY post article(from 1/21) states 4 Sunni mosques were not destroyed as the AP reported, they are still standing. She includes a picture. I suspect she wanted to see these enormous structures reduce to a pile of rubble. Her point is that nothing the AP reports should be trusted. This is ludicrous to me but so be it. How many times have blogs been wrong, and she herself. I dont know if people were burned alive, as of now I think not. The AP had multiple sources (a sunni recanted after a visit by shia officials) so I understand why they printed the story. This doesnt diminish that daily horrific violence.
I am sure 6 people did die that day. I am sure 25 to 60 people were tortured to death and later dumped in the street. I am sure another few hundred escaped safely to Jordan or Syria adding to the 2 million that have already left the country. I am sure Sunni left predominately Shia areas and vice versa. Yes Malkin these stories stand up and the AP reports them regularly.
Hats off to Malkin for going to Iraq. Although I question how long she was there, was it even a week? John Burns of the NYT, perhaps the most respected and read reporter on Iraq, has been there for 4 years.I thought her best quote was from a US colonel. When receiving info from an Iraqi he has to take into account their clan, tribe and motivations. I am sure reporters are well aware of all this as well. Anyone with a half a brain is. But I am suppose to believe the AP(bc 6 people may or may not have been burned alive), and MSM in general, is a blame america first, terrorist supporting organization. Sorry cant make that leap.
What is laughable is Malkins own picture of a mosque kncluded in the article. She states the mosques are still standing and not destroyed. Her own picture shows massive fire damage it seems to me. There are black marks above the windows to an expansive, gynasium type room. It must have been a large fire, which to me means its fair to say it was at least partially destroyed. I am wondering if original AP article stated parts of the mosques were destroyed, in which case Malkin confirmed their story. Why just one picture Malkin? What about the other fire bombed mosque? She confirms that 2 mosques were fire-bombed in 2 rooms. She confirms that all 4 mosques had small arms fire damage to the outside.
Posted by Matt on Mon 22 Jan 2007 at 03:07 PM
Matt,
I thought that myself when I saw the photo of the Mosque. Yes the building is still standing, but it's obvious it sustained major damage. Malkin says this proves that the mosques weren't "destroyed" and hence AP lied. To me it proves that the mosque was attacked, heavily damaged and hence, provides substance for one of the main assertions of the AP story, especially since the story centered around fire damage.
So know we know Jamil Hussein exists, is a Captain in the precinct the AP said, and the mosques they mentioned were burnt. Let's keep digging.
Posted by not the senator on Mon 22 Jan 2007 at 04:53 PM
Malkin's blog has photos of worshippers praying inside the supposedly "destroyed" mosques the DAY AFTER the AP claims that they were "destroyed"..
Leave it to the froot loops to turn some bullet holes and smoke stains into utter "destruction"... Moonbat Doublespeak, Illustrated....
You liberal apologists can dance around the reality all you want...
But there it is... And it isn't going anywhere...
The AP has played dirty with Jamil Hussein from the start... (You liberals just ignore this fact, apparently in the hope that the truth will somehow evaporate or something)
The AP knew that Hussein was an unofficial source, yet refused to disclose this fact to readers, labeling him only as "police captain"...
The AP claimed to have a video to back up its story, but now simply ignores requests for information about it...
The AP altered its "destroyed mosque" claim, quietly and without correction or explanation... Knowing full well that its initial report of four destroyed mosques would incite emotion and even violence...
This is simply dirty journalism... Any way you look at it...
There is a reason the AP quit using Hussein as a source (even though it kept in close contact with him), and the AP ought to let its readers know the truth...
You liberals can dodge all you want... But the reality won't change simply because you want it to...
Posted by padikiller on Mon 22 Jan 2007 at 07:28 PM
Why does padikiller assume people who disagree with his viewpoint are liberals? Shouldn't he do some double-checking on that before making the assertion?
He might, for instance, want to get a couple sources before putting assertions into print.
He might even try looking over his writing to see if he evidences any bias!
Then again, perhaps he makes no claim to objectivity?
On the other hand, can we even be sure someone named padikiller really exists?
It would seem this young white male conservative Southerner from a rural background makes quite a few assumptions of his own!
(smile)
Posted by Stecxjo on Tue 23 Jan 2007 at 12:51 AM
Well the more I go to Malkin's blog the more she seems to confirm APs story. Just watched her hotair video showing one of the 4 mosques with its dome blown off. Another picture of significant fire damage. So yes parts of the mosques were destroyed. These are large structures,covering entire blocks it seems. It would take enormous effort to completely demolish even some of the mosque. I am sure parts were unharmed.
From the AP today-"In all, 137 people were killed or found dead across Iraq, including a teacher who was gunned down as she was on her way to work at a girls' school in a mainly Sunni area of Baghdad. The toll also included the bullet-riddled bodies of at least 30 people, apparent victims of death squads largely run by Shiite militias." But you see none of this is true bc the AP reported it, it is not reality. It is not authorized reporting. The AP is not interested in reality. They get all their info from terrorists or their sympathizers. They want to turn this country into a new Europe. These no nothing journalists were all trained by far left professors anyway.
I would take the advice of the US colonel that Malkin quotes. Why is she reporting this? Why is she telling me this? What clan does she come from and what are her biases?
Fighting terrorism and establishing democracy is a noble goal. Its how this administration is going about it that is a bit worrisome to me.
Posted by Matt on Tue 23 Jan 2007 at 01:14 AM
Beating a dead horse perhaps, but I went back and read the original AP reports and have yet to read any reports that state the mosques were "destroyed". AP states mosques were "torched", "blew up", "burned" and came under rpg, machine gun and small arm's fire. Nothing about destroyed mosques. Even confederateyankee's link to AP article never mentioned "destroyed"(despite quoting AP saying so). These blogs are stating that AP lied about having video evidence as well. Yankee believes there should be scorch marks on the ground from immolation. The AP claims to have video of gates being blown apart and extensive fire damage. Well hats off to Malkin bc she provides evidence of a dome blown off, doors or gates hanging off hinges and extensive fire damage. She also notes that indeed all 4 mosques were damaged by samll arm's fire. Some had minor damage, some had extensive damage. If someones has a link to AP stating the mosques were destroyed I would like to see it. It seems Malkin provided proof of some of AP's report. Mosques were torched, blown up and hit with bullets and rpgs. Onto to the immolation.
This is from an AP report pulled from USA today on 11/28 a few weeks into the controversy. Two AP reporters tried to verify story. They spoke to several residents in area "Two of the witnesses — a 45-year-old bookshop owner and a 48-year-old neighborhood grocery owner — gave nearly identical accounts of what happened. A third, a physician, said he saw the attack on the mosque from his home, saw it burning and heard people in the streets screaming that people had been set on fire. All three men are Sunni Muslims.
The two other witnesses said the mosque assault began in earnest about 2:30 p.m. after the arrival of the four vehicles filled with arms.(Mahdi Militia arrived earlier) They said the attackers fired into the mosque, then entered and set it on fire.
Then, the witnesses said, the attackers brought out six men, blindfolded and handcuffed, and lined them up on the street at the gate of the mosque. The witnesses said the six were doused with kerosene from a 1.3-gallon canister and set on fire at intervals, one after the other, with a torch made of rags. The fifth and sixth men in the line were set afire at the same time."
Also like to point out in the original story two morgue workers also confirmed they received bodies from the "immolation". These two refused to give their names out of fear of reprisal.
Posted by Matt on Tue 23 Jan 2007 at 07:04 PM
Found reference to destroyed on Townhall.com- Headline---- Sunnis claim mosques and houses burned by Shiite militia, police watch
By QAIS AL-BASHIR
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Sunni residents in a volatile northwest Baghdad neighborhood claimed Friday that revenge-seeking Shiite militiamen had destroyed four Sunni mosques, burned homes and killed many people, while the Shiite-dominated police force stood by and did nothing.
This is the first report about the incident that went out over the wire. The AP filed another report minutes later adding the immolation horror. Subsequent AP reports followed throught the next few days. The following reports accurately described the damage done to the mosques from what I have seen of Malkin's video and photos.So the only time AP used the word "destroyed" was qualified with "Sunnis claim". Hard to find bc the burned alive story and destroyed mosques were never together in same report.
Posted by Matt on Wed 24 Jan 2007 at 04:26 PM
Matt Dreams Away In McLearyland
So the only time AP used the word "destroyed" was qualified with "Sunnis claim
Padikiller Keeps It Real, As Usual
"In Hurriyah, the rampaging militiamen also burned and blew up four mosques and torched several homes in the district, Hussein said."
http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/APNov24Jamil3.doc
Only in McLearyland can something that has been "blown up" not qualify as having been "destroyed" in the process...
These McLearyites are off their screwy rockers!...
It's right out of an Orwell novel!...
Some questions to be asked here by sane people (questions that the liberal froot loops are avoiding like the plague) are..
WHY did the AP change from four mosques to one?... What information caused them to alter the story, when did the AP receive it, and where did it come from?...
WHY did Jamil Hussein claim that four mosques which were not blown up... Were blown up?...
WHY didn't the AP explain why it changed its story?...
If Hussein was wrong about the four mosques being "blown up", the WHY diod the AP claim to be sticking by him (even though it quit using him as a source)?
WHY in fact did the AP cease using Hussein as a source, since the AP claimed to have been in close contact with him during the controversy over his identity?...
WHY did the AP label Hussein as an official source when it KNEW that he was unauthorized to release information...
HUH?...
You liberal whack jobs can dance around these questions all you want, but the truth isn't going anywhere..
Posted by padikiller on Wed 24 Jan 2007 at 05:46 PM
Telling It Like It Is
"I think it's high time we get this straight once and for all...Jamil Hussein does not exist. The guy playing Jamil Hussein exists. There is a difference and it serves only the AP and their apologists and fellow travelers of distortion to keep referencing his existence as jamil."
"The problem is, of course...that Jamil Hussein is not genuine by any sane definition of the word, and the AP reporting attributed to him, in many respects is now proven baseless. "Jamil Hussein" did not exist on the rolls, the mosques in question were not destroyed, one of them was already abandoned at the time of alleged incident, no Sunni's were forcibly removed from the mosque, none were doused in kerosene, nor set on fire, nor shot in the head, nor watched by coalition forces, nor taken to a hospital morgue, or a cemetery. None of the civilians in the story, including women and children were murdered, and their houses were not burned to the ground. Virtually every gruesome aspect that made the story stand out...was false"
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/23/jamil-hussein-does-not-exist/
Posted by padikiller on Wed 24 Jan 2007 at 06:47 PM
I read the reports by AP and they became more in depth each time. They got the story straight. Jamil stated 4 mosques were blown up. Later AP clarified the damage. This goes on in every newspaper, everyday. Reporters give quick run down, and then (gasp!) talk to people, investigate. Talk to people other than the authorities. BC the authorities are known to lie. Remember Haditha.
For me it is laughable to say AHAA only one mosque was blown up the other three were only fire bombed, machine gunned and hit with rpgs. Are you even listening to yourself? (Actually AP never noted a dome was blown off, Malkin provided evidence of that- AP noted two were fire bombed). Either way Malkin proved that Jamil was accurate about 4 mosques being attacked, one had its dome blown off. I know some have trouble wrapping their heads around that. I think Malkin has proved Jamil is a reliable source with some qualifiers. The AP realizes that he is Sunni, he hates the Mahdi Army. I think Jamil passed on to AP what other Sunnis told him. How accurate would victims reports be if churchs in your neighborhood were machine gunned, fire bombed and blown up. I am sure the Mahdi Army was there with flowers and murdered no one, rumor has it they forgot their drills, blindfolds and handcuffs and called it a day after shooting and bombing the mosques. I am sure the Iraqi army and police immediately arrested all the perps even if they were Shia. Even though 200 plus Shias died horribly hours earlier in a series of Sunni attacks. Even though they have been repressed by Sunnis their whole life.
I am sure flopping aces and Malkin would arrest anyone trying to shoot or firebomb AP offices. They are paradigms of truth and justice, they dont see politics, they have no preconcieved notions, no dog in this fight. They want only the truth to come out. By the way how many Iraqi civilians have they talked to?
When you start believing your own propaganda its called drinking kool-aid. I believe Jamil doesnt exist ipso facto it is so. Ahh the world of magical thinking is so comforting, so easy.
Posted by Matt on Wed 24 Jan 2007 at 08:30 PM