The saga over whether or not Iraqi police Captain Jamail Hussein exists continues to chug along, much as it has for the past five weeks.
On November 24, the Associated Press’s Baghdad bureau reported that a group of militiamen snatched six Sunni men as they left a mosque in Baghdad, poured kerosene over them “and burned them alive as Iraqi soldiers stood by.” Capt. Hussein was named in the wire service’s report as confirming the incident, and, as we have come to find out, Hussein also was a named source in more than 60 AP stories during 2006.
Soon after the report came out, the American military and the Iraqi government denied that the incident occurred and that Capt. Hussein even exists. The AP, in not quite its proudest moment, replied with an unnecessarily haughty statement that said any “attempt to question the existence of the known police officer who spoke to the AP is frankly ludicrous and hints at a certain level of desperation to dispute or suppress the facts of the incident in question.”
Turns out it wasn’t quite so ludicrous, or else we would have seen some kind of definitive proof of Capt. Hussein’s existence.
To be fair, the AP did follow up on the story after the initial criticisms surfaced, producing multiple sources in the Baghdad neighborhood where the attack supposedly took place. But even that wasn’t enough. A few days later, the New York Times’ Tom Zeller reprinted an email from Baghdad reporter Ed Wong, who said that “We reached several people who told us about the mosque attacks, but said they had heard nothing of Sunni worshippers being burned alive. Any big news event travels quickly by word of mouth through Baghdad, aided by the enormous proliferation of cell phones here … Yet, as far as I know, there was no widespread talk of the incident.”
But all that took place in late November and early December, and since then, we’ve seen some evidence pointing to the existence of Capt. Hussein, and other evidence denying that he exists at all.
In short, the whole situation is a mess.
In today’s Editor & Publisher, Joe Strupp took another look at the issue, asking the AP’s Kathleen Carroll, the news service’s executive editor, where the story stood. Carroll told Strupp that the AP is standing by its statements confirming the existence of the Iraqi police Captain.
She went on say that Hussein “is a guy we’ve talked to for years … we don’t have anything new to say about it, nothing new to add.”
Linda Wagner, the AP’s director of media relations and public affairs, blew off Strupp in a similar fashion, telling him that “it would be highly unusual for any news organization to provide sources on the demands of critics.”
She’s right that it would be unusual, but this is an unusual case — and if the AP wants it to go away, it is going to have to own up to the realities of the situation one way or another. The facts are these: The AP is sticking to its story, and did some follow-up reporting, using additional sources, to bolster its initial reporting, but refuses to take the extra step of producing some hard evidence to confirm the existence of an important (and named!) source. Clearly, whatever the AP has done thus far isn’t enough.
We see no reason for the AP to have made up a source. But there has been so much back and forth on this story over the past five weeks that it’s time the AP produced the captain, or provide documentation that he exists, or tell us why no one can find a record of his employment by the Iraqi police. Since security is a very real concern here, we’re not calling for the AP to drag someone who is already an insurgent target in front of a bank of television cameras — rather, they could provide his information to the American and Iraqi authorities, who could then clarify the situation.
Stonewalling and hubris haven’t served the AP well thus far, and the appearance given by the Strupp story — of a circling of the wagons — leads naturally to the belief that something has gone wrong somewhere. Either the captain exists, or he does not, or the name is a pseudonym for someone who fears for his safety — a very real possibility in chaotic Baghdad. But whatever the truth is, the AP is hurting itself every day it refuses to acknowledge its critics. It’s time to present its case, for better or worse.





Boy!...
The CJR "watchdogs" are actually asking the AP to produce its heretofore invisible "police captain", Jamil Hussein!.... What's this?!... An honest-to-God call for MSM accountability from CJR?!....
And only a month and a half after the story broke!.... You CJR guys are really on the ball here, fellas!....
Well... Lest CJR's readers forget the Orwellian past regarding this "police captain".... CJR's sole previous article on the Jamil Hussein story lamented excessive scrutiny of what CJR at the time called a "small innaccuracy" in the AP's reporting.... And compared those who questioned the AP's reaction to Nazis...
That's right... NAZIS....
http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/the_curse_of_the_small_innaccu.php
It is truly pitiful that the supposedly "premier" academic journal of "professional journalism" has taken FIVE WEEKS to come around to reality in its call for simple accountability from the journalist juggernaut of our time....
But now that Mr. McLeary has apparently joined the "brownshirts" who have been tracking down Capt. Hussein for more than a month, maybe CJR will cut him more slack than they did to his Nazi collaborators....
You think?....
Posted by padikiller on Tue 2 Jan 2007 at 05:22 PM
Padkiller twists history to suit his own purposes.
Well... Lest CJR's readers forget the Orwellian past regarding this "police captain".... CJR's sole previous article on the Jamil Hussein story lamented excessive scrutiny of what CJR at the time called a "small inaccuracy" in the AP's reporting.... And compared those who questioned the AP's reaction to Nazis...
AhmNee sets the record straight.
CJR was reporting on the comments of a journalist for Slate.com by the name of Diane McWhorter. And when commenting itself on the story and use of the Nazi analogy, CJR calls what transpired "far from a Nazi tactic".
If Padkiller is going to criticize, he should at least actually read the article he's criticizing.
While I’m inclined to agree CJR may indeed be jumping into the search for this mysterious source a little late. The article Padkiller sites to support his argument is largely an analysis of views reported by others. One coming to much the same conclusion Padkiller was trying to based on the hodgepodge of out of context quotes he used to argue against this previous article.
If you want to argue this administration’s political tactics indisputable resemblance to the tactics used by the Nazi’s in relation to the use of "patriotism" as a political weapon among others. That’s an off topic debate for another time.
Posted by AhmNee on Wed 3 Jan 2007 at 02:37 PM
AhmNee Dowdifies Reality
And when commenting itself on the story and use of the Nazi analogy, CJR calls what transpired "far from a Nazi tactic".
padikiller notes the truth
Actually, my liberal little friend....
The CJR article stated of what transpired "This is far from a Nazi tactic, but that doesn't mean it's not worthy of note."
This observation would be what we call a COMPARISON of criticism of Jamilgate to Nazi tactics...
C-O-M-P-A-R-I-S-O-N
Kinda like I said the FIRST time, huh Sport?...
By the way.... I just LOVE this paragraph from CJR's earlier article...
"It is important to get to the truth here. But the point is that the bloggers and the U.S. Army, who reflexively denied the initial account, did so not because they were concerned with accuracy. They picked on it because they saw a chance to use a potentially false story -- though it seems clear now that it might be true after all -- as a way of throwing into question all the reporting from Iraq and, more specifically, undermining the characterization of the situation in the country as abysmal."
"it seems clear now that it might be true"
CJR's HIGH standard of journalistic accuracy, plainly stated by one of its lead "watchdogs"!....
Don't question a story that "seems" like it "might" be true, by God, or the MSM gods of "professional journalism" will take offense!...
(And you'll start looking like a Nazi, too)
What a HOOT!...
Posted by padikiller on Wed 3 Jan 2007 at 03:28 PM
You have a very interesting way of reading things, Padkiller. And, just to get this out of the way, your response was condecending, certainly. But it was not outright insulting. For that, I thank you.
I do find how you read that quote interesting, however.
"This is far from a Nazi tactic, but that doesn't mean it's not worthy of note."
In context this would seem to mean that the tactic of using small innaccuracies to invalidate the story as a whole is "of note". Not the comparison. CJR would seem to be calling this example of name calling or "Nazi-calling" overboard.
I will agree that "it seems clear now that it might be true" is at it's best weak language. What's clear about something that might be true? I'll hold my judgement for the time being until more information comes to light.
Posted by AhmNee on Wed 3 Jan 2007 at 03:57 PM
Kathy Carroll, the AP's executive editor, called it "ludicrous" when the blogosphere questioned the existence of Capt. Jamil Hussein..
An attitude clearly espoused by CJR at the time, when the "watchdogs" bemoaned criticism of what it considered to be, at worst, a mere harmless "mistake" on the AP's part......
And this was just FIVE WEEKS ago...
"Captain" Hussein was cited in more than SIXTY AP articles on more than TWO DOZEN acts of supposed violence in the eight months before his identity was questioned... But the funny thing is that he hasn't been quoted in a single AP article since...
Now WHY would the AP abandon a source it has used for so long, without a word of explanation to its readers, unless it had something to hide?...
HUH?..
Posted by padikiller on Wed 3 Jan 2007 at 04:23 PM
That I'm with you on. I understand the need to protect an officer or source if his life or career could be put in jeapordy. But that's not how this has been put into view of the public. He's been touted as a "known officer". Yet nobody knows him. Having a source under a psudonym like deepthroat or something is one thing. But don't try to pass off an anonymous source as a public servant, trying to use his supposed position for credibility.
You and I are on the same wavelength there.
And as I mentioned, I am inclined to agree that CJR is late getting to the party.
Posted by AhmNee on Wed 3 Jan 2007 at 04:38 PM
I've been reading Paul McCleary's articles on CJR Daily for awhile and have come to a conclusion: McCleary shot Padikiller's dog...or something equally offensive.
Either that, or Padikiller is secretly in love with McCleary. He certainly hangs on his every word.
Perhaps Padikiller sees himself as Hepburn to McCleary's Tracy. He's likely waiting with anticipation for the second act when through outrageous circumstances they're forced to share a private room on a train, a stuck elevator, or abandoned silver mine.
Posted by R.Severn on Thu 4 Jan 2007 at 01:36 PM
R.Severn wrote
Blah, blah, blah.... I don't like padikiller... blah, blah, blah... I don't have anything substantial to discuss about journalism.... blah, blah, blah... padikiller is mean to Paul McLeary... blah, blah, blah... blah, blah, blah.... "padikiller and Paul McCleary, sitting in a tree"... blah, blah, blah...
Another liberal doesn't like me...
Go figure...
Posted by padikiller on Thu 4 Jan 2007 at 02:11 PM
Here are some questions...
Couldn't dragging this guy out into the light put this guy unnecessarily at risk? Will the Malkinites and padikillers of the world going to put this guy up at her house when the bad guys come looking for him with AP photo in hand?
Did someone forget we've got a botched war going on over there and sticking locals on the press conference dais and shouting "Dance for us!" might not be the best thing for someone's health?
Posted by nitpicker on Thu 4 Jan 2007 at 03:37 PM
Note to self: Don't post angry. It leads to sloppy writing.
Note to padikiller: Don't post stupid. So...um...don't post.
Posted by nitpicker on Thu 4 Jan 2007 at 03:41 PM
nitpicker picks a rather silly nit
Couldn't dragging this guy {the so-far invisible "Police Captain" Jamil Hussein")out into the light put this guy unnecessarily at risk?
padikiller responds
LOL!...
The AP's executive editor, Kathleen Carrol, publicly gave "Capt." Hussein's supposed:
FULL NAME...
TITLE...
JOB LOCATIONS...
And you think that Michelle Malkin is "putting him at risk" by going over to shake hands with the elusive "Capt." Hussein?!.....
TOO FUNNY!...
Get real!....
Posted by padikiller on Thu 4 Jan 2007 at 05:30 PM
Definite proof you're an idiot, padikiller:The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.I believe that would both prove why he hasn't spoken since people raised a stink and why the AP couldn't get him to step forward, right?
I assume you'll apologize effusively now...
Posted by nitpicker on Thu 4 Jan 2007 at 06:38 PM
padikiller is wrong again!
Once again, padikiller is exposed as a misguided zealot. Trusting in the word of the Ministry of Information (which is riddled with Shiite militia members) PR guy versus the Associated Press was foolish. But once again, in the idealogical fervor to attack the "liberal MSM" wishes got ahead of reality.
Skepticism is always warranted, blind belief that the other side is alway wrong, is just plain fanaticism.
Posted by not the senator on Fri 5 Jan 2007 at 10:51 AM
nitpicker goes nuts
I assume you'll apologize effusively now...
padikiller responds
Apologize?....
For WHAT?....
For calling the AP's reporting and sourcing into question?...
You've GOT to be kidding!...
1. The recent rediscovery of Jamil Hussein comes to us from.... an AP dispatch!... So the AP was right?.... Because the AP SAYS so?.... We'll need to wait and see how Capt. Hussein and the MOI respond before we can make any assumptions regarding the facts here..
2. The issue has always been larger than the mere existence of Capt. Hussein. Neither I nor any of the other critics I have read have denied that the man existed... We just wanted him produced... HOWEVER, even by the AP's newest revelation, Hussein was clearly an unauthorized source of official information who was specifically banned from talking to reporters... The AP never disclosed this fact to its readers, but instead misrepresented Capt. Hussein as an offical source.. Obviously, any source violating the law, should be suspected of having some axe to grind... And the AP needs to explain this to its readers...
3. The AP story based on Capt. Hussein's information has changed without correction or explanation.. Originally the AP reported that its sources claimed that FOUR mosques were burned... Later the AP reduced that number to ONE mosque in a revision without explanation... This is sloppy reporting that needs to be explained...
4. The six supposedly "burned alive" Sunnis that Capt. Hussein allegedly witnessed are still nowhere to be found... The only other AP source on this story has since recanted, and aside from Capt. Hussein, the only remaining sources are three anonymous witnesses... Independent journalists on the ground, notably Ed Wong from the NY Times were unable to independently corroborate the story... Hell, evern AL-JAZEERA refused to corroborate the srory!... At the very least, the AP owes its readers an investigation and a follow-up...
5. The AP stopped using Capt. Hussein a source immediately after his identity was questioned... WHY?... He was used more than SIXTY times in the eight months prior to the "burned alive Sunnis" story.. The AP needs to explain his recent absence.
Indded the only entitywho owes any sort of "apology" or explanation here is the AP...
Posted by padikiller on Fri 5 Jan 2007 at 11:07 AM
That's why talking to you is such a waste of time. You're so deep into paranoid Never-Neverland that I'm sorry, even if you clap really, really loud you can't save TinkerBush.
The show's over, go home.
Posted by not the senator on Fri 5 Jan 2007 at 01:43 PM
Kathleen Carroll is Suddenly Worried About Jamil Hussein's Welfare
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528263
padikiller notes
The AP used Jamil Hussein as a named source for more than SIXTY stories in an eight month period...
NEVER telling AP readers that Husseing was unauthorized to release information...
And now, six weeks after his Hussein's "burned alive-Sunni's" story has been called into qurestion, the AP tells us that they are worried about his welfare because his phone has been disconnected in the last few days?......
HIS PHONE HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED IN THE LAST FEW DAYS?!?!?!
The WHOLE time this controversy has been brewing over a month and a half, the AP (it claims) has had Jamil Hussein on speed-dial... And yet NOT A SINGLE story has appeared with a quote from the man to clear up the mess surrounding his identity?!?!?!
WHAT ABOUT THE "WELFARE" OF THE AP'S READERS?... WHAT ABOUT THE DAMNED TRUTH?!...
What about the fact that NOBODY... Not the NY Times... Not even Al-Jazerra... Can corroborate Jamil Hussein's story about the six Sunnies who were supposedly burned alive?....
What about the fact that Hussein was (apparently) unauthorized to release ANY information?... What's his background?... Why has the AP discontinued using him as a source since the "Sunni massacre" story boke, even though the AP admits to being in contact with him?...
And WHY didn't the AP take Hussein's statement on the controversy to clear things up?!... They issued press release after press release from theirexecutive editor... And they had access to and communicated with Jamil Hussein during the controversy... So WHY didn't the AP simply let Mr. Hussein address the controversy?...
HUH?....
If they were "worried" about Mr. Hussein's "welfare" then obviously they KNEW that his release of information was unauthorized and thus unofficial... And obviously the articles using Hussein as a source should have made it clear that he was an unofficial source... But we find NOTHING in the SIXTY AP stories to indicate such knowledge... Indeed, Hussein is identified only as a police captain..
Posted by padikiller on Sat 6 Jan 2007 at 12:01 PM