AP fell way short again

3

On June 28th, Associated Press, Reuters and an Iraqi news outlet reported a grisly mass killing in Iraq, and Bob Owens tells a story about the story, and I think it's worth a long excerpt:

On Thursday, June 28, The Associated Press—and to a lesser extent, Reuters, and a small independent Iraqi news agency—ran stories claiming that 20 decapitated bodies had been found on or near the banks of the Tigris River in Um al-Abeed, a village near Salman Pak, southeast of Baghdad.

By 8:10, Thursday morning, I’d fired off the first of a series of queries to Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) Public Affairs and current and former liaisons with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior Civilian Police Assistance Training Team (CPATT) Public Affairs Office, asking what they knew of this claim. I was immediately suspect because of the dubious sourcing prominently noted in one version of the original Associated Press story:

The dead — all men aged 20 to 40 years old — had their hands and legs bound, and some of the heads were found next to the bodies, the officers said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information. The bodies were found in the Sunni Muslim village of Um al-Abeed, near the city of Salman Pak, which lies 14 miles southeast of Baghdad. One of the police officers is based in Baghdad and the other in Kut, 100 miles southeast of the capital. The Baghdad officer said he learned of the discovery because Iraq’s Interior Ministry, where he works, sent troops to the village to investigate. The Kut officer said he first heard the report through residents of the Salman Pak area.

Some other versions of the story (indeed, the most common variation) carried by American and international media outlets buried the distant locations of the two anonymous police sources six paragraphs further down in the story, under an account of a bus station bombing in Baghdad.

One can only guess why the Associated Press saw fit to distance the claim from the location of the sources, and only the editors at Fox News saw and corrected the Associated Press story to correctly pair the paragraphs stating the claimed mass beheading and the distant location of the story’s anonymous “police” sources.

Some, such as the Washington Post, more actively obfuscated the distant locations of the anonymous police sources, and instead merely allowed that the came from “separate commands.” The Post account also rewrote the story in such a way that it appears that there were three anonymous police sources.

Of the various versions of the AP story I saw released that day, only Fox News placed the paragraph citing the source’s locations directly with the paragraph citing the report.

Other news services, including Reuters and Iraqi news agency Voices of Iraq carried remarkably similar accounts, once again citing similar anonymous “police” sources.

There were no named sources from this story from any media outlet, and the two anonymous Iraq police officers cited in the widely-carried AP account were nowhere near the scene of the alleged massacre, with Um al-Abeed being roughly 12 miles from the southeast edges of Baghdad, and Kut being 75 miles away, respectively.

As I wrote later that day:

I’m not Associated Press reporter Sinan Salheddin, nor am I Kim Gamel, AP’s Baghdad news editor, but if I was investigating a story about a 20-corpse mass murder in—let’s say, Manhattan—then I’d try to find a local police officer at the scene to interview about the case.

I wouldn’t rely on a desk sergeant in Staten Island who merely heard reports of other officers being dispatched to check to see if there was such a crime, nor would I rely on a beat cop in Albany who is only reporting rumors of what he heard from friends of relatives in Queens.


By early Saturday morning, June 30, the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team (CPATT) working with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior and Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) Public Affairs released a statement stating that the beheading story was “completely false and fabricated by unknown sources.” MNF-I PAO LTC Christopher Garver was nice enough to note via email that my questions were “one of the queries which caused us to look into the story.”

Ultimately, the Associated Press and Reuters published stories —far less prominently than the initial beheading stories— admitting that their prior claims of a mass beheading were without merit, with Reuters adding:

Verifying reports in Iraq is very hard for journalists, who have been systematically targeted by different militant groups and rely extensively on local sources for information.

Paris-based press freedom advocates Reporters Without Borders estimate that over 180 journalists and media assistants have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, making Iraq the most dangerous place in the world to report.


Reuters is absolutely correct: reporting in Iraq is very dangerous work, and insurgent groups and terrorists do target journalists for assassination.

But it is equally true that insurgent groups and terrorists also use the media to plant false stories, and that media organizations consistently fail to find credible, independent sources to verify alleged atrocities and attacks before presenting an alleged story as fact.

Further, it appears that some news organizations, through a combination of questionable news-gathering techniques, insufficient editorial practices and indifferent -perhaps intractable- management, are more susceptible to running false and fabricated stories than others, with the Associated Press and Reuters being among the worst offenders.

Throughout the Iraq War, and with seemingly increasing frequency over the past year, these media outlets have become increasingly reliant upon anonymous sources and questionable sources hiding behind pseudonyms to deliver “news” with no apparent basis in fact.

In some of these instances, these wire services have been forced to retract days later, as they have with the false Um al-Abeed beheading story. Sadly, the international and national news outlets that often carry the initial claims as “page one” material fail to do so with the refutations, leaving most media consumers with the impression that the original account was accurate.

Remarkably, these news organizations continue to employ the same reporters and editors that have published multiple erroneous or highly suspect claims, or who have consistently cited discredited or disreputable sources.

Further, these wire services continue to employ newsgathering techniques that rely upon anonymous sources with little or no direct involvement with the story being reported, and often publish these claims as absolute fact, without any indication they are publishing what is often, at best, hearsay.

The MNF-I refutation of the Um al-Abeed decapitation story states that the claim was “completely false and fabricated by unknown sources.”

That isn’t exactly true. Both Reuters and the Associated Press presumably know precisely who their sources were for this story, as they know who their sources were for other discredited stories.

They just as they certainly know, or should know, which of their indigenous reporters—”stringers,” in industry parlance—have been providing these suspect or discredited stories, and which editors have allowed these stories to press based upon the flimsiest of evidence, which often does not meet the service’s own stated reportorial standards.

To date, these wire services have consistently failed to visibly enforce standards of reporting, and in some instances, have promoted employees involved in using questionable sources and printing false claims. Once promoted, these same employees only further degrade editorial standards, leading to the public’s increasing distrust of these news organizations.

Wire services are only as valuable as the amount of trust readers can invest in their reporting.

As the quality and accuracy of their stories shows a marked and consistent decline, we can only attribute this decline to a failure in editorial leadership, and wonder how much further the respective Boards of Directors for these agencies will allow their reputations to slip before they see a need to replace senior leadership and re-examine their management decisions, editorial standards, and field-level accountability.


The thing about wire services is their multiplier effect. With hundreds of media subscribers to their feeds, AP stories are spread worldwide in a matter of minutes. QandO outlines the damage done by this phony-baloney story:
CBS: “Southeast Of The City, 20 Beheaded Bodies Were Found.” MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ, ANCHOR: “At least 20 people were killed today when a car bomb exploded at a Baghdad bus depot. Southeast of the city, 20 beheaded bodies were found.” (CBS’s “Early Show,” 6/28/07)

McClatchy: “20 Beheaded Bodies Were Found On The Banks Of The Tigris River Southeast Of The Capital.” “A car bomb parked at a crowded Baghdad bus terminal killed at least 25 Thursday morning, while 20 beheaded bodies were found on the banks of the Tigris River southeast of the capital…The beheaded remains were found in the Sunni Muslim village of Um al Abeed, near the city of Salman Pak, 14 miles southeast of Baghdad. American forces launched a drive into Salman Pak and neighboring Arab Jabour two weeks ago. Ground forces commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno had said U.S. troops were heading into those areas in large numbers for the first time in three years. Iraqi forces recently also have fought suspected insurgents there. It was unclear whether the discovery of the bodies was related to the recent fighting.” (Mike Drummond, “Car bombs kill 30 in Baghdad, ending lull,” McClatchy Newspapers, 6/28/07)

AP: “Twenty Beheaded Bodies Were Discovered Today On The Banks Of The Tigris River Southeast Of Baghdad .” “Twenty beheaded bodies were discovered today on the banks of the Tigris River southeast of Baghdad, while a parked car bomb killed another 20 people in one of the capital's busy outdoor bus stations, police said. The beheaded remains were found in the Sunni Muslim village of Um al-Abeed, near the city of Salman Pak, which lies 14 miles southeast of Baghdad. The bodies — all men aged 20 to 40 years old — had their hands and legs bound, and some of the heads were found next to the bodies, two officers said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.” (Sinan Salaheddin, “20 beheaded bodies discovered,” Associated Press, 6/28/07)

Reuters: “Iraqi Police Find 20 Beheaded Bodies Near Baghdad.” “Iraqi authorities found the bodies of 20 beheaded men dumped on the banks of the river Tigris in the town of Salman Pak, just south of Baghdad, on Thursday, police said. Locals spotted the bodies and informed the police who have yet to identify the victims.” (Iraqi police find 20 beheaded bodies near Baghdad, Reuters, 6/28/07)

NPR: “Iraqi Authorities Said Today They Found The Bodies Of 20 Men Beheaded And Left On The Banks Of The Tigris.” “Now right in the path of the American forces is a city called Salman Pak, from which there is grim news this morning. Iraqi authorities said today they found the bodies of 20 men beheaded and left on the banks of the Tigris.” (National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition,” 6/28/07)

Chicago Tribune: “BODIES FOUND.” “BODIES FOUND: Villagers in Um al-Abeed reported finding 20 beheaded bodies, according to two police officers from separate commands. The Sunni village is near the city of Salman Pak, 15 miles southeast of the capital. Residents said that the victims were all men ages 20 to 40 and that their hands and legs had been bound, the officers said on condition of anonymity. Another police officer in eastern Baghdad said officials had heard the report and tried to send a force to confirm it but the mission was called off because the area was too dangerous.” (Tribune News Services, “Iraq Digest,” Chicago Tribune, 6/29/07)

The New York Times: “The Police Reported Finding 20 Decapitated Bodies.” “And the police reported finding 20 decapitated bodies — a hallmark of Sunni extremists — south of the capital, although other officials later disputed the account….The discovery of 20 headless bodies was made in the Om-Obaid village near the Tigris River southeast of Baghdad, according to a police official in nearby Madaen. A half-dozen heads were also found near the still-clothed bodies, which appeared to be of men of varying ages, he said. An Interior Ministry official asserted later that it was doubtful that bodies had in fact been found.” (Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Stephen Farrell, “Sectarian Attacks Kill Dozens In Baghdad,” The New York Times, 6/29/07)

The Washington Post: “Residents Found 20 Decapitated Bodies On The Banks Of The Tigris River Early Thursday, News Agencies Reported.” “In Madain, about 15 miles south of the capital, residents found 20 decapitated bodies on the banks of the Tigris River early Thursday, news agencies reported. The Associated Press said the bodies — men ages 20 to 40 — had their hands and legs bound, and some of the heads were found near the corpses.” (John Ward Anderson, “Residents Say 17 Killed by U.S. Were Not Insurgents,” The Washington Post, 7/29/07)


AP is the same organization that last November reported six burned bodies and four destroyed mosques in sectarian violence. The problem is, there is no evidence that anyone was burned to death and it is a fact that no mosques were destroyed. The source for the story was Jamil Hussein, a pseudononymous Baghdad police captain. Worse than just this story is the fact that Hussein was the single source in at least 40 other unverified stories that AP published. Last year, AP was guilty of passing off unverified rumors as factual news accounts, and here they doing the exact same thing with the alleged headless bodies in Salmon Pak.

At issue here isn't that bad things aren't happening in Iraq. They are, every single day. The point is that the reporting should be factual and verified. The result is that AP's reportage has painted a picture that is both untrue and worse than the reality. Since Iraq is in the top five of most important American issues, news media needs to get it right.

This also isn't a complaint about liberal bias because the problem is more basic: reporters and editors aren't doing their job because of lazy journalistic practices and a habit of following predetermined storylines. Not only do basic stories get misreported, but some stories get selected for publication while others never see the light of day. Consider the case of Michael Yon. He came upon a little town in Diyala province where 10 to 14 residents were murdered by al Qaeda. The facts are verified and indisputable, but they don't conform to the MSM storylines of a hopeless civil war:

In my dispatch, I reported that six people were killed, but mentioned that Iraqi soldiers were still digging out bodies when I left. A few hours ago, Colonel Hiduit put the number at 10-14, and said the search for bodies had ended. I made video of the graves, bodies and of interviews with Iraqi and American soldiers while we still were at the scene and have been working to make material from this available on this website.

As the investigation unfolds more pertinent details, I’ll continue to update the story. But the biggest question rippling across the internet–“Why hasn’t the mainstream media picked this up?” –is something only representatives of mainstream media can answer.

In fairness, several large outlets did publish it online: National Review Online and Fox News were both quick to place the story prominently on their websites. A few others also published excerpts. It was even briefly up on the Drudge Report. On the blog front, Instapundit, Hugh Hewitt, Blackfive, Andrew Sullivan, Captain’s Quarters and many others picked it up.

But for those publications who actually had people embedded in Baqubah when the story first broke and still failed to cover it, their malaise is inexplicable. I do not know why all failed to report the murders and booby-trapped village: apparently no reporters bothered to go out there, even though it’s only about 3.5 miles from this base. Any one of the reporters currently in Baqubah could still go to these coordinates and follow his or her nose and find the gravesites.

On this question of media selectivity, the blogosphere has become incensed that big media mostly ignored the murders, especially given that there are reporters currently in Baqubah. Newsbusters and countless others are on it. More disturbing to many bloggers is that major mainstream players were busted (again) by Pajamas Media just days ago for reporting outright fabrications of a “massacre” that never occurred.

Although I can’t answer to the cause of the problem, I humbly offer permission to media outlets to republish excerpts of the dispatch or the dispatch in its entirety, including my photographs from the story (if used as they are in the dispatch) at no cost during the month of July 2007. I only ask that the site receive proper attribution and that any publication taking me up on the offer email the website with the details.

If much of mainstream media does not recognize barbarity, clearly their readers can and do. Readers throughout the world might consider contacting their local papers and favorite websites with the link to this update. The story is very important in that it is well-documented with photos and video, and the Iraqi and American soldiers who were present are named and easily reachable. Those mainstream reporters currently in Baqubah could readily take up the baton.


As I see it, because al Qaeda was clearly culpable in a massacre, but interest from credentialed reporters and editors just wasn't there. As Engram has noted, the news media has gotten better at differentiating between al Qaeda and sectarian violence, but they still have a ways to go. Glenn Reynolds asks and answers his own question:
Why don't al Qaeda atrocities get media attention?

Because that might help Bush.


I don't believe Reynolds' "answer" is true, but the skewed misreporting hurts journalists' credibility and opens the door to those very questions. And I'll say this again: I don't give a rip anymore about Bush. He's shown to me that he's not qualified to be president. But I do care about deeply about Iraq, for the welfare of our country in this War Against Militant Islamism. If Iraq turns around, I'll be giving General Petraeus the credit for it, not Bush.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

And just...

(#49638)

look at this headline!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_fe_st/ocean_crossing_cat;_ylt=Al_nit8cFg_KwdOLHbMk3gjMWM0F

With a title like that, it makes sound like the cat swam across the ocean! Lousy MSM and their liberal bias...

I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine

I am sure AP will get the next massacre right

(#49394)

The "good news" is we only have to wait a week or so to find out.

I hope all the AP bashers remember to praise the dreaded Emmmm Essss Emmmm next week when they report that week's massacre correctly.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

You know what?

(#49396)

I hope they do get the next story of mass killings right, and all the ones after that, for everybody's sake.


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Who benefits if the AP get's everything exactly right?

(#49402)

My answer...the AP. For the rest of us the fiasco that is Iraq doesn't hinge on the AP getting any one story right or wrong. I doubt very highly that any political blogger of any stripe will argue with you about the traditional media being full of lazy reporters. The good news is there is enough information available that we can pretty much make up our own minds about any story that appears in the media.

"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion

Well, not any one story

(#49617)

But a consistent pattern, going either way (one way at the beginning and another at the end, it so happens) is a disservice to all of us.

As an article on media repetition

(#49381)


and failure to use or check sources in a dangerous
environment its makes reasonable points.

As an indication that the situation in Iraq is ok
and the media are organised to keep the 'good news'
out its a lot weaker.

But there is good news - killings are down to 40 a
day, if you dont mind the secrecy that the Iraqi
government hides the statistics behind...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6260084.stm

The media are organized to reinforce perceptions

(#49625)

No need to make Joe Sixpack do any thinking during his TV dinner.. so at the beginning, freedom was on the march and now, all is lost.

The funny thing is that it was wrong in both cases -- the media's slower to recognize an inflection point than it should be.

More Jamil Hussein?

(#49333)

Wasn't this particular meme rather embarrassingly debunked, and at length?

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

No

(#49346)

Several blogs questioned his existence. That was debunked. But the fact remains that Hussein spread rumors, not actual events. Worse, AP relied on his unverified reports in at least 40 other news stories.


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

I honestly don't believe you.

(#49376)

I have absolutely no reason to take the analysis or words of the folks who didn't "question" his existence, but outright staked their reputations on his lack of existence over the Associated Press.

The AP may be lazy and occasionally serve as a conservative mouthpiece, but compared to the conservosphere, its words are printed on stone tablets and carried down from mountains by elderly, bearded men.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

AP a conservative mouthpiece?

(#49395)

Nah. Their reportage consistently and overwhelmingly tilts left of center. There're orders of magnitude more examples of liberal bias than conservative when it comes to AP.

AP could have dispelled the controversy early on if they had just stated that Jamil Hussein but under a pseudonym. Instead, they stonewalled, lying by omission by not saying that "Jamil Hussein" was not his real name.

Whether you believe me or not is your choice, PM, but you should at least believe the facts, or in the case of Jamil Hussein, the lack thereof.


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Precisely my point.

(#49415)

Their reportage consistently and overwhelmingly tilts left of center.

This statement is so patently not the case that it confirms my initial bias toward disengagement.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

No One's Stopping You -nt-

(#49417)
M Scott Eiland's picture

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

I was kind of hoping BD would. -nt-

(#49421)

.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

I Doubt That BD Will Be Discouraged. . .

(#49424)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .by someone hinting that he's a liar and should shut up in a way that falls just short of being a posting rules violation.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Ah, Does Someone Like Luring People into Posting Rule Violation?

(#49459)


...I'm not complaining, but it was Username last week, MA and is it Punditus Maximus now?

Fun is fun, but that old Cross-Examination Game of "Gotcha!" should maybe be recognized for what it is...

Poisoned Bait...something to be noted and stepped around, nothing more.

Best Wishes, Traveller

If I Was. . .

(#49462)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .saying "you're about to violate posting rules" would be a pretty dumb way to do it.

Of course, if you think that PM is behaving completely appropriately, you're the one whose opinion actually matters.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

To clarify,

(#49536)

my ongoing thesis is that BD is being cynically misled by people who share his policy preferences but not his intellectual honesty.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

Interesting Explanation

(#49577)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Let's roll the tape:

"I honestly don't believe you."

Wow. How could I have missed reading that as the commenter expressing concern that noble, honest BD was being misled by those evol brown-people hating dishonest conservatives? I must need a new pair of glasses.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Clearly I viewed your misinterpretation as reasonable,

(#49600)

which is why I posted a clarification.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

Yes...Let's roll the tape: "I Honestly Don't Believe You..."

(#49582)

...sounds awfully Civil to me...unless the simple act of disagreeing with Bird Dog, (Quelle Horreur!) is sufficient to...to...to...

Well, I don't know what...but you seem to.

Twist those simple words till they scream...or sing for you whatever tune you wish.

Tortured interpretation is still....tortured.

Best Wishes, Traveller

I honestly don't believe

(#49584)

you are correct might remove any lingering ambiguity. Just a thought for future consideration.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

A nicely made point - MScott's. too.

(#49862)

Both allow the discussion/argument to develop regarding what was said, not how it was said. Thx.

Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live.  CJ Boxx

Or. . .

(#49586)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .to remove all ambiguity: "I don't believe your source and think it is a mistake for you to trust it." Not necessarily precisely in those words, but certainly in that general vein if the purpose is both to call the source dishonest and *not* to impugn the person trusting it.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Of all interpretations of my statements...

(#49434)

...that is certainly the most recent.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

Associated Press

(#49405)

* AP uncritically reported groups' reasons for excluding Ron Paul from Iowa forum
Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:29PM
* Message to media: Bush first to fund stem cell research only because GOP Congress blocked Clinton plan This article has video.
Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:41PM
* Media report McCain's attack on Reid but omit McCain's own criticism of military leaders This article has video.
Friday, June 15, 2007 4:16PM
* AP uncritically repeated Thompson campaign talking point: "If he runs, it will be as a Washington outsider"
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:12PM
* Media advanced McCain's false "flak" attack on Obama This article has video.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007 6:30PM
* Ignoring example of Griffin, AP cast concerns about Patriot Act provision as Democratic speculation
Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:08PM
* Media reported McCain claim of consistency on abortion, ignored history of waffling This article has video.
Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:21PM
* WSJ falsely suggested high court EPA ruling was a win for Bush administration This article has video.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:47PM
* Media pounced on Edwards' haircuts, but ignore Giuliani's Iowa farm snub
Monday, May 14, 2007 8:02PM
* Wash. Post, NY Times, AP reported Boehner's new timeline for Iraq progress without noting his previous one
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 5:42PM
* AP ran false headline on story reporting baseless GOP allegations against Pelosi
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 1:45PM
* Kurtz, AP differ on Matthews' objectivity, but both agree he doesn't favor Republicans This article has video.
Monday, May 7, 2007 8:18PM
* USA Today and AP uncritically reported GOP claims that terrorists will "follow us home" after Iraq withdrawal This article has audio.
Thursday, May 3, 2007 7:34PM
* What haircut stories tell us about the press
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:25PM
* AP uncritically reported McCain claim that terrorists "will follow us home" from Iraq -- experts disagree
Friday, April 27, 2007 3:23PM
* AP, Newsday uncritically report Giuliani assertion that 2003 and 1997 abortion ban exceptions were substantively different
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:00PM
* Media outlets reported that Reid said Iraq war "is lost," but failed to note his further comments This article has video.
Friday, April 20, 2007 6:37PM
* Reports by NY Times, others on Giuliani reaction to abortion decision did not mention apparent flip-flop
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:44PM
* AP reported that "pretty" Edwards patronized spa "that caters mostly to women"
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:25PM
* Echoing GOP attacks, AP, CNN's Roberts suggested Dem bill would "cut off" funds, strand troops This article has video.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:55PM
* Myths and Falsehoods: Congressional war spending bills
Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:07PM
* Print outlets reported Bush claim that decrease in border arrests is a sign of progress, but not that he said opposite in late 2005
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:01PM
* Media quoted criticism of Pelosi for wearing headscarf in Middle East without noting that Rice, Laura Bush have also done so
Thursday, April 5, 2007 6:32PM
* Media continued reports of Pelosi "trip trouble," ignored Republican-led delegation This article has video.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007 7:49PM
* AP's Loven asked Bush at presser if Pelosi's Syria trip was "pre-empting" diplomacy -- no mention of GOP visit
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 3:02PM
* Media outlets compared Iraq funding battle with 1995-96 shutdown without noting crucial differences This article has video.
Friday, March 30, 2007 7:54PM
* Print coverage failed to note Swift Boat Vets' claims have been debunked
Friday, March 30, 2007 4:38PM
* Media characterize expected standoff on Iraq funding as Congress "defiant" of Bush, not vice versa This article has video.
Friday, March 30, 2007 3:45PM
* AP falsely claimed Obama has "delivered no policy speeches" on campaign trail
Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:19PM
* AP headline touted McCain's "Straight Talk," but article documented his flip-flops
Monday, March 26, 2007 5:41PM
* Media revive, retool, and create anti-Gore smears and attacks This article has video.
Friday, March 23, 2007 1:20PM
* Print reports leave out DOJ rules, which would preclude Libby pardon by Bush This article has video.
Thursday, March 8, 2007 6:44PM
* Media Matters CIA leak case "dishonor" roll
Tuesday, March 6, 2007 6:18PM
* The press keeps spinning Hillary's Iraq vote

Monday, March 5, 2007 5:53PM
* Will media report Putnam's admission that his Pelosi allegations were baseless? This article has video.
Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:04PM
* Numerous media outlets attribute "slow bleed" rhetoric to Democrats This article has video.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:57PM
* AP, CNN, The State reported McCain's Roe comment without noting McCain's history of flip-flopping on overturning Roe This article has video.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:02PM
* In reporting GOP retraction of false attack on Pelosi, AP recycled jet, minimum wage smears
Friday, February 16, 2007 7:56PM
* The Pelosi smear: Stupid -- but kind of entertaining
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:08PM
* Contradicting prior reporting, AP said Obama attended Muslim school as a child
Monday, February 12, 2007 7:16PM
* In reporting on White House's defense of Pelosi, AP, SF Chronicle articles ignored RNC hit piece
Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:28PM
* NY Times, AP reported Donohue's criticism of Edwards campaign bloggers -- but ignored Donohue's own controversial comments and inconsistent outrage
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 11:05AM
* AP, Fox's Garrett, ABC's Tapper, Wash. Post's Baker reported false GOP claims on Iraq resolution debate This article has video.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:36PM
* While noting budget complaints, AP ignored GOP's failure to pass spending bills in '06
Thursday, February 1, 2007 7:01PM
* AP omitted Bush's track record in use of "Democrat" smear
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:42PM
# CNN informed viewers that Rep. Hunter "supports military" This article has video.
Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:03PM
# Media perpetuate myth that Gore claimed to have "invented" Internet
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:39PM
# Did AP cover same Bush speech as major papers?
Friday, January 12, 2007 5:35PM
# Warbloggers refuse to admit their errors in making fraud allegations against AP
Friday, January 5, 2007 6:26PM
# Fox News' Hume: AP "has been vindicated" on Iraq atrocity story This article has video.
Friday, January 5, 2007 1:21PM
Source.

I'll see your Soros-financed hardcore partisan liberal site,

(#49411)

and raise you Newsbusters.


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Just to pile on here

(#49466)

Newsbusters is less respectable than Media Matters.

NGO Watch is less respectable than Human Rights Watch.

Not recognizing this is starting to look like a pattern -- of simpy presuming the media is more biased than it is and being less than discerning.

Normative argument ??? :) NT

(#49472)

dude, Newsbusters claims that even Wikipedia is liberal

(#49444)

"Lib-pedia"
http://newsbusters.org/node/10615

but of course, shooting the messenger is a lazy man's game and an easy way to avoid the issue. I avoided mentioning that the articles came from MediaMatters until the end to avoid a conservative freakout. Next time I'll just plagiarize.

Again, undermining your case.

(#49419)

From their front page:

I keep seeing this talking point phrase in multiple MSM stories about the Libby conviction; "Libby was convicted in March, the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair roiled the Reagan administration in the 1980s."(emphasis, mine) This is a misleading statement that makes the reader imagine that no high-ranking Presidential appointee, adviser, or member of the White House has been convicted of anything or sentenced to anything since Reagan's era.

...

The chinks in the armor that is a supposed scientific consensus regarding man’s role in global warming continued to grow this week when it was identified that many of the folks involved in the most recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were not in agreement with the study’s findings.

(If you follow their links, you find that their supposed disagreements exist in the form of comments on unfinished drafts and not with the final product.)

...

Here's part of what an unbylined AP report said almost immediately after it was clear that the bill would not get the 60 votes needed for cloture: "The carefully crafted compromise was left for dead after a similar vote three weeks ago but was revived by Bush and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who gave opponents more chances to change it."

This is somehow an example of bias, because . . . it implied that both the President and the Senate Majority leader were working on an issue?

...

Barbra Streisand’s Praise of JFK and Clinton Insults Other Presidents

Thanks for letting us know what some actress did.

...

The AP story reported that the number of blacks joining the military "has plunged by more than one-third since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars began. Other job prospects are soaring and relatives of potential recruits increasingly are discouraging them from joining the armed services."

The story describes a Sean Glover in Washington, D.C., who "said he has done all he can to talk black relatives out of joining the military," quoting Glover to this effect:

"I don't think it's a good time. I don't support the government's efforts here and abroad. There's other ways you can pay for college. There's other ways you can get your life together. Joining the Army, the military, comes at a very high price."

This is an example of bias because it is allowing a person who disagrees with the Newsbusters editors to state his opinion, an opinion which is used as an example of the statements being made to African-American men mentioned in the paragraph previous.

...

and that's just the front page! Is it your contention that Media Matters is as much a pack of lying sacks as these people? Because if it is, that's fine, but it means that we on the Left have absolutely no reason to take this discussion seriously.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

Unfinished drafts?

(#49435)

No. Unfinished drafts aren't put out on the wires. AP has a practice of making corrections to errors without acknowledging the prior errors or the corrections made. The same thing happened when that little Jamil Hussein problem was exposed.

This is somehow an example of bias.

As they stated, it's an example of opinion-making masked as news coverage.

This is an example of bias because it is allowing a person who disagrees with the Newsbusters editors to state his opinion...

No, it's an example of one side stating an opinion and the other side not given the opportunity to express one. That is an apt example of bias.


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

The drafts in question

(#49453)

are the various stages of the IPCC report, not the AP story. Which doesn't exist, that's the "point" your site is making.

I have to confess myself a bit disappointed by the knee-jerk defense here...

I don't have time to poke through the entire report+comments but if someone wants to do an even-handed analysis of agree/disagree along the various stages that would be swell =)

Just from glancing at the comments to the final version I saw a few suggestions that the conclusions be strengthened. I wonder what the relative frequency of strengthen/weaken was.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

Follow the links, man.

(#49439)

Newsmax links to a press release, which links to the report. The page which contains the report has the unusual format of including previous drafts and comments on the drafts. The press release only cites disagreements on drafts of the report. That is, the big front-page story is that the drafts of the report contain comments which are critical of drafts of the report.

As for bias, the story is about what African-American men are being told that reduces their likelihood to enlist. It's not bias to include a sample statement; it may be sloppy reportage not to note that the statement isn't entirely correct, but including a quote which has nothing to do with the article's topic would be ridiculous.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

My mistake

(#49468)

I misread, thinking the unfinished draft was in reference to Libby.

As for the IPCC report, I don't where you came up with Newsmax. The press release does refer to the report draft. When did drafts of important studies all of a sudden not become newsworthy?


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Typo, my bad.

(#49535)

Typed "Newsmax" instead of "Newsbusters."

They're not newsworthy when the entire press release is about how some members of the panel disagree with drafts of the conclusions, which is kind of the definition of a draft.

The press release, as well as the Newsbusters article on it, are silliness, a game of gotcha telephone. It's like a long article about how someone publicly matriculated at the end of their senior year.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

I heard that matriculation story

(#49627)

seems like there were several students involved.

You Forgot. . .

(#49416)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .". . .run by an self-admitted professional liar-for-hire." Anyone quoting a source run by David Brock and funded by George Soros has no grounds to be questioning anyone else's integrity or reliability.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Hee.

(#49420)

I absolutely adore the Right's loathing of George Soros; it proves definitively the total cynicism of the democracy promotion line with respect to Iraq and the world at large.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

I Notice. . .

(#49423)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .you didn't mention David Brock--I take it that this particular example of being repeatedly proven a liar doesn't concern you as far as sourcing goes?

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Oh, Brock's a good point.

(#49425)

The man participated gleefully in the conservative lying-for-money industry and retained some of his habits after he found his conscience. Though I'm not sure how that's supposed to convince me that I should listen to the conservosphere instead of AP.

Separately, I've read a lot of Media Matters articles, and they have what we in the intertrons call links -- and they tend to make factually solid claims. So either Brock's changed his tune or he's not involved much.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

If you mean AP should have been embarassed and

(#49341)

only narrowly avoided by stubbornness, yeah.

More rearranging the chairs in the Titanic , I see

(#49315)

This place is my vacation.

Right. Because the facts don't matter when your mind's made up

(#49347)

Neither does the truth. That post on certainty was an interesting one. You should read it sometime.


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

It's not the facts that I question

(#49361)

It's the relevance. You keep looking at all these little details while totally missing the big picture. So the press makes mistakes? Wow, talk about nothing new. Spend a few hours at Dkos and you'll find dozens of examples, but from the other side.

You keep grasping at straws so as not to accept reality.

This place is my vacation.

Perhaps that's the problem

(#49393)

Spending too many hours at dKos, that is. I see the big picture and the reality and the facts just fine. I just haven't closed my mind on the matter.


"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

It doesn't seem that you see the big picture

(#49397)

since you obsess with little details such as whether the press got one event wrong out of thousands and miss the reality that even if the press reported everything 100% to your liking it would not change anything. Americans would still be against this war and the mess Bush and the war supporters created would still be there. I guess it gives you and others like you (at Redstate, for example) some type of pleasure to identify errors by the press because maybe that way, deep inside, you can convince yourself that that's an important story. But it isn't. The important story is that Bush and the pro-war Right got us into this mess because the had no clue what they were doing and were too arrogant to listen to those that did have the knowledge.

There is no saving this war. Nothing will happen that will ever justify the expense in lives, money, and reputation this disaster has cost. While a minority will continue to deny this, and pretend that somehow time will prove Bush and them right, the chances of that happening are basically nil.

Back in 2004 or 2005 your attempts at finding some sort of hope, some sort of silver lining, made sense. But this is mid 2007, our fifth year of this debacle. Americans have turned against this war as are now doing a growing number of GOP politicians. It will be up to the next Dem president to try to clean up what can be cleaned up.

This place is my vacation.

I'm sure Ken will be along

(#49386)

to remind us of the historical fallibility of the press and gently mock our outrage.

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

Consider it done... :) NT

(#49407)

More pointing out that they who would be Emporers have

(#49319)

no deck chairs, cook the news (big surprise there) -- and no clothes -- it seems...

There's this from Professor Glenn Reynolds:

"UPDATE: A journalist whose name you'd recognize emails:

Yon's story doesn't get attention because it is humiliating.

It is humiliating because it is obvious that we media – and our allies in the state department, the legal trade, the NGOs, the Democratic Party, the UN, etc., - can’t do squat about such determined use of force.

Our words, images, arguments and skills can’t stop the killing. Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve the problem, and we won’t admit that fact because the admission would weaken our influence and our claim to social status.

So we pretend Yon’s massacre – and the North Korean killing fields, the Arab treatment of women, the Arab hatred of Israel, etc. - doesn’t exist, and instead focus our emotions and attention on the somewhat-bad domestic things that we can ‘fix’ with our DC-based allies. Things such as Abu Ghraib, wiretapping, etc. When we ‘fix’ them, then we get status, applause, power, new jobs, ego, etc.

Please don’t be surprised. We media are an interest group not much different from the automakers, the unions, and the farmers."

From Instapundit LINK ©
(Scroll down, third item under July 3)

The Prof says it's from a known journalist and I have no reason to doubt that. Regardless, it smacks of the terrible truth, thus my "would be Emperors" -- they've always had a delusion about their power...

It is also notable that Agencie France Presse did NOT do the 20 decapitated story. Why? They said because they could not verify it...

Good for them.

anonymous sources are fine when glen uses them

(#49332)

I'm not one of those who object, pro forma, to anyone's

(#49340)

being linked nor to anonymous sources, so that comment was wasted on me. As I said, I have no reason to doubt it's real -- but even if it is not, it tracks with reality.

Reality as I think the media see themselves. Recall the Newsweek Editor who made the claim that the media was worth fifteen points to John Kerry LINK(scroll down to 3rd item). If that's true, then Kerry would have got only 34% of the vote had the media not been pretty much totally supporting him. If you believe that, I have a bridge...