AP and E&P: Perfect "Liars" Together

The AP and E&P have teamed up to perpetuate a lie. The details of their own story make that clear for anyone taking the time to actually parse it. The headline screams Many U.S. Troops in Iraq Oppose Escalation, so let's take a look.

In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.

So, let's see:

Spc. Don Roberts, who was stationed in Baghdad in 2004, said the situation had gotten worse because of increasing violence between Shiites and Sunnis.

"I don't know what could help at this point," said Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colo. "What would more guys do?

Okay, 2004, so Roberts was in Baghdad two years ago. Fair enough, but he doesn't seem to have been interviewed as he patrolled.

"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it," said Sgt. Josh Keim,...

As you'll see below, out of the so called dozens of interviews, Keim is the only one to actually express that opinion, except for one other individual who was against the war from the start. In reality, more soldiers interviewed support a surge of some type than oppose it.

Capt. Matt James, commander of the battalion's Company B, was careful in how he described the unit's impact since arriving in Baghdad.

"The idea in calling us in was to make things better here, but it's very complicated and complex," he said.

But James said more troops in combat would likely not have the desired effect. "The more guys we have training the Iraqi army the better," he said. "I would like to see a surge there."

I imagine it is complex. But we're over halfway through the story and so far out of dozens of interviews, the AP has provided only one source representing the view stipulated in the headline. James supports a surge with emphasis on training.

During a recent interview, Lt. Gen. Nasier Abadi, deputy chief of staff for the Iraqi army, said that instead of sending more U.S. soldiers, Washington should focus on furnishing his men with better equipment.

A fair point, perhaps. But, again, Abadi is not a US soldier on patrol.

"They're never going to be as effective as us," said 1st Lt. Sean McCaffrey, 24, of Shelton, Conn. "They don't have enough training or equipment or expertise."

McCaffrey does support a temporary surge in troop numbers, however, arguing that flooding Baghdad with more soldiers could "crush enemy forces all over the city instead of just pushing them from one area to another."

Pfc. Richard Grieco said it's hard to see how daily missions in Baghdad make a difference.

"If there's a plan to sweep through Baghdad and clear it, (more troops) could make a difference," said the 19-year-old from Slidell, La.

Sgt. James Simons, 24, of Tacoma, Wash., said Baghdad is so dangerous that U.S. forces spend much of their time in combat instead of training Iraqis.

"Baghdad is still like it was at the start of the war. We still have to knock out insurgents because things are too dangerous for us to train the Iraqis," he said.

Staff Sgt. Anthony Handly disagreed, saying Baghdad has made improvements many Americans aren't aware of.

Staff Sgt. Lee Knapp, 28, of Mobile, Ala., also supported a temporary troop surge,

Out of all the above, not one came out against a surge, while most seem to support it depending on the mission.

Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn't agree with.

A troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni," said Thompson

A total of two out of dozens of interviews don't see a surge helping, while the clear majority does. And they wonder why we don't trust the AP, or E&P. Headlined as it is, this story is a farce.

Comments

[reporter]

Dude... your dishonesty is breathtaking.

Why does the fact that Spc. Don Roberts was stationed in Baghdad in 2004 mean he wasn't interviewed as he patroled? Do you know he's home now? Did you make any attempt to contact him?

You deleted the second part of Grieco's quote to make him sound like he's not opposed to a surge: "But if we just dump troops in here like we've been doing, it's just going to make for more targets."

You write that "In reality, more soldiers interviewed support a surge of some type than oppose it." Um, do you really not understand the difference between interviewing someone and quoting them? The reporter says he interviewed "dozens" of the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment and found most opposed to a surge. Of course the minority viewpoint is going to also get represented, though.

Now maybe this reporter is a Jayson Blair type who just makes stuff up; you never can know. But unless you have any proof of that then you are the Jayson Blair type, just making stuff up while leveling unsubstantiated charges.

A farce indeed.

[greg]

A small aside - the comment at the end by Sgt Justin Thompson seems off to me. Sept 11 was over 5 years ago now. Unless he was in DEP for a rather long time, it seems unlikely that he's still on his first enlistment. Five year contracts, of course, exist - I know, I had one. But the reason mine was five years was due to the length of training for my MOS - a Marine 5953, ATC radar technician, is in school for at least a year on average. I've never heard of a grunt with a five year. Maybe he got stop-lossed. Who knows....it just sounded a bit phony to me.

[Mark]

Nice job Dan. I say send these liars an email and call them out on their bias.
letters@editorandpublisher.com and info@ap.org

Email away

[aye witness]

You've got a lot of folks at the AP, E&P, Reuters, etc. who spent time in journalism classes learning about all sorts of things having nothing to do with journalism; lots of talk about 'hermeneutics' 'social constructions' etc. etc. -- all basically jargon cover for soft, vaguely Gramscian, neo-Marxism (think Chomsky on the list of assigned readings, 'balanced' with something from, oh, the New Republic, perhaps). And now they are simply unable to do the most basic part of their job: report. What their predecessors of earlier generations - with only high-school diplomas if that - could do so well, today's journalists seem simply uanble: interview people, and report directly what the interviewees said. The issue here is not the correctness of the incorrectness of a troop surge policy. That is the job of policymakers, not journalists. The journalists' job is to simply report accurately what they observe and what they were told. But, alas, the "education" that they were given prevents them from doing it. I think arguably the worst thing to happen to journalism has been graduate journalist education.

[Dan Riehl]

"So you do the same thing as the story: you leap to a conclusion without providing supporting facts."

Looks like a case of Brain Dead Tree syndrome. I bet when you were "young" Pete, Mama fed you pablum and you loved it.

[Sweetie]

Reading headlines and then trying to find facts in the article to support the headline is a dangerous game. I did that for the 1st time about 4 years ago and I've been without a daily paper since shortly thereafter. Actually headlines unsupported by facts is just the tip of the iceberg. Far more damaging: the facts in the article can be used to create a different article with the exact opposite point of view. And that seems to be the case here.

Why can't the paper simply REPORT? They talked to X people, here are excerpts, go to the web to get the full discussion transcript and/or tape of the discussion. Headline: Converstaions with Soldiers on Patrol in Baghdad.

But we'll never get there because somewhere along the line the journalists figured out that they could manipulate the public - nothing neafarious, the unthinking masses simply can't be trusted to think through the complicated issues of the day so they must be told the 'answers' - and they won't give up that station unless the public forces them to do so. Somebody will do this and we'll have a Wal Mart in the media - killing off the rest one by one....until the media Wal Mart gets sloppy and a new entity knocks off that one. This is as obvious as CBS hiring Brit Hume over Katie Couric to host their evening news (or any network's news) in order to replicate what FNC did to to CNN. Alas, network news isn't run like a business so Brit didn't get the call and the possibility of straight, comprehensive reportage without editorializing isn't coming to your newspaper anytime soon (though 1st person accounts in Iraq are fairly abundant on the internet, thank goodness).

[Kerry]

"Many Journalists Liars, Others Disagree, Cite Dissembling as Fact"
"Not everyone knows anything, although some know nothing!"
"This Comes as The Fear is..."
"Many Disagree but some do not, while it is seen otherwise by a few, even as..."

[Old Kelly]

After 30 years of making a living as a journalist, I am now so ashamed of the wire service (AP) that I once depended on and the mag (E&P) that was read like the Bible throughout the industry.

[BlacquesJacquesShellacques]

ol pete, did you maybe comment on the wrong post? This post says nothing about victory and nothing about the usefulness of a surge.

The post was about lying liars.

Maybe the opinions of troops on the ground are important, maybe not.

But for damn sure they should be accurately reported, not distorted as part of an obvious political bias. Likewise, a post ought not be distorted by a commenter.

And what do you mean 'leap to a conclusion', 'can't tell' if they are liars? The post was a clear, well reasoned, well documented, proof that you can tell, and that the only reasonable conclusion is that they are lying liars. And all without leaping, jumping, running or even moving quickly to the conclusion.

[Fred Beloit]

Huh?

[submandave]

"Many Thanksgiving Diners Prefer Pumpkin Pie"
"Many Thanksgiving Diners Prefer Pecan Pie"

Both statements can be true simultaneously. Of course, choosing one headline over the other places the emphasis where the author desires.

[MikeB]

Ol Pete, you aren't making much sense...

"the conflict is almost exclusively Iraqis resisting an occupation"

That's not what the original article says, and it isn't what most media outlets have been reporting either. I thought it was Sunni vs. Shia, which each side trying to use the US military presense whenever possible to gain a leg up on the other. In fact, the most recent storyline is that a civil war is raging. Regardless, there is little reason to think the withdrawl of US forces will result in an immediate descrease in violence. Most likely, it would result in attempts by each side to settle scores for good. It'd also greatly increase the likelihood that Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia would get openly involved.

Anyway, the point that Dan is making is a good one -- that the reporting we see is often portraying a situation that doesn't exist. And it doesn't make any sense to do that since the situation is already difficult and complex enough as it is. We need intelligent and open debate and we need the plain truth from the media to do that. Instead we get a "Troops don't support more troops" headline that can't even be backed up by the story. Is the AP and E&P wrong? Their own story suggessts so, but the real point is that the reporting is so incompetent and just plain sucks so bad that we'll never really know.

[Fred Beloit]

"...Since the conflict is almost exclusively Iraqis resisting an occupation, there really isn't a moral basis...", so says Mr. Pete. Would he were right about those in conflict. Of course his entire ststement is (bnaaaah) false. It is not an occupation. It is a liberation during which we are trying to set the Iraqis firmly on their own two legs. And much of the conflict is between sects of the same general religion and between political factions. I winder if Mr. Pete is the bacon-eating, pork-chop-loving kind of guy his aka would lead us to believe. On the other hand maybe just another misinformed American who says he loves America.

[Bob Owens]

ol pete says: "What possible purpose would a surge serve? Who is it that you want to kill? Since the conflict is almost exclusively Iraqis resisting an occupation, there really isn't a moral basis."

And what, praytell, do you based your assumption that "Since the conflict is almost exclusively Iraqis resisting an occupation"? I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention over the past-—oh, say year or so-—but most of the casualties in Iraq at this point are not Coalition (i.e. "occupation") forces. Most of those being killed are dying in Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, either insurgents, terrorists, and criminals targets targeting Iraqi government forces, or more frequently, Sunni and Shia death squads targeting each other. Your description of the nature of the present conflict is almost completely incorrect.

In addition, a surge would potentially serve several important goals, depending on military strategy and tactics. If we decided to take down the Madhi Army militia and criminal gangs operating out of Sadr City and Najaf, a surge would serve a very important and immediate tactical advantage. If the recently capture of Iranian soldiers in Baghdad leads to a military response to this act of war by Iran—probably air strikes targeting IED manufacturing locations, refineries, or Iranian Naval or Marine forces inside Iran or on Persian Gulf islands and platforms—then a surge would provide a strategic deterrent force from the Mad Mullahs attempting an invasion of Iraq.

You strike me as the type who would rather have dictators like Saddam Hussein remain in power, terrorizing their own, just as long as the oil flows and it doesn't affect your life. To hear you or your contemporaries speak of having a "moral basis" for anything is itself a sick joke.

[memphian]

awww.... bless your heart, ol' pete. What more support for his conclusion could he possibly provide?

[Rick]

And ol pete posts slogans pour tout la vie for simpletons. From when he comes.

Cordially...

[ol pete]

So you do the same thing as the story: you leap to a conclusion without providing supporting facts. Are they liars? Can't tell. Are you? Sure. You have no idea what the truth is but because it isn't PC you do the bash the media thing.

What possible purpose would a surge serve? Who is it that you want to kill? Since the conflict is almost exclusively Iraqis resisting an occupation, there really isn't a moral basis.

But like fans rooting for their home team, "victory" is the only acceptable alternative. In truth the "failure" is a success. If Bush had installed the puppet he wanted, disgusting filth that he is, he would have just marched around the world installing fascist satellites.

Nothing about the invasion and occupation is for "democracy" or "justice." That's just the slogan du jour for the simpletons.

[old trooper]

P A, Bud, You are on target.

It is an ugly but very necessary fight.

We must change both attitude and tactics and win this fight.

Any other alternative clearly is not acceptable.

[Purple Avenger]

Its like that group of islanders in the south pacific who's conception of counting only goes up to around 8. Anything beyond that is just represented as "many".