AP's Carrol Is Wrong On Jamil Hussein

Update: Rick Moran weighs in here. But there's a point in this I overlooked. Jamil Hussein's name was on a list of several AP's sources under scrutiny. Is AP's Carroll suggesting bloggers put all of them in danger, too?

As Charles at lgf points out, AP's Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll now says she is concerned for the well being of Jamil Hussein and places the blame for that on bloggers; however, that is not what the record actually reflects. Stripping away Carroll's hyperbole and looking at the facts, if anything, the blog coverage of the Hussein issue may well have done more to protect him, than did the AP.

NEW YORK Associated Press Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll on Friday criticized those who questioned the existence of an AP Iraq source, who was proven this week to be real, saying the scrutiny has now endangered the man’s life.

Read Carroll's first statement on the issue:

No organization has done more to try to shed light on what happened Nov. 24 in the Hurriyah neighborhood of Baghdad than The Associated Press.

We have not ignored the questions about our work raised by the U.S. military and later, by the Iraqi Interior Ministry. Indeed, we published those questions while also sending AP journalists back out to the scene to dig further into what happened and why others might be questioning the initial accounts.

The reality is this, the AP used a named source - with his approval, I assume - to report a highly controversial event which both the US military and the Iraqi ministry questioned. To begin with, Carroll's assertion of Hussein's being in danger, were it valid, would amount to a statement that under no circumstances is anyone allowed to ever question AP's reporting, or an AP named source. That is complete nonsense and reflects more of a problem with Carroll's and evidently AP's thinking, than it does any issue for blogs.

Furthermore, it was not the blog coverage which caused the military and Iraqi government to respond, as the military stated in their initial press release, it was the broad International media coverage the AP's reporting initiated that caused the focus on this event.

On Nov. 24, 2006, your organization published an article by Qais Al-Bashir about six Sunnis being burned alive in the presence of Iraqi Police officers. This news item, which is below, received an enormous amount of coverage internationally.

For Carroll's assertion that Hussein is in danger one must assume that there is an element of the Iraqi government that would harm him for having been a primary source for the story. The other initial source, Imad al-Hashimi, retracted his statements after a visit from the Iraqi Defense Ministry.

Without arguing that first point, one need only answer two simple questions to reach the conclusion that the blog coverage of this incident would be more to Hussein's benefit, than harm. Assuming he was in danger for being an AP named source, which is more likely: that these assumed to be dangerous elements of the Iraqi government would quietly take out an individual after the drive by media was long gone and onto another story? or that they would be reluctant to do so because blogger coverage has kept the issue and Jamil Hussein's name in the news?

I'd argue that Carroll has it backwards while at the same time ducking any AP responsibility for their starting this entire affair with their consistently altered news reports of events in Hurriyah.

The fact is, AP's shoddy reporting aside, if their unsubstantiated assertion of his being in danger is correct, it is more likely that his visibility brought about by blog coverage is more cover for him, than cause for alarm. Finally, the AP showed no such concern for Hussein by repeatedly reporting uncorroborated accounts of events in Iraq with Jamil Hussein as their named source in 60-plus stories over a period of months.

Carroll wants to have it both ways ... they led on the immolation story, oh but now it's someone else's fault. Sorry, but that reasoning doesn't wash. And she has yet to account for her support of the AP's incompetent reporting on Hurricane Katrina.

From what I can see, Carroll and the AP are reluctant to ever take responsibility for anything, which has mostly been the primary charge of many bloggers against the MSM and allegedly reliable news operations like the AP all along.

And if she doesn't want to hear it from a blogger, she can check out a round up via a journalist and, I assume, AP customer here via Jules.

Comments

[JOD]

They found an AP reporter. The bloggers weren't there.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

I admit I found it puzzling how the AP thought that it was their critics who were endangering Hussein - if he exists, which I consider possible but still unproven, BTW. Iraqi police are not supposed to give unapproved comments to media; AP gets him to comment on the record dozens of times. That would seem to be what is placing him in danger of arrest. Bloggers accused him of the crime of not existing - hard to know how to arrest someone for that.

It is the AP's handling of this from start to present that has increased suspicion. The fact that something looks like a coverup doesn't make it so, but it increases the possibility. This accusation on their part, for example, is not reasoned and sober, but seems reactive. In the fog of war it is possible that the AP did indeed just sort of lose track of someone quite legitimate and reacted poorly to being challenged. That wouldn't be a very serious failing on their part. Getting information is hard and things don't go perfectly. Why not say that? "Tracing back to voluntary sources in wartime isn't as easy as you might think, and the AP will get back to you. If that seems suspicious to bloggers, too bad, it's a fact of war." But they didn't say that.

We all have strong tendencies to favor information and sources we want to be correct, of course. But the panic with which the AP defenders have seized upon any scrap that might make them look right, rather than suggesting interpretations and waiting for more data, makes them less convincing, not more.

[The Liberal Avenger]

If Jamail Hussein is injured or killed, the conservative blogger lynch mob will be partially responsible.

[AJ Lynch]

Since I blog and my name is really Lynch, I'd like to get more than just partial credit.

[SDN]

Just like when US Soldiers are killed, the liberal blogger lynch mob that defends outing of classified programs will be responsible. I'll admit to one when you admit to the other, LA.

Of course, getting US soldiers killed might be a tad worse (to an American) than an Iraqi leaking false information. But that's just me.

[Daniel]

Maybe AP's Exec Editor Kathleen Carroll is claiming the danger part because of this???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_ap_staffer

Whatever works, Kathleen.

Doesn't matter though to those of us that have actual brains in the heads on our shoulders.

[don surber]

Plus on top of that they used his name for 6 months before that

Lost in all this: The contention that 6 Sunnis were immolated. The U.S. military denied this. Jamil/Jamail was 2ndary

[Portnoy's complaint]

And if Lucy Ramirez is also injured we can blame that VRW conspiracy too!
Dink.

[Purple Avenger]

"If Jamail Hussein is injured or killed..."

THAT would be quite a trick. I've seen nothing resembling an actual proof of life so far. Assertions don't cut it.

Habeas Corpus.

[Rob Crawford]

"If Jamail Hussein is injured or killed, the conservative blogger lynch mob will be partially responsible."

So the handful of people who questioned the fellow's existence and honesty bear responsibility, but the organization that published his name world-wide over 60 times would not?

Or, just maybe, Hussein's habit of peddling sensational stories to the press put him in danger, and the person to blame is Hussein himself.

[Andrew Bryant]

If Capt. Jamil Hussein was named as a source in over 60 published reports by the AP, why is the Iraqi authorities just now trying to have him arrested? Why didn't they have a problem with him talking to reporters prior to now?

If it was against some law for Capt. Jamil Hussein to talk with reporters, why would he voluntarily allow the AP to name him as their primary source for the Nov. 24, 2006 story and also name him in over 60 other stories?

And doesn't AP's Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll see the irony in blaming bloggers for calling attention to the name Capt. Jamil Hussein?

It seems to me 60-plus stories with Capt. Jamil Hussein named as either their primary source or as a source, was enough attention for authorities.

[Carol Herman]

How does the AP pay its stringers? And, if the answer is "by check," where's the validated cancelled check?

IF by agent, where the "agent" representing the talent gets the check, where's the paper trail?

Obviously, the AP has chosen to LIE.

You'd think they'd know better, given how they were able to take out Nixon, by the way he mishandled the press.

And, if all the 60-plus stories by "Capt. Jamil Hussein" were tracked, would they look like the work of Jayson Blair?

[Bill Faith]

Excellent post, Dan. I added and excerpt and link to "CENTCOM says AP's Iraqi police source isn't Iraqi police -- Part 31" -- http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/2007/01/jamil_identifie_2.html. Gonna cry myself to sleep tonight worrying about poor innocent widdle Jamil being in hot water because of all those mean old bloggers. Bwu-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[Uncle Bunny]

My apologies but...have you apologized yet? Just wondering.

[DRJ]

Part of the problem is that there are inconsistencies in identification. Apparently he is "Jamil Hussein" for the purposes of AP sourcing but "Jamil Gulaim" in his job as a police officer. So the AP may be right that its source is endangered, but the AP's use of a fictitious or incomplete name was the basis for the confusion and resulting problem. Here's a link to a post on the name inconsistency: http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/06/new-twists-in-the-jamil-hussei/

[Joe Wilson]

Yep, Hume was right anbout you guys:

From Charles:

"If you read the lefty blogs, I’m supposed to be dressed in sackcloth, rubbing ashes into my hair and wailing, “Oh, how could I have been so wrong! I am worthless! Kill me instead of the noble Jamil Hussein!” Instead I traded the sackcloth for some Pearl Izumi bike clothes and went for a 40-mile ride on a beautiful crisp winter SoCal day, keeping the cadence high and the cardiovascular system in a nice sweat-inducing upper aerobic zone. Average temperature 60.2 degrees F., wind from the southwest at a maximum of 9.2 mph. No serious climbing today, therefore no rapid descents; maximum speed was a relatively sedate 29.8 mph, with an average cadence of 86 rpm. Now where did I put those ashes?"

You do not have to be right about anything but am amazed your readers will believe anything you write.

[J'hn1]

to Andrew Bryant
If Capt. Jamil Hussein was named as a source in over 60 published reports by the AP, why is the Iraqi authorities just now trying to have him arrested? Why didn't they have a problem with him talking to reporters prior to now?
If it was against some law for Capt. Jamil Hussein to talk with reporters, why would he voluntarily allow the AP to name him as their primary source for the Nov. 24, 2006 story and also name him in over 60 other stories?

The Iraqi authorities probably thought that the AP was making it all up. With no actual Captain Jamil to go after all the AP had to do was refuse to give up the stringers. Dead End for the Iraqi authorities.
Now what kind of background could possibly make the Iraqi authorities have a default belief that the AP just made up the stories they released? Maybe continued encounters with made up stories? Just as a guess.
For the second, the unverified stories might have made somebody at the AP nervous about unverifiable stories with only unnamed sources backing them up. It does seem that either he had a resource in the personell department denying his existence to any attempts to find him or the partially correct name was seen as enough cover to protect him from any but a determined investigation. As it had not before happened, it might have been seen as "safe" to risk. It almost was.
That said, I believe the current plan is a mistake. Make the AP confront Captain J and plead the fifth for both is foolish. How about make Jamil show the burned mosques? and the burned survivors (yes, some died but the claimed burned number was greater than the eventual # of dead, so where are the survivors, and at what hospital were they and the deceased treated?)
It is now a matter of credibility for both CentCom and the Iraqi Government, so make Jamil put up or shut up. If he was lying fire him, void any residual benefits, and put him on a list of probable terrorist supporters.

[Bukakka]

If he exists, he should be executed.

[Good Lt]

Or promoted to Executive Editor...depending on your sid eof the isle...

[Andrew Bryant]

Ok, who doesn't find the fact that the AP used Capt. Jamil Hussein's name as a source over 60 times in the past 6 months unusual? This isn't an insignificant fact.

Heck, the only other two names that come to mind who's names appeared more times in print the last 6 months was Mark Foley and Jack Abramoff. And I bet Capt. Jamil Hussein knows both names well.

[Devil's Advocate]

Hey Dan,

Why don't you get your ass over to Iraq along with la Malkin and the Floppy One and get confirmation from the Iraqi authorities that Capt. Jamil Hussein really exists? While you are it, you might visit him in jail -- where your lynch mob landed him -- to interview him. That's if he is still alive...

[yyy]

As I suspected, the nutters cannot admit they are wrong. They're just switching the target again, instead of Jamil is a phantom person AP made up its back to 'well, the army and the Iraq Ministry of Information told us they don't know of any Sunnis being burned alive'

Oh really. What a surprise.

All of a sudden the nutters absolutely believe that every single death in a civil war/invasion/occupation/liberation is going to be reported and recorded for their internet viewing pleasure.

There is in fact no reason to disbelieve AP's story since they quoted several witnesses, reinterviewed and interviewed new witnesses and came up with the same conclusion. The only reason to disbelieve AP's story is because you want it to be false in order to prop up your discredited notion that its the media's fault things in Iraq have not gone according to the "plan"...