Curt continues his assault on the Associated (with terrorists) Press

It's happening over at Flopping Aces and you should be there ready to scroll.

You can also head over to Michelle's place who has lots of good linking to others on this story and who summarizes nicely:

Two unnamed Associated Press reporters get new acounts from three unnamed witnesses (who, of course, refuse to be identified by name--although the AP has no problem describing some weirdly specific details about their ages, occupations, ethnicity, and religions) about six burned-alive Sunnis, five of whom no one can name and whose bodies can't be disinterred in an investigation because it would violate Islamic law. And of the two original sources who claim the incident happened, one has recanted and the other is someone whom the military and Iraqi officials maintain is not who he says he is.

Public Eye, the CBSNews blog, calls it war between CENTCOM and AP:

Yesterday, we detailed criticism by a number of right-wing bloggers of the Associated Press's reporting from Iraq. The criticism focused on a story about Shiites burning six Sunni worshippers alive in Baghdad. CENTCOM issued a press release disputing the legitimacy of the source of the story, police Capt. Jamil Hussein, and asking for a retraction or correction if the organization did not have "a credible source" behind it's reporting.

Now the AP is hitting back. As we noted in an update yesterday, AP International Editor John Daniszewski released a statement arguing that the "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." He also promised a "more detailed report about the entire incident soon, with greater detail provided by multiple eye witnesses."

It's really much bigger than a CENTCOM vs. AP thing. 

Much bigger.

Comments

[saketini99]

"It's really much bigger than a CENTCOM vs. AP thing. "

Rick, can you please elaborate on this statement.

Also, without getting into the specifics of of the "burned alive" story, you often characterize the press in America as out of control... what limits do you think should be in effect and who or what would enforce them.

And please, be specific.

[Dan Pratt]

saketini99,

Without speaking for Rick, I would venture to guess that he is going to say - NOTHING needs to be done! The press (as in freedom of) is free to say whatever they want as long as they refrain from being (proven) libelous.

What I think Rick's point is, as would be mine, is that if the MSM in America wants to be "out of control," others have a right to point what they see as out of control using their same freedoms (freedom of speech or press).

I would use the Dixie Chicks as an example: they went to Britain and said they were embarrassed that the President of the US was from Natalie's home state of Texas. Perfectly within their right to do so.

In return, DJs in the US (mostly in the South) began to boycott the Dixie Chicks for what Natalie said and US consumers to this day continue to boycott their music and concerts, as was/is their right.

Same thing applies when the AP uses a "source" that has been pretty well shown to be unreliable and unknown, putting out a lie that is, I am sure, just going to make a bad situation in Iraq even worse by inflaming the hate between Sunnis and Shia. The MSM will not point it out so bloggers try to - but who believes bloggers?

[saketini99]

Thanks Dan for the explanation, but I'm wondering if you could define what actually constitutes the "MSM"...? Or is that just a convenient and vague rhetorical shorthand for newspapers and networks that you would accuse of having a "liberal bias".

I'm all for accountability but would you agree to the same standards of libelous behavior being applied to Fox news and Rush Limbaugh (to cite just 2 examples) or are they not "mainstream" enough.

Because there's certainly enough libel to go around.

Also... "What I think Rick's point is, as would be mine, is that if the MSM in America wants to be "out of control," others have a right to point what they see as out of control using their same freedoms (freedom of speech or press)."

Sorry, but I really don't see anyone abridging your right to do so...

[saketini99]

Oh yeah, and Rick claiming the AP is "associated" with terrorists is not a libelous characterization?

Good thing no one takes bloggers seriously.

[Dan Pratt]

Fair questions all......

"...but I'm wondering if you could define what actually constitutes the "MSM"...? Or is that just a convenient and vague rhetorical shorthand for newspapers and networks that you would accuse of having a "liberal bias"."

That was why I put the MSM in quotes. I do not really believe that newspapers and networks themselves have a liberal (or conservative) bias - only the people who report for these entities and the "code words" (notice quotes) that may be used. And being more conservative myself, I am admittedly more apt to perceive "liberal bias" while someone from the other side of the spectrum may see a "conservative bias" (say at Fox News). Doesn't make it true either way.

"I'm all for accountability but would you agree to the same standards of libelous behavior being applied to Fox news and Rush Limbaugh (to cite just 2 examples) or are they not "mainstream" enough.

Because there's certainly enough libel to go around."

You bet. If it is proven that someone was libelous they should be dealt with in a manner that sees them removed from their position and not able to practice the profession that they were being libelous in. BTW, I think Rush Limbaugh is a blow hard.

"Also... "What I think Rick's point is, as would be mine, is that if the MSM in America wants to be "out of control," others have a right to point what they see as out of control using their same freedoms (freedom of speech or press)."

Sorry, but I really don't see anyone abridging your right to do so..."

Thank you.

"Oh yeah, and Rick claiming the AP is "associated" with terrorists is not a libelous characterization?

Good thing no one takes bloggers seriously."

As I said before, if Rick is truly being libelous towards the AP and is found guilty of such, IMO his privilege to blog should be removed. But, along the same lines, if it is found that the AP reporter in Baghdad is using a BS stringer that no one has ever heard (and may be a terorist) he should then not be allowed to report news.

[saketini99]

Well, in this particular instance it does seem as though the stringer in Iraq did not fully vet his source and yes, he should be censured accordingly. But it does seem to be a stretch to accuse the AP, the entire organization, of "associating" with the enemy.

But as to: "... if Rick is truly being libelous towards the AP and is found guilty of such, IMO his privilege to blog should be removed." Well, by any definition of the word libel, Rick should have his "license" removed. Even a cursory glance at the entries here testify to that. The problem with Rick, as well as so many bloggers on both the Right and Left, is that they want the "MSM' to abide by standards of integrity that they themselves abandon so freely. At least most mainstream media outlets tend to police themselves, like the NYTimes.

[Dan Pratt]

saketini99,

You said:

"Well, in this particular instance it does seem as though the stringer in Iraq did not fully vet his source and yes, he should be censured accordingly. But it does seem to be a stretch to accuse the AP, the entire organization, of "associating" with the enemy."

This is why I said the particular reporter should be punished or censured. I can still understand Rick's frustration with AP (with Reuters and the NYT, also). Isn't AP also the wire service that posted retouched photographs of Israels "foray" into Lebanon by a known untrustworthy photographer (but I may be mistaken here)? Reuters has an official policy that say not to call terrorists, terrorists. NYT releases classified information that could potentially hurt terrorist tracking methods and sources.

When these news organizations continue to do this (as you probably see Fox News also doing), not as a matter of routine but with seemingly regularity, it tends to cast an unfavorable light on that organization and with someone of the conservative persuasion (as I am admittedly am) would make me grumble some about this organization. Just as you may grumble about Fox News and their perceived conservative bias.

Also, with the link you provided I do not see where Rick is being "libelous", especially towards the AP (your link mentions CNN). Could you please be more specific?

Thanks for the prompt responses.

[Rick]

Dan,

Nice to "see" you again... hope you and your family are well... tried to e-mail ya but it bounced...

Thanks for your "presence" here...

[Dan Pratt]

Rick,

To e-mail me, try prattd9@yahoo.com.

It's also nice to "see" you still plugging away.

I try and see what you're up to as often as I can get to you. I do not have the internet at my house so I am limited to being at work and then only when I can get here on break or during my lunch times.

Dan