Thursday, April 08, 2004
AP's Incredible Credulity
Here's an early Associated Press report on the bombing of a Fallujah mosque by the USMC, in which about 40 Iraqis were killed.
The emphasis is mine.
FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. Marines in a fierce battle for this Sunni Muslim stronghold fired rockets that hit a mosque compound filled with worshippers Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed. Shiite-inspired violence spread to nearly all of the country.
The strike came as worshippers had gathered for afternoon prayers, witnesses said. Temporary hospitals were set up in private homes to treat the wounded and prepare the dead for burial.
Link.
There's an old adage among journalists: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."
These reporters must really trust their mothers, because they bought the 'worshippers' story 100%, and even passed it off as fact, right in the lead paragraph.
Now, I've also noted on this page that first reports are almost always wrong. And the very early reports on any event--whether from a newspaper or in a military report--are going to contain information that doesn't pan out as you collect more information, gather and interview more witnesses, and learn more about the context.
But still, characterizing the Iraqi dead as "worshippers," knowing that supporters of the insurgency had every reason to lie to reporters about their combatant status, is an act of incredible credulity, to coin an oxymoron.
That's where transparency in reporting comes in. If the combatant status of the dead in the Mosque was uncertain, or unverified at the time the report was filed, then the reporter should have said so, or simply used some more neutral language.
Here's a better way: "Some 40 Iraqis were killed today when US Marines called in air strikes on a Fallujah mosque. Local townspeople close to the scene said the mosque was filled with worshippers. US officials have not yet commented on the airstrike."
This example says the same thing, really. But the characterization of the dead as 'worshippers' is attributed to Iraqis. And so the reader is able to reach his own conclusion about the reliability of the original source. He also learns that the reporter has not yet unearthed the other side of the story.
And it also saves the reporter from embarrassment when the more information emerges.
Contrast the AP piece with this Washington Post article from later in the day.
From page 2 on the website:
As the Marines fought their way into the Fallujah, Byrne and other officers said, about 40 armed men opened fire on the Americans with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades from a bunker at the Abdelaziz Samarrai mosque. Four Marines in a Humvee several blocks away were wounded.
...and so it emerges that the people in the mosque were not worshipers, but insurgents using the mosque as a base of operations against US troops. The story is corroborated by the US wounded.
No, the reporter shouldn't neccessarily take the US commander's story at face value, either. The US commander insists, for example, that no noncombatants were killed.
I would argue that it would be very difficult for any US commander to know this for certain, and I wish the reporter had pressed him for details about how he could be sure about this.
Here's the best way to do it: compare the number of weapons captured at the scene with the number of bodies. American commanders should be willing to show them to the reporter. Indeed, when my unit was fighting in Ramadi, we would routinely lay out the weapons captured and allow any reporter who wanted to to take pictures and count them.
In this case, if the number of weapons is 40 or more, the 'statement that no non-combatants were killed' is a fairly reasonable assertion, given the evidence available to us, and the fact that several hours had elapsed between the first contact and the time the airstrikes were called in, giving any legitimate worshippers plenty of time to get out.
But again, through transparency in reporting, the reader should be given enough information to assess the reliability of the source's statements himself.
Splash, out
Jason
The emphasis is mine.
FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. Marines in a fierce battle for this Sunni Muslim stronghold fired rockets that hit a mosque compound filled with worshippers Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed. Shiite-inspired violence spread to nearly all of the country.
The strike came as worshippers had gathered for afternoon prayers, witnesses said. Temporary hospitals were set up in private homes to treat the wounded and prepare the dead for burial.
Link.
There's an old adage among journalists: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out."
These reporters must really trust their mothers, because they bought the 'worshippers' story 100%, and even passed it off as fact, right in the lead paragraph.
Now, I've also noted on this page that first reports are almost always wrong. And the very early reports on any event--whether from a newspaper or in a military report--are going to contain information that doesn't pan out as you collect more information, gather and interview more witnesses, and learn more about the context.
But still, characterizing the Iraqi dead as "worshippers," knowing that supporters of the insurgency had every reason to lie to reporters about their combatant status, is an act of incredible credulity, to coin an oxymoron.
That's where transparency in reporting comes in. If the combatant status of the dead in the Mosque was uncertain, or unverified at the time the report was filed, then the reporter should have said so, or simply used some more neutral language.
Here's a better way: "Some 40 Iraqis were killed today when US Marines called in air strikes on a Fallujah mosque. Local townspeople close to the scene said the mosque was filled with worshippers. US officials have not yet commented on the airstrike."
This example says the same thing, really. But the characterization of the dead as 'worshippers' is attributed to Iraqis. And so the reader is able to reach his own conclusion about the reliability of the original source. He also learns that the reporter has not yet unearthed the other side of the story.
And it also saves the reporter from embarrassment when the more information emerges.
Contrast the AP piece with this Washington Post article from later in the day.
From page 2 on the website:
As the Marines fought their way into the Fallujah, Byrne and other officers said, about 40 armed men opened fire on the Americans with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades from a bunker at the Abdelaziz Samarrai mosque. Four Marines in a Humvee several blocks away were wounded.
...and so it emerges that the people in the mosque were not worshipers, but insurgents using the mosque as a base of operations against US troops. The story is corroborated by the US wounded.
No, the reporter shouldn't neccessarily take the US commander's story at face value, either. The US commander insists, for example, that no noncombatants were killed.
I would argue that it would be very difficult for any US commander to know this for certain, and I wish the reporter had pressed him for details about how he could be sure about this.
Here's the best way to do it: compare the number of weapons captured at the scene with the number of bodies. American commanders should be willing to show them to the reporter. Indeed, when my unit was fighting in Ramadi, we would routinely lay out the weapons captured and allow any reporter who wanted to to take pictures and count them.
In this case, if the number of weapons is 40 or more, the 'statement that no non-combatants were killed' is a fairly reasonable assertion, given the evidence available to us, and the fact that several hours had elapsed between the first contact and the time the airstrikes were called in, giving any legitimate worshippers plenty of time to get out.
But again, through transparency in reporting, the reader should be given enough information to assess the reliability of the source's statements himself.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
