Thursday, January 04, 2007
Readers are raking them over the coals for their pathetic, intellectually dishonest noncoverage of the Jamil Hussein, MIA case:
AP Sourcing and Jamil Hussein
Thank you for your story about AP's credibility problem over their Iraqi source, Jamil Hussein.
I was struck by the contrast between this statement (from your article): "Kathleen Carroll, AP executive editor, told E&P today that she had not read Jordan's latest item, posted Monday, and likely would not."
And this statement (from the AP's THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES) "Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously."
With your organization has deep contacts in the newspaper industry, have you made any attempt to contact members of the Board of Directors of the AP to see if they share Ms. Carroll's view that the AP need not pursue this any further?
It is clear the E&P has the same journalistic credibility as the AP. in fact you ridiculed those who questioned the existence of Jamil Hussein in the past. So tell us E&P where Jamil Hussein is. Stop being a foil for the AP and try honesty for a change. Nah, you and the AP are hopeless and both of you are now confirmed liars unless you produce this guy. You won't, they won't..you are both useless hacks.
I never thought a hack like Eason Jordan (the CNN executive who has to resign for non-truths) is now challenging other liars for some truth. Wow!
Do you really think that most people don't notice how deferential you are to one of your guild-mates? You don't mention the 61 sole-sourced articles. You don't mention that the good Captain has not only not been produced, but he quit reporting when this story started getting attention from bloggers, which by the way was a long time before any "real" journalists would look at it.
The fact of the matter is that this stinks, and has stunk for a long time. But I am the only one in my office of professionals who knows anything about it, because the guild is holding the line for one of its own. Nice work, all you pros that know what we rubes need to know, and what we don't, know it better than the people we get to elect. Nobody elected you to anything, much less a 4th branch of government.
You may think you are being tough on the AP, but that's only because softball rules are de rigueur for examining guild-member misconduct, and even you can't just roll-over anymore on this one. But I look at your Greg Mitchell's' off-hand assumption that the Haditha Marines are guilty as charged, despite some serious doubts about the evidence, and with no mention of the conflicts of interest of the witnesses, and lack of respect there is glaring.
Can you seriously claim that if there was one-tenth of the circumstantial evidence for some misbehavior on the part of any Republican as there is here that the AP is simply making things up, you would be screaming for blood, and if you can't see that, then you don't want to see it. Do you think you can fool everyone forever?
I guess I know the answer to my question: Yes you do, and that's why the AP keeps stonewalling and you keep giving them the benefit if the doubt that you won't give anyone but your friends (and certainly not Marines in combat). If you want to know why many Americans hold the media in contempt, take a look at the AP's brazen Nixon imitation, and your abetting of it.
Comments: Post a Comment