January 29, 2007
A screen capture of the AP web page from January 8 containing the Hurst article is captured here.
A screen capture of the AP Web page, minus the Hurst article, as captured this morning, is online here.
Is the Associated Press beginning a walkback of it's Hurriyah coverage? If so, quietly attempting to scrub their reporting to date is perhaps not the best way to do so.
Perhaps they should start with a formal retraction acknowledging their comedy of errors.
As I have stated from the very beginning of this debacle, what we are witnessing in action via the Hurriyah scandal and the 39 of 40 AP stories attributed to Jamil Hussein that cannot be corroborated by a rudimentary search of other English-language news organizations of the same events, what we are witnessing is a flawed methodology for gathering the news that places far too much credibility in the words of questionable sources and local stringers with dubious allegiances, and no readily apparent internal mechanism for fact-checking the reports provided.
The advice I issued on December 18 is looking better all the time.
Update: Curt at Flopping Aces notes (via email) that while the AP has scrubbed the one file linked above where AP has been consolidating their Hurriyah reporting, they still have the Hurst claim posted here. Don't worry... if they attempt to scrub that, I have a screen capture of that page, as well.
Update: By the way... notice anything funny about the image used by AP in their "Freedom of Information" section? It appears to be a photo of terrorist detainees at Guantanemo Bay.
Does the Associated Press consider capturing terrorists a violation of AP's freedom of information?
It certainly does not apply to Jamil Gulaim XXXXX XX-XXXXXXX, who is presently back at work as an Iraqi police officer.
Update: Confirmed. The picture was of detainees arriving at Camp X-Ray in 2002.
Update: Linda Wagner, Associated Press Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs, states that the disappearance of the Hurst article is "purely a technical issue." It has since been restored to the AP web site.
Does anybody here with an IT background want to explain precisely how AP's "technical issue" would delete just the one post on the page, and not all of the posts on that page? I assume it could be a technical glitch, but my experience tells me that human involvement is a far more likely culprit.
Update, for the kids over at Sadly No!: who apparently can't figure out how to click a link. A whole indignant post, dedicated to something that did not happen... how sad. No?
As for CMS systems, they are typically set to default to a set expiration after "X" days. This was not in evidence here, nor was this what AP's Linda Wagner alleged happened.
While you are at it, why won't you discuss the other mosques (not that you've finally learned to spell Nidaa Allah correctly), particularly how it is impossible for AP's al Qaeda-linked source of the Association of Muslim Scholars to be correct that one mosque was gutted in an "inferno" that left 18 dead, only to have the same mosque open for regular services the next day, and soot free at that?
Why, that might require independent thought and actually looking at facts instead of reflexively attacking any evidence brought forth by a conservative, and we can't have that, can we?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:59 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 658 words, total size 5 kb.
He shoots! He scores! Great work, Bob. I excerpted and linked. That makes 45 posts in my Jamilgate series now.
Posted by: Bill Faith at January 29, 2007 01:08 PM (n7SaI)
Posted by: Chuck Bennett at January 29, 2007 02:56 PM (DClOL)
Posted by: Tully at January 29, 2007 03:07 PM (kEQ90)
Posted by: Karl at January 29, 2007 05:03 PM (FNd9l)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 29, 2007 09:59 PM (LITKT)
Posted by: Nidaa Alah Allah at January 30, 2007 08:59 AM (aOeXm)
Posted by: cokane at January 30, 2007 12:34 PM (bcKMK)
54 queries taking 0.1412 seconds, 158 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.