As human beings, journalists make mistakes. We (I pretend at being one from time to time and actually get paid for it, so I have to include myself) sometimes make a lot of mistakes, or a string of mistakes.

People understand that. They get that we make mistakes—and get this—actually find us more credible when we admit just how badly we screwed up a story, as long as we explained how it happened, and make an honest effort to improve. when we bury our heads in the sand, and refuse to admit obvious mistakes or failures in our reporting, assumptions, editing, or conclusions, we hurt only ourselves.

Right, Dan?

I've been advocating that approach for quite a while now and hope I practice what I preach. At least one person believes I'm doing okay, though I know there is plenty of room for improvement.

Another person I know who constantly works to improve his work is Michael Yon. I don't think he needs much introduction to my readership, and his work as a combat journalist has always stood on its own. Yon is also big on focusing on integrity as a writer, and it is something he has harped on on his site, in interviews, on the phone, and he tells me in his book as well, which I will eventually read once somebody starts sleeping through the night.

Yon published a military memo on his site Wednesday which quickly got the attention of the online community. The sourcing was solid. It was authentic, no doubt about it.

Many bloggers, the military community, and their supporters were quickly outraged over the content of the memo, which alleged that military uniformed personnel we being targeted for verbal abuse by anti-war fanatics. Just as quickly, online anti-war activists claimed that this was false, even noting (though they phrased it differently) that they were too craven and cowardly to berate men and women that could easily beat them into pulp.

I was immediately interested by the report and posted on it, and thought it might be something interesting to follow up on in more detail.

As I did so, Yon pointed out via email that some in his comments were calling it a hoax, and asked me to pursue the story. You can ready about what I found in a post this morning at Pajamas Media.

Now, that may not sound like a big deal, but when was the last time that a journalist at one newspaper encouraged a journalist at another to follow up on his work and check for inconsistencies? How often does it even occur within the same news organization? It very well may happen. In fact, I hope it does... but we don't often see the results of such a check-up, and far to many times we see stories that are utterly false that go uncorrected—*cough*—Brian Ross—*cough*—and the same mistakes or falsehoods reiterated another day.

Yon is interested in getting it right. Perhaps if our journalistic class was more interested in getting it right instead of just getting it out while feigning perfection, the public's respect for them wouldn't be collapsing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:18 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Perhaps if our journalistic class was more interested in getting it right instead of just getting it out while feigning perfection... It's worse than that. Too many of them want to get something out that will bulldoze public opinion in the correct direction, and the fact-gathering process needn't be complete, but only sufficient to accomplish that aim.

Posted by: Micropotamus at May 23, 2008 11:42 AM (YeWPs)

2 More kudos to you and Yon Micro has it very right as well. Ever since Watergate, almost every MSM 'journalist' is/has been trying for that "seminal scoop". Whether the facts actually support their preconceived conclusion or not.

Posted by: Mark at May 23, 2008 02:05 PM (4od5C)

3 I heard The New Republic does it all the time... And speaking of double checking... You might want to take a look at this AP facade http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2rT2wzhviymfyfyRdmdKw6tciagD90O9DJ80 by the same guy who worked with others to write the Nogunri (infamous) famous article. Another blogger has taken it apart fairly well: http://rokdrop.com/2008/05/20/rehashing-korean-war-era-executions/ But I thought this was up your ally and might be something your readers would like to know about.

Posted by: usinkorea at May 23, 2008 02:15 PM (cwn6C)

4 Read the post and the memo. It doesn't sound like much any way around. The memo didn't seem to me like it was offering much of an alarm. Having lived in South Korea, and having watched a lot of the armed forces network, to catch shows in English, you see all kinds of public service announcements. Someone heard of an incident involving a uniformed soldier and someone shouting anti-war items and sent out a fairly tame memo. I could see myself doing the same if my job in the military had to do with public safety or public relations. It isn't as if a Defense Department spokesman went on CNN claiming frequent physical attacks on GIs in DC by anti-war activists....

Posted by: usinkorea at May 23, 2008 02:27 PM (cwn6C)

5 usinkorea: The attacks start in subtle ways. Those of us who have been through it once are probably more sensitive to the subject. We've seen how teachers work it, telling innocent 7 year olds that "God doesn't listen to prayers for baby killers," landlords saying, "no pets, no soldiers/sailors," employers saying, "you might get transferred or try to push a military agenda, so I can't hire you." After that is when it becomes more blatant. Nasty ridiculing remarks in stores, malls, at the gas station, even in church, spitting, garbage cans of raw sewage dumped on a member in uniform, picket lines with screaming a$$holes outside your residence or place of business, your car keyed because it has a base sticker. We remember! We have promised never to let it happen again.

Posted by: Sara at May 23, 2008 02:50 PM (Wi/N0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Associated Press reporter Bushra Juhi:

Two Iraqi officials said the shooting occurred about 5:30 a.m. in the Obeidi neighborhood after three roadside bombs targeted joint U.S.-Iraqi troops. But the U.S. military said its forces were not involved in any events in the area.

It was not clear who opened fire after the explosions. Eleven bystanders were killed and one person wounded, one of the police officials said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

AP Television News footage showed the body of a man in a track suit covered by a blue blanket and another body in a blood-spattered wooden coffin nearby.

AFP offers a near identical account also claiming 11 bystanders (innocence implied) were killed, in accounts obviously coming from the same Iraqi police sources. Insurgents and their sympathizers have routinely masqueraded as police officers throughout the war, and news outlets have dutifully published their accounts, many of which we later determined to be entirely false.

SGT Brooke N. Murphy, MNF-I PAO, responded immediately to these claims via email:

We can definitely state there was no IED attack on a U.S.-Iraqi convoy
in Obeidi at dawn this a.m. That's not talking about any particular
area, we do not discuss ongoing operations. I can state we specifically
target those committing a violent act or about to commit a violent act.

We would warn residents against moving toward any engagement, especially
when armed. We absolutely do not target law-abiding Iraqi citizens.

So there were not 11 (innocent) bystanders killed. Who died? Anyone? As a matter of fact, yes.

Murphy then sent a breaking MNF-I release that states that 11 Iranian-backed "Special Groups" forces were killed in New Baghdad:

Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers have killed 11 Special Group (SG) criminals in an ongoing operation in the New Baghdad security district in eastern Baghdad, May 21.

MND-B Soldiers observed as a special groups militant, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, exited a sports utility vehicle. The individual scanned the area and motioned a suspicious truck forward. Then Soldiers then watched as the militants emplaced an improvised-explosive device.

They engaged the suspect with small-arms fire and killed him.

Nearby, MND-B Soldiers encountered four SG militants, who were armed with AK-47 and RPK rifles, travelling in a SUV. They engaged the vehicle and killed the four militants.

MND-B Soldiers engaged and killed another SG militant carrying a rocket-propelled grenade. At another location in New Baghdad, MND-B Soldiers noticed a SG militant armed with a modified AK-47, who was conducting reconnaissance from a vehicle in a suspicious manner. The Soldiers engaged the armed SG militant and killed him.

Nearby, MND-B Soldiers spotted a militant in an alley. The SG militant moved away from the alley, holding an AK-47 in a firing position. An MND-B Soldier engaged and killed him. Another SG militant, who was driving a tan SUV in New Baghdad, made several passes by MND-B Soldiers.

He stopped the vehicle and attempted to hand an AK-47 to his SG militant cohorts. An MND-B Soldier shot and killed him.

Who do you trust to have the story right, the anonymous media robo-calling police sources, or a named Army soldier issuing formal releases?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

Something else to his list of descriptors.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

In a story on the L.A. Times blog Top of the Ticket about John McCain's new position that he thinks American combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2013, the Times includes this photo.

Pardon me for asking, but at what point did American Presidents command Israeli solders?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

1 In their dreams on how to use the 3 Annapolis "monitor" generals: Dayton, Fraser and McCain's friend (Retd) Gen. James L. Jones, current Middle East envoy?

Posted by: ER at May 15, 2008 08:32 AM (C9+q9)

2 Obviously a member of the New York National Guard's 11th Kitten Battalion.

Posted by: bvw at May 15, 2008 09:20 AM (GldVa)

3 Why were you reading the Los Angeles Times.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 15, 2008 09:27 AM (eDnDo)

4 Gee, didn't you know that the vast neocon-zionist conspiracy controls both?

Posted by: Grey Fox at May 15, 2008 09:50 AM (9btbQ)

5 Meh, the Democrats can't tell Canadian troops from U.S. troops, http://www.exurbanleague.com/2006/10/08/they-stand-on-guard-for-us.aspx why should we expect different behaviour from the L.A. Times?

Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at May 15, 2008 11:54 AM (ppKzH)

6 Perhaps it is in the "Secret Protocalls of Zion".

Posted by: David at May 15, 2008 01:27 PM (cPLO6)

7 Looks peaceful, but I've been to anti-Bush rallies where the National Guard thugs were using those animals to intimidate the crowd.

Posted by: Brad at May 15, 2008 07:22 PM (d/RyS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A Fox News staffer was fired this morning. Why? She told John McCain that she voted for him in a primary because her father was a Vietnam veteran.

I kid you not:

A 24-year-old Fox News Channel production assistant was fired this morning for something she said during the red carpet arrivals at the Time 100 Gala last night.

Insiders tell us the assistant, identified as Jennifer Locke, was on assignment with a camera crew to cover the entertainment angle of the event. When Sen. John McCain walked by, the assistant said, "I voted for you in the primary, you're going to win."

McCain was overheard saying to her, "You're not supposed to reveal that." Locke apparently continued to explain that she is the daughter of Vietnam veteran.

McCain is correct. Such disclosures are journalistically unacceptable, and Fox was right to release the staffer on those grounds.

So when is MSNBC going to step up to those same standards and dismiss Chris Matthews for his on-air announcement that Barack Obama caused a"thrill" up his leg? Is telling a candidate that you voted for him unacceptable, but blurting out a homo-erotic reaction to a candidate's speech not a level of disclosure that is forbidden, even if that disclosure is merely hyperbole making the journalist's personal attraction to the candidate equally strong? Should it matter that this is the second time Matthews has related his "man-crush" on the air?

Yes, I know better... MSNBC doesn't have journalistic standards. It would be nice, however, if they'd fake it every one in a while.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:26 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

It seems to matter little whether the location is Gaza or Baghdad. If there is a way to spin a story, Associated Press reporters will find it.

Today, American forces called in an AC-130 for support when they came under fire in the Kazimiyah district of Baghdad.

The Associated Press editorializes:

The AC-130, a lethal tool used by the military since the Vietnam War, can slowly circle over a target for long periods.

Human rights groups have criticized their use in urban settings where militants may be among crowded populations of noncombatants. The four-engine gunships were also used to support the U.S. attack that took the western city of Fallujah from insurgents in November 2004.

What the Associated Press does not mention is that the modern AC-130U is the most complex aircraft weapons system on the planet, and the reason for its complexity is that the aircraft's sensors, navigation, and fire control systems are calibrated to conduct exceedingly accurate surgical strikes. It is likely because of their precision strike capabilities that the AC-130U was chosen for this mission over other available means of attack.

The Associated Press reporter attempts to recall the image of the 40-year-old Vietnam-era AC-130A and it's ability to saturate large area targets, portraying it as an indiscriminate and careless weapons system to use in an urban area... and so it is good we haven't fielded that particular model in decades.

It's a dishonest conflation of aircraft using technologies developed decades apart, but sadly emblematic of the kind of reporting we've come to expect where creating imagery is as important as reporting facts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:11 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Three days ago, I contacted Associated Press Director of Media Relations Paul Colford, asking him about photos taken by AP photographer Khalil Hamra, in Beit Lahiya, a town in the northern Gaza Strip, on Monday, April 28, 2008.

The caption for one Hamra photo read as follows, without a hint of uncertainty:

A Palestinian woman reacts as she stands next to a house hit by an Israeli shell that killed a mother and her four children, in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip, Monday, April 28, 2008. An Israeli tank shell slammed into a tiny Gaza Strip home on Monday, killing a Palestinian woman and four of her children as they prepared to sit down for breakfast, officials and relatives said.

I asked Mr. Colford to "please acquire the other photos Mr. Hamra shot outside that home and send them to me... I should be able to tell which account is true by the simple differences between blast signatures of HEAT rounds used by Israel tanks impacting buildings, and the kind of blast that would be consistent with the Israeli account of a gunman carrying explosives that detonated." Responding via email, Mr Colford suggested I should acquire the images somewhere else. It was a polite brush-off.

But the story told with such apparent certainty by Associated Press photographer Hamra and apparently deemed insignificant by Colford was never as certain as the media tried to make it sound.

An Israeli military inquiry into the incident has concluded that the family was indeed killed by a Palestinian militant's explosives detonating. Tank shells were not fired into the home, a fact neither side now alledges. According to the IDF, a single airborne missile was fired from a drone at a cluster of four armed militants. How small was the missile? According to these video stills from an al Jazeera story, showing the missile's impact point, quite small.

The "crater" according to al Jazeera.

A bemused civilian inspects the same missile "crater" as the reporter moves away.

Al Jazeera repeats Palestianian claims a that second missile was fired by the Israelis, but the visual evidence of the missile strike is not very convincing.

An alleged second missile "crater" outside the family home, estimated to be four inches deep.

As Noah Pollak pointed out in his Commentary story Factless in Gaza, "There is a deeper problem here:the manner in which news is gathered from Gaza, which has been inhospitable territory for western journalists for quite some time (remember what happened to Alan Johnston?). News organizations like the AP and Reuters rely, for their on-the-ground Gaza coverage, on Palestinian reporters and stringers whose objectivity and professionalism, to put it charitably, are in doubt."

Adnan Hajj was by far the most obvious example of dishonest journalism by the Palestianian media as he manipulated images he sold to Reuters, but the facts are that very essence of news reporting in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon are conducted primarily by reporters with a deep and personal interest in the stories they are reporting, often under the direction of terrorist groups that are not above "suggesting" stories and guiding media coverage with the barrel of a gun.

Internationally respected news organizations such as Reuters, AFP the Associated Press, and the BBC have proven themselves time and again to be very susceptible to being manipulated by agenda-driven journalists and photographers. Moreover, they seem not to care very much about passing along staged photos and biased information as long as it allows them to publish something. They the news organizations will likely never admit it, hating Israel is big media business, and stories alleging that Israeli military forces are killing innocent Palestinians sell very well in the global media market.

As a result, initial reporting of this incident squarely places the blame for the blast on the Israeli military, without seriously looking for any other possible cause. It is both a business decision (these kinds of stories sell) and a practical one (unbiased reporting is not allowed by militant media handlers that guide and spy upon reporters and photographers).

That armed militants were moving among civilian homes for cover is never mentioned, and their argument that "it couldn't have been our explosives, because I have some pictures of some explosives that didn't blow up right over here" is readily digested with a degree of acceptance because there is no viable alternative.

Truly, truth is not an option.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:43 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 742 words, total size 6 kb.