84 Comments

1. Terrye:

This is outrageous. I can remember when the AP was just a wire service that gave us the facts, but this is something else entirely. I don’t know if it is increased competition or political bias or both, but there is no excuse for this. I have to wonder if the murders would have happened if the AP had not been available to take pictures.

Dec 25, 2004 - 5:44 pm 2. Jamie Irons:

Thanks, Roger, for emphasizing this story. Belmont Club has also produced a very cogent analysis of these events.

(Terrye: Merry Christmas!

Jamie Irons

Dec 25, 2004 - 5:53 pm 3. Lola:

Does anyone know just who owns AP? Is this a public company where stocks are traded on the market? If so, who are the shareholders? if it is a private company, who owns the company? How are they accountable for whatever action AP undertakes, or doesn’t undertake?

Dec 25, 2004 - 5:54 pm 4. Terrye:

Jamie:

Same to ya buddy.

and Lola:

Heather had some information on that in another post on here on the same subject a couple of days back. She included some names and addresses.

Dec 25, 2004 - 6:05 pm 5. Richard Nieporent:

I though it was the job of a reporter to report the news, not make the news. I don’t see any story being told. What I see is a cold-blooded murder and a news organization that is complicit in that murder. As Roger indicated, the fourth estate has become a fifth column. Previously, they tried to defeat George Bush by distorting the news and now they are openly supporting the terrorists.

Dec 25, 2004 - 6:30 pm 6. Promethea:

AP is guilty of setting up two election workers. They are operating as terrorists themselves. AP managers need to be made aware that this kind of activity WILL NOT be tolerated. They should be arrested and prosecuted.

The killers knew they would be photographed, making the operation a success in terrorizing election workers. AP’s CEO should go to jail as a contract killer or as an accessory to a contract killing.

A poster on one website pointed out that AP also contributed to the murder of an Italian hostage.

Seriously, folks, this is criminal and traitorous behavior–not some type of “newsgathering.”

Am I making myself clear? AP has committed MURDER.

Dec 25, 2004 - 6:32 pm 7. PeterUK:

Terrye,

Events beg the question,did the M$M ever give us the facts? Until recently the only challenge to media statements was by individuals,a letter to the editor,who of course exercised his perogative and edited the letters.Sometimes public campaigns brought about retractions or corrections,but in the main the M$M could get away with anything this side of libel.

They got away with declaring the Tet offensive a defeat,so how much lower level mendacity did they get away with?

The M$M as a species does not fear its constituency,this is something it will have to learn.

Dec 25, 2004 - 6:35 pm 8. Trent J Telenko:

Simon,

That the media are feeding their political biases, assisting the enemy, as well as getting eyeballs to sell soap should not surprise.

You read Strategypage.com. So this post of James Dunnigan’s from last September is all you need to to remember when you see AP’s actions in this matter.

http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs\200492123.htm&search=press

==================

Selective Amnesia, Iraq and the Media

by James Dunnigan

September 21, 2004

The reality is that most of the violence in Iraq comes from a minority of the Sunni Arab minority who are willing to kill because they either want a religious dictatorship (like the one next door in Iran, except with Sunni clerics in charge), or from members of the Baath Party that was, until recently, led by Saddam Hussein.

Now you would think that this bunch of cutthroats, whose favorite tactics are kidnapping or threatening unarmed civilians, would be widely reviled. Nope. They are the underdogs, and have been labeled in the media as “insurgents.”

Since many countries, and their media, opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, the “insurgents” get favorable press. Very favorable press. Iraq’s problem with it’s armed anti-democracy groups is described as “widespread unrest,” despite the fact that it is confined to that third of the country (most of it desert) that is dominated by the Sunni Arab minority (about 20 percent of the population).

The Baath Party and Islamic radical leaders can read, and make the most of their status as “freedom fighters.” OK, that last tag isn’t used very often, as even most journalists gag at so describing two groups so openly dedicated to restoring dictatorship. The anti-government forces and Islamic radicals keep their agendas out of the press as much as possible. Instead, they go on about wanting to “drive out the occupiers.”

Opinion polls of the entire population consistently state that the majority want the foreign troops to stay until the Sunni Arab gunmen are put down. American policy is to get out as soon as the Iraqi majority has a large enough security force to deal with the remnants of the old dictatorship, and their new allies from al Qaeda and other Islamic radical groups.

But this isn’t news.

That most of Iraq is at peace isn’t news.

That the reconstruction of Iraq has brought a better life to the majority of Iraqis isn’t news.

That the anti-government forces have no chance of prevailing isn’t news.

That American troops have fought a spectacularly successful military campaign (check the historical record for details) isn’t news.

That the Iraqi “insurgents” are mainly war criminals, gangsters and terrorists isn’t news.

*What is news are headlines that have been consistently wrong since before the war began.*

What is news is what news directors feel will generate the greatest fear, uncertainty and doubt among their audience.

That’s what gets people’s attention.

That’s the way the news business has always been. The mass media news business is only some 150 years old, and early on, competitive editors realized that the colorful lie was more profitable than the drab truth.

There are those who quickly realized that they could use this fact of life to their advantage. So today, dictators and terrorist organizations hire publicists to get themselves the most useful (if not truthful) portrayal in the media.

When it comes to mass violence, playing the press is just another weapon. It worked for Saddam, it’s working for his bloody minded supporters, who are still willing to kill for Saddams ideals. But now they are “insurgents” and “freedom fighters.”

After they are defeated, they will go back to being thugs.

And the media will march on, secure in the knowledge that selective amnesia is their friend.

Dec 25, 2004 - 6:42 pm 9. Barbara Skolaut:

Is the Associated Press a Fifth Column?

Well, yeah. And ABCCBSNBCCNNNYTWAPOLAT, too.

Why do you ask?

Dec 25, 2004 - 6:50 pm 10. GBAM:

I’m not sure what the AP is trying to prove regarding the Iraqi photographer’s philosophy just becuase he is or is not embedded with the insurgents. (And I do say “he” because I doubt a “she” would have been invited along).

We already know that when an American reporter is embedded with the coalition, there is no guarantee that they are in favor of the war effort. In fact, these reporters sometimes seem to be most proud of their work when it is damaging to the war effort.

I still await the day when a truly courageous reporter helps to prevent an insurgent attack, or that Iraqis were more hopeful about their future based on a report that they saw on the BBC or CNN.

Dec 25, 2004 - 6:52 pm 11. Trent J Telenko:

Simon,

Here is one more Dunnigan column for you to remember.

Please also consider the fact that AP has many non-US Media conglomerate customers that it is catering too with this Islamist snuff film distribution effort:

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htiw&base=htiw&Prev=51&BeginCnt=102

November 22, 2004: For political, emotional and economic reasons, the reporting of the war in Iraq has created two, quite different, versions of whatís going on there.

Inside Iraq, the ìwarî is seen as continued resistance by the Sunni Arab thugs who kept Saddam, and earlier Sunni dictators, in power for generation. Democracy will ruin this racket, and the Sunni Arabs with blood on their hands donít want to face a government, and army, run by the majority Shia Arabs and Kurds. Playing minor roles in this mess are Sunni Arab (al Qaeda) and Shia Arab (supported by Iran) groups that want a religious dictatorship. Corruption and lack of civil spirit got the Iraqis into this mess in the first place, and are making it difficult for a democratic government to get their act together. But the majority of Iraqis appreciate having coalition troops coming in to remove Saddam from power, and sticking around to battle the Sunni Arab effort to regain power.

There is a very different version of the Iraq war available. Much of the foreign, especially European and Moslem, media report a very different reality. This baffles and angers many Iraqis.

The problem is that few foreign nations really wanted Saddam Hussein removed. Sets a bad precedent for the many Middle Eastern nations that are also run by dictators. Moreover, many nations were doing business with Saddam, and now stand to lose money because Saddam is gone.

Over 90 percent of all Moslems are Sunni and so was Saddam. A Sunni Arab dictator in Iraq was seen by other Sunni Arab nations as a bulwark against Shia Iran. For thousands of years, the Iranians have been dominating the region. Since oil was discovered a century ago, the Arabs now have something really valuable to keep the Iranians away from. While Saddam was good at killing Iraqis, he was also very good at killing Iranians. A guy like that is missed among Sunni Arabs.

So the foreign media tend to portray the removal of Saddam as illegal, and the continued fighting in Iraq as an insurgency against foreign occupation. There is also a lot of anti-Americanism involved, especially in Europe. The fact that most of Iraq is at peace, and that nearly all the fighting is by Sunni Arabs, is ignored or played down. The story line is one of quagmire and ultimate defeat of the occupying (largely American) army. Reporting is distorted to fit this fantasy. The media gets away with it because gloom and doom stories are always an easier sell. Peace and reconstruction in the areas where the Shia Arab and Kurds (80 percent of the population) live is not news. Never has been and never will be, except on a very slow news day.

So if the news from Iraq appears, at times, to be a little ìoff,î thatís only because most of the time itís so far off that it might as well be coming from a movie set, not a real place.

Dec 25, 2004 - 7:04 pm 12. Mike H.:

If anyone at AP were to be arrested, one or two lawyers would stand up and scream First Amendment and the govt. would start scurrying for cover. We really don’t want to prosecute(militarily) this GWOT. The reason that WWII was a success was the politicians knew that we were behind them. The cancer has eaten too far into the foundation for that to be the case today.

Dec 25, 2004 - 7:19 pm 13. Rick Ballard:

“The rest of us have to continue to build our own media and expand on them.”

Certainly. New media must continue to grow and expand. There is the other side of the coin, too. If you are subscribing to a newspaper that carries the AP why not just send a check to Hamas? If you tune to the alphabet networks why don’t you mail a check to Hezbollah? Why don’t you just get up, spit on the flag, take it outside and burn it?

If you’re subscribing or watching, stop bitching, you’re not part of the solution.

You’re the problem.

The AP and CBS editors get their jollies watching this type of reaction. It’s publicity, no? They’re laughing all the way to the bank and they’ll keep laughing until they get hit in circulation or viewership.

Cancel your subscriptions, stop watching and tell your friends what you’re doing and why you’re doing it. Or acknowledge that you, too, are complicit in the murder of innocents.

PS Send the money you save to a blogger - I’ve heard that R. L. Simon is a good one.

Dec 25, 2004 - 7:22 pm 14. PeterUK:

Associated Panderers is a co-operative owned by a number of small newspaper groups.Many of these are small town newspapers dependent on local readership.The groups that own them have shareholders,both readership and shareholders probably do not share the world view of AP’s directors.

The same approach could be taken AP that was taken with apartheid South Africa.

Heather has a list.

Dec 25, 2004 - 7:35 pm 15. David R. Block:

Stopped watching CBS “news” a while back. Now, I just plain don’t get home from work in time to watch any of them. Unfortunately, my wife insists on taking the paper (something about coupons, ads, and sales). Still vents at the idiotorial pages. Our local paper (The Dallas Morning News) at least endorsed Bush.

Dec 25, 2004 - 7:51 pm 16. Rick Ballard:

David R. Block,

It’s not just watching the news. The entertainment pays for the news. On a hyperbolic level I suppose I’d want your wife to see the photos of the terrorists committing murder and then ask her why she bought the bullets. Half the time my mailbox is full of ads and coupons so that’s a hard sell as a reason not to cancel.

I understand what you’re saying and I hope you understand that I’m pushing a point. Habits are hard to change but the editors at the papers are moved only by threats to their job security and that can only come from cutting circulation and viewership.

If you want some amusement, cancel your paper and watch how fast they offer it to you at half the price you’re currently paying.

Dec 25, 2004 - 8:07 pm 17. jason:

i must say i’m not as outraged by the ap’s explanation, which seems to me to be just an explanation of why the photos are available to them. i am however outraged at how the media is claiming “hey were just there to get the story out” in the face of murders and terrorists and be a willing accomplice in propaganda, while they can hardly stomach such “objectivism” at the republican convention. losers.

Dec 25, 2004 - 10:54 pm 18. Hoystory:

PeterUK, you almost got it right. The Associated Press is a cooperative consisting of just about every single newspaper in the United States — from the New York Times to the Podunk Gazette.

If you’re interested on putting pressure on the AP, then call the editor of your local paper.

Dec 25, 2004 - 11:06 pm 19. Phnurr:

I’m just trying to understand something here. Is the consensus that acts of terrorism wouldn’t be happening if the M$M didn’t report them?

Would it advance our cause in the war on terror if the M$M stopped reporting on it, or only reported “good” news?

Why is covering terrorism the same as collaborating with it? How should the M$M be able to tell the difference?

What would have been the proper course of action for the AP when it received a tip that there would be a “demonstration” on Haifa Street? To not go there, by way of spiting the terrorists? To tip off the Marines, by way of heading off whatever was going to happen (and to minimize the chance that they’ll get similar tips in the future)?

Just asking …

Dec 25, 2004 - 11:43 pm 20. Ron:

As long as we have out young troops over there, we have an obligation to them and their commanders to help in any way we can to safe guard them. Most of the ìnewsî organizations have an agenda that isnít like ours, theirs is a global socialist out look and they have decided they will be neutral in a war that the United States is in and will be in for a long time. For the safety of our troops and our selves we donít need ìnewsî organizations that see both sides, we need all American citizens to be on the same side. Their ìneutralityî isnít acceptable in a war; they like other counties are either for us or against us. The AP has taken the side of our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people who are fighting for their lives. They have taken the side of murderers and the destroyers of civilization. The AP has stepped across the line of decency and legality, they have contrived a story utilizing the murder of innocent Iraqiís, the circumstances and the people involved seem to be involved in murder in order to ìpresentî the side of people who are killing our sons and daughters. What can these AP thugs be thinking of when they do something like this? They have to pay for this.

Dec 26, 2004 - 12:27 am 21. Steve J.:

Almost every time there’s some bad news about Iraq you people attack the messenger. You seem unable to recall that we were told that we would be down to 1 or 2 divisions by Fall 2003. Then we were told that the “dead-enders” would stop their attacks because we captured Saddam. Then we were told that the attacks would stop because we handed over power to an interim government. The latest lie is that the elections will do wonders for our effort in Iraq.

Dec 26, 2004 - 2:38 am 22. HA:

Roger,

Is the Associated Press a Fifth Column? I know that’s an extreme statement

Of course they are. Some of us have know this for a long time. The question is rhetorical, not extreme.

As long as America fights this war, we will win it. The terrorists know this. So their strategy is for us to choose to not fight any more. Therefore, they want to see America choose leaders who would quit the war. That means the terrorists’ strategy is for the American public to replace Republicans with Democrats.

Therefore, the AP is only one of many elements of the fifth column - and not even the most important part. The most important and dangerous element of the fifth column is the left-wing of the Democratic party.

Without a Democratic party that would enact policies favorable to the terrorists, the terrorist/AP collaboration would have no effect. In this asymmetric war, they are the tip of the spear. Now THAT is an extreme statement I admit. But a true statement nonetheless.

So we can bitch about AP and other news organizations endlessly. But if you really want to see the collaboration between news organizations and terrorists ended, then vote for Republicans and against Democrats. The Democratic party MUST be punished until they stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush or his successor in the fight against terrorism.

Dec 26, 2004 - 3:06 am 23. truepeers:

Phnurr,

There is no doubt that terrorists are using the MSM and that the latter want to be so used to fuel the drama they sell. Nonetheless, having every mildly significant event reported generally enhances our freedom, so I donít want murders in Iraq to go unreported. I want them reported with a good deal of circumspection - no photos or videos when these have been created with the input and desire for publicity of the murderers themselves. The idea of a neutral observer in wartime is an anachronism in an age when we are no longer primarily fighting or observing pitched battles, but engaging a borderless battle for minds.

In response to your question, if the MSM were silent about murders in search of publicity, I imagine the Sunni-Baathist terrorists would not abandon their present campaign but their tactics would change. The issue is largely a strategic one; we need to insist that the media that pretend to speak for the free world really do so.

One readily knows the difference between covering and collaborating with terror if one has a well considered ethics that is not formulated in the abstract, without reference to specific contexts, but is aware of its historical position and committed to expanding freedoms and paying the price for choosing sides. Accordingly, we donít need to see the terroristsí own pictures used out of context (as if from a neutral observer); we simply need honest reports of what they do, reports that make clear their attempts at cynical manipulation. You will see the terroristís tactics as morally different from what the US does with embedded reporters if you know who is more committed to expanding the present limits of human freedom. Frankly, I donít think that choosing sides is too difficult here, unless you have an overdose of the anti-Americanism of those with a generalized resentment of the increasing competition and banality of liberal market society, or you are unaware of the murderous privilege that the Sunni-Baathist terrorists are trying to maintain, or you are clinging to the impossibility of neutrality or the dream of an international police force, or you are a cynic who believes that increasing freedoms is not a universal human need and historical reality.

But then the kind of doubts raised by your questions suggest the cynicism of the metaphysical gymnast who prefers abstract ideas divorced from context, as if questions of whether one is reporting or collaborating with terrorism could be usefully discussed in general terms. This betrays a desire for commerce in overly-intellectualized and abstract representations of violence that may be simply a more highbrow but no less anachronistic form of the MSM commerce.

Whether we are watching the local news station that begins its broadcasts with five stories of violent crime, the national and international broadcast heavily focused on political violence, the artist who lacks the imagination to tell us insightful things about ourselves and so relies on excessively bloody imagery to hold attentions, or the professor who encourages the facile resentments of youth in order to take the focus off himself as the privileged speaker at the front of the room, we have to question all the cultural commerce that relies on excessively violent imagery to get heard. A more free and banal culture would entail finding ways to be intellectually stimulated by anonymous, marginal voices, like those we share on this blog. The more such voices become available, and find meaning in each other, the more it becomes apparent that the more traditional forms of news, entertainment and opinion are objectively violent and fascistic in their desire to attract and hold a large number of eyes. But with established jobs and commerce on the line, we have to show how a culture of news and opinion less in awe of nihilist politics might develop in its place, a new paradigm that increases freedoms and possibilities for exchange, over the present system that justifies its collusion in murder in the name of our right to be informed.

Dec 26, 2004 - 3:46 am 24. Cap'n Billy:

Re: Steve J. at December 26, 2004 02:38 AM

Funny… I don’t remember being told any of those things. What I remember being warned about is that the terrorists would get more and more brutal and violent to try to stop the elections, and that is exactly what has happened. With the collaboration of the mainstream media, who are not neutral but on the other side, as this and other numerous incidents demonstrate. And so are you, as your post indicates. You are obviously a member of the fifth column that Roger refers to.

Dec 26, 2004 - 3:56 am 25. David Thomson:

ìWithout a Democratic party that would enact policies favorable to the terrorists, the terrorist/AP collaboration would have no effect.î

The national Democratic Party is objectively pro-terrorist. Those who have the power to ultimately pick that partyís presidential nominee want us to fail in Iraq. They are, in a practical sense, on the side of our enemies. These folks adore Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. That should tell you everything you need to know. But donít they claim to love America? Yes, but they define love in a post modernist manner. George Orwell dealt with such attempts to corrupt language in his famous work, 1984.

I am appalled by John McCain, Bill OíReilly, Andrew Sullivan, and others who argued that John Kerry would have stood tall against the terrorists. On the contrary, Kerry would have looked for the first excuse to abandon the Iraqis. Thank God that President Bush was reelected. We avoided a probable catastrophe.

Dec 26, 2004 - 4:05 am 26. Doug:

Lola and all,

Heather has done yeoman’s work getting AP address info and posting it at Belmont Club.

Here are some of her posts, and one from Buddy.

.AP address Info.

.AP address Info1.

.AP address Info2.

.AP address Info3.

.AP address Info - Buddy Larsen

Dec 26, 2004 - 4:41 am 27. betsybounds:

All,

I’m puzzled by the AP’s use of an alleged call to cover an alleged demonstration as an excuse for the photographer’s being on the scene. This is frankly unbelievable. I’m not aware that the “insurgents” (read: “terrorists” or, better, “enemy”) have to date been in the business of holding demonstrations. Are we meant to think the AP photographer expected to attend an ANSWER march and take pictures of Iraqis waving “Yankee Go Home” signs? That is not creditable in the least. The only thing to be demonstrated was the enemy’s eagerness to commit murder and have it immortalized in celluloid. The photographer cannot possibly have been taken unawares when that was what happened. Click, click.

Dec 26, 2004 - 6:10 am 28. Roger:

I’m not aware that the “insurgents” (read: “terrorists” or, better, “enemy”) have to date been in the business of holding demonstrations.

I guess that depends on what your definition of a “demonstration” is.

Dec 26, 2004 - 6:23 am 29. David Earney:

I’ve been having this discussion with some friends here in Baghdad since the al-Sadr incidents in Najaf and other incidents in Fallujah.

It’s refreshing to know that at least the AP will now admit they are in league with murderers.

Dec 26, 2004 - 6:36 am 30. erp:

I wish it were just the AP. Unfortunately, the bias is insidious. There’s a phenomenon I’ve noticed for years. Everywhere you turn are subtle throw-away lines ridiculing or bashing Republicans and/or conservative values.

For a while I was collecting them for my own amusement, but instead of being amused, I was becoming more and more enraged. Before he lost his mind, Andrew Sullivan did a couple of riffs on this topic and he was right on target.

Look for gratuitous remarks apropos of nothing in news articles, novels, movies, TV programs and even text books. Most people are so used to them, they don’t even notice them anymore. I’d like Rush or Hannity to mount a campaign to expose this off-the-cuff casual bashing of Republicans and conservative values.

Dec 26, 2004 - 6:46 am 31. Terrye:

Steve:

Speaking of lies there is Bill Clinton and the Iraqi Liberation Act, remember that? The national policy of the US will be regime change in Iraq because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and Bill Clinton guranteed us Saddam would use those weapons if he were not removed from power. Remember that? Don’t feel bad neither does the press.

And as far as the elections in Iraq are concerned I heard Rumsfeld say the other day that violence would go on after the elections at least until spring. Just so you know.

I don’t remember the press ever being so willing to show the murder of innocent people in the streets of Baghdad when the butcher of Baghdad was actually running things, maybe the coaltion should give them some mercedes or something, worked for Saddam.

Dec 26, 2004 - 6:53 am 32. Terrye:

Phn:

Tell me something..if Osama Bin Laden [well known terrorist] had contacted the AP and said “Be standing in front of the World Trade Center on the morning of Septmber 11, 2001 and you will get a great story.”

And they had kept that to themselves would that have been just fine and dandy?

The point is the insurgents who have maimed, killed, tortured and terrorized the people of Iraq for months are not famous for their peaceful demonstrations. The reporters should have at

least told the authorities, those men might be alive today. That might not be a big deal to you but trust me it is to their families. The only thing they accomplished was to spread terror and fear.

Dec 26, 2004 - 6:58 am 33. PeterUK:

AP are alleged to have used the same modus operandi at Fallujah http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/

To have been present at two “demonstrations” wwhich turned into massacres stretches credulity.

Either AP has a poor learning curve,bad communications or unprincipled general policy.

What is interesting is the thesis that the M$M is simply supplying the market,pandering to the prurient interests of the public.

This is contradicted by the fact that of all the spectacular combat footage that must have come out of Fallujah,the cause celebre was Kevin Sites picture of the marine shooting the Iraqi in the mosque.

The M$M never reports victory,or if they do in the most mean spirited way possible.

These Jeremiahs would be looking for the downside of the Second Coming.

Dec 26, 2004 - 7:07 am 34. PeterUK:

Here is a Christmas Fairy Story,those poor misunderstood little lambs of the M$M,via Doug.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=53&aid=75962

Dec 26, 2004 - 7:33 am 35. kynna:

It’s very exciting to witness a revolution like the blogosphere. I tried to start a blog but it was pretty pathetic, so one post and good-bye.

The AP seems like a difficult nut to crack, but one sure way to get their attention is to spend your subscription money on the tip jars at your favorite blogs.

We’ve had a rough financial year and are waiting for a substantial payment, but when it comes in, I intend to share the wealth with the blogs that have kept me informed and sane this year.

Keep the blogosphere running, support your favorites and don’t support those who would keep you in the dark.

Dec 26, 2004 - 7:36 am 36. David:

“The enemy in Iraq is brutal, ruthless and, yes, evil”. Absolutely. The AP is obviously complicite, they are also “…brutal, ruthless and, yes, evil”. Can we call them enemy combatents now?

By the way, as an early reader I am a horrible speller. Two of the words here look wrong to me but MS Word takes them. If they are mispellled I am sorry.

Dec 26, 2004 - 8:11 am 37. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Is there an opportunity for someone to start a new wire service that competes with the AP, or are they totally locked in? Anyone here from the newspaper world who can shed light on this?

Also, it seems to me that AP has a very high market share. Are there any antitrust issues here?

Dec 26, 2004 - 8:20 am 38. TmjUtah:

I’m waiting for a national- profile reporter to file an article called “My Ride- Along with Ted Bundy”.

I have a half- finished short in which Edward R. Murrow reports the landings at Omaha Beach live from inside a German bunker, hosted by the Wermacht.

I walked away from it because it was too over the top. I began writing it when consumed by disgust at some random act of press collusion with the enemy.

I was wrong. I’ll finish it today or tomorrow and post it on my blog.

If this were 1944, I wonder if the AP would have been tipped off to a “demonstration” in the Ardennes? Nah, I don’t wonder at all.

I’m beginning to think we should flatten the Sunni triangle. That was the plan before the Turks screwed us.

There’s not much future in a Marshall Plan if we don’t have the will to kill all of the SS goons, is there?

Dec 26, 2004 - 8:50 am 39. PeterUK:

There is a point that must be made clear,there is no bottom to the depths of depravity to which the terrorists will sink,their actions will become more and more horrendous.

If decapitation and casual street executions do not make us waver, then they will try something more bestial,I suspect the mutilation of Margaret Hassan was videoed for release.

At what point will AP decline to descend further into the abyss with their accomplices, or have they signed a pact with a devil that will drag them ever downwards into the pit?

Dec 26, 2004 - 9:02 am 40. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

The Swift Boat Veterans wanted to be heard too. These weren’t vicious “insurgents,” but patriotic American veterans who had served in combat with John Kerry. They had a much harder time than the

“insurgents”

During this election year we had a Democrat presidential candidate who ran as a war hero.

Ultimately his former “brothers in arms (Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, or SBVT) contributed significantly, even critically to his defeat.

The American people were surprised in August when many charges by rhe SBVT appeared with no warning, attacking Kerry’a performance in the war.

Why was there no warning? Because they trusted the MSM including AP (and didn’t read the right blogs).

What few know is that in early May, SBVT held a well attended press conference in which ALL of Kerry’s former commanders pronounced him unfit to be Commander In Chief, and they and about 200 more SBVT people presented a letter to Kerry asking him to release his military records (he never did, and the MSM never complained about it).

The Swiftees wanted the word to get out before the Democrats were stuck with Kerry, since many Swiftees were Democrats (the press has never mentioned this fact, but this is not an after the fact rationalization - I knew before the conference).

After the failure of their news conference to get adequate coverage, John O’Neil decided to write a book on Kerry (co-authored by Jerry Corsei). The book was number 1 on Amazon’s list long before it was available. It was number 1 on the New York Times list (!) without significant media mention.

Only when the Swiftees ran television ads was the MSM forced to cover the story.

And yet it was August before this organization and its charges became known to the average news consumer.

One reason is that AP, according to my Lexis/Nexis searh, didn’t even report on the event - a press conference where these many decorated veterans denounced a presidential candidate; a press conference unprecedented in US history; and most telling, a press conference revealing what was to become a major negative in Kerry’s campaign. I don’t believe Reuters reported it either, although UPI did give a reasonable report. The rest of the MSM gave the story about 2 paragraphs, followed with just as much Kerry campaign spin (and the Kerry spin doctors were waiting just outside the room). In other words, they guaranteed that if the story ran at all, it would be buried deep in the paper, and the SBVT people would be painted as part of a Rove “Republican Attack Machine,” even though that would have been felonious. Adjectives like “bitter” and “grudge” and even “jealous” (bad English, the correct word is envious”) were applied to the vets. The Swiftees spokesman, John O’Neil, just out of his hospital bed after donating a Kidney, was especially vilified as a Nixon agent.

An analysis of MSM coverage also shows a clear intention to discredit the SBVT claims and individuals. A number of individuals were threatened with “brown folders” of purportedly damaging information about them. As far as I know, AP didn’t report that anti-democratic act. Charges were dismissed one at a time, and in not one case was the dismissal adequate. The press, which would not believe 65 witnesses and their sworn affidavites about Kerry’s actions in Vietnam would happily take the word of of a single person contering the view.

According the the best information I have,(from a former JAG lawyer who had knowlege of the appropriate procedures at the time), the misrepresentation (and changes in it) of Kerry’s dates of service, and story in the NY Sun, Kerry received a less than honorable discharge from the Navy, and refused entrance to Harvard Law School as a result (per New York Sun). He also was a Naval Office (reserve status) during his notorious anti-war (anti-US would be more accuratge) days that led to the national attention he needed to gain political office. The unusual dates on his Naval paperwork, which suggest something very unusual happened with this individual.

All of this was apparently ignored by the MSM.

As an aside, he did later receive a honorable discharge, reportedly as part of Carter’s amnesty program.

If it comes from the MSM, don’t trust ‘em. Their Agenda is as big as their Egos. And AP seems to be one of the bad ones.

Dec 26, 2004 - 9:56 am 41. Jack Hunter:

I’ve tried to message you several times, but I’ve only just now worked out some registration glitches. I hope this gets through, because my intention is to let you know how very much I enjoy your blog and how impressed I am with its content and reach. Keep up the great work!

Dec 26, 2004 - 10:49 am 42. richard mcenroe:

Let’s put this in a context those podunk editors and publishers who rely on the AP and Reuters can understand:

If one of your hometown reporters got a call from some gangbangers or mafiosi to come take pictures while they knocked off a local juror or prosecutor, would you consider it your journalistic duty to keep silent and then run the pictures?

Dec 26, 2004 - 11:07 am 43. htom:

I don’t remember who said it first: “Not biased, just on the other side.”

Dec 26, 2004 - 11:48 am 44. bkochba:

They are not hiring terrorists, just people with familial and tribal ties to them (sufficient that they won’t turn them in instead of photographing them, or after the photographs are taken, presumably)! These are the “courageous” Iraqi photogaphers. This is incredible.

Dec 26, 2004 - 11:49 am 45. maryatexitzero:

What would have been the proper course of action for the AP when it received a tip that there would be a “demonstration” on Haifa Street? To not go there, by way of spiting the terrorists? To tip off the Marines, by way of heading off whatever was going to happen (and to minimize the chance that they’ll get similar tips in the future)?

Phnurr - Are you suggesting that the press should deliberately withhold information from the authorities and let people be killed for “the chance that they’ll get similar tips in the future??”

Wow, that takes the image of corporate media whores to a new level. They do it for the money (for their ‘careers’).

Unfortunately, calling photographers who would do that “whores” is an insult to hardworking prostitutes. I think the legal term for someone who deliberately withholds information, knowing that murder/violence is likely to take place is “accessory” As we saw, the crime that these reporters may have committed is not victimless.

Dec 26, 2004 - 11:52 am 46. Jackson:

“Is the consensus that acts of terrorism wouldn’t be happening if the M$M didn’t report them?”

At least in relation to this post, it seems obvious that the point here is about journalists having knowledge of a probable criminal act and what they do with that knowledge. Its been fairly well established that the journalist weren’t at that particular spot by “accident”, so it seems that the real question is what sort of event they *really* thought they were being invited too. If they had even the slightest belief that something violent was planned, I think the consensus would be that they had a duty to pre-warn authorities.

Phnurr, I’d be interested to hear what you believe the journalist should have done if they knew that criminal acts were going to be committed.

IMO by allowing events to happen (that any other member of the public would be expected to try and stop)they are, in essence, creating news. In times past this was one of journalism’s biggest taboo’s, no more it seems.

Steve J, as someone else pointed out, the warnings I’ve heard of continuing violence as the anti-freedom fighters become more and more desperate, don’t really gel with the predictions you quoted. Mind you, your predictions, if they were made, would be as accurate as was made by those opposed to liberation of Iraq, you remember them don’t you? 500,000 killed, 10 or 20,000 dead coalition soldiers, millions of refugees, WMD’s would be used, civil war etc, etc

Dec 26, 2004 - 12:09 pm 47. PeterUK:

What Stokes is saying,in effect,is that one of the shooters could be the camerman’s brother in law.

Dec 26, 2004 - 12:13 pm 48. Terrye:

Alright,… ok…. so say we give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

He did not know anything bad would happen, so once it became apparent what was going on…. why go along with it? Why take the pictures and give them world wide exposure? At the very least the AP allowed themselves to be used.

If the US government wanted to use the media we would be hearing about it all day everyday, but when the insurgents want to execute some Iraqi election workers…well that is different.

Dec 26, 2004 - 1:13 pm 49. Phnurr:

Sayeth truepeers, inter alia:

… the kind of doubts raised by your questions suggest the cynicism of the metaphysical gymnast who prefers abstract ideas divorced from context, as if questions of whether one is reporting or collaborating with terrorism could be usefully discussed in general terms. This betrays a desire for commerce in overly-intellectualized and abstract representations of violence that may be simply a more highbrow but no less anachronistic form of the MSM commerce.

… which I guess is a long-winded way of saying:

“We really have no idea what happened on Haifa Street, but it somehow reminds us enough of Dan Rather’s bogus memos to allow us to leap to a number of further conclusions about the perfidy of the Main Stream Media.

“In light of that, we don’t appreciate pointed analytical questions that challenge those conclusions, so shut up.”

There’s nothing “cynical” about questioning “whether one is reporting [on] or collaborating with terrorists”, and it’s perfectly possible to “usefully [discuss it] in general terms” without being some sort of “metaphysical gymnast”.

As for “[preferring] abstract ideas divorced from context …”, truepeers’ entire response is nothing but abstract ideas divorced from context, without a single specific reference to what supposedly the “context” of this discussion: the shootings on Haifa Street. He clearly knows nothing about what actually happened there, but he’s nonetheless unrestrained in his pompous bloviation thereon.

And if that exemplifies the “new paradigm that increases freedoms and possibilities for exchange” that’s supposed to supplant a “system that justifies its collusion in murder in the name of our right to be informed”, it’s not much of an improvement.

Dec 26, 2004 - 1:20 pm 50. Phnurr:

Terrye:

..if Osama Bin Laden [well known terrorist] had contacted the AP and said “Be standing in front of the World Trade Center on the morning of Septmber 11, 2001 and you will get a great story.”

And they had kept that to themselves would that have been just fine and dandy?

Let’s say you’re the President of the United States, and you’re handed a Presidential Daily Briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.ÔøΩ that warned that Al Qaida may attempt to “hijack airplanes.”

And you just kept that to yourself. Would that have been just fine and dandy?

Dec 26, 2004 - 1:20 pm 51. Phnurr:

maryatexitzero:

Are you suggesting that the press should deliberately withhold information from the authorities

Yes.

and let people be killed

There’s no evidence that anything like that happened on Haifa Street — just a whole lot of uninformed, agenda-driven speculation.

for “the chance that they’ll get similar tips in the future??”

Sure. That’s how journalism works. Once sources realize that reporters can’t be trusted to protect them — that they’re functioning as police agents rather than independent observers — then most of those sources won’t talk to the press anymore.

Given the tenor of the remarks here, that would be fine with most of you folks, but a lot of us would still prefer news from Iraq that’s not filtered through the Coalition Press Office.

Dec 26, 2004 - 1:21 pm 52. Les Nessman:

John Moore

“The Swiftees wanted the word to get out before the Democrats were stuck with Kerry…”

And the sweet irony of that fact is that by delaying coverage of the Swiftees, the MSM (and the Kerry campaign) let their allegations gather steam of their own volition, with no honest, critical investigation into their validity.

(I don’t think the MSM would have given the Swiftees a fair investigation anyway; it would have been a series of ‘gotcha’ articles and hit pieces. And those unfair ‘gotcha’ articles probably would have lessened the power of the Swiftees. Which makes the arrogant denial of the MSM doubly sweet. Not so sweet for the Kerryites, though.)

Sorry for the grammatically improper sentences above, it just sounds so good when you read it out loud. Heh.

Dec 26, 2004 - 1:22 pm 53. PeterUK:

Phnurr

“but a lot of us would still prefer news from Iraq that’s not filtered through the Coalition Press Office.”

How do you like your news filtered?

Dec 26, 2004 - 1:57 pm 54. maryatexitzero:

Phnurr - ‘Independent observers’ are not justified in breaking the law. The question isn’t one of ‘agendas’. The question is, did the AP reporters commit a crime?

There’s no evidence that anything like that happened on Haifa Street

There’s evidence that people were killed, and that the reporters knew this ‘demonstration’ would be violent. AP has given us plenty of evidence that the insurgents ‘tell their stories’ by killing and maiming people.

In fact, there is no evidence that these reporters could have expected this ‘demonstration’ to be peaceful. I’ve never seen a peaceful insurgent demonstration. Have you?

But it’s true, to convict these reporters of a crime, more evidence is necessary. And that’s something that the authorities, not bloggers, are required to do.

Dec 26, 2004 - 2:16 pm 55. truepeers:

Phnurr,

I love abstract ideas and pointed analytical questions, donít get me wrong. But there is a fundamental difference between abstracting oneís thoughts from specific scenes or events, and abstracting from other abstract ideas that have lost the scenic reference from which they first emerged (this historical forgetting is inherent to the western tradition of metaphysics ñ topic for another day?).

Yes, my post does not make any specific reference to Haifa St., but the context to which I refer is obvious from the discussion thread, and we know something about what happened from what AP has said and from making an analysis of the photos in question, as has been unfolding the last few days in the blogosphere. It is clear that the murderers of the election workers wanted their act to be publicized in a certain fashion, and it is clear that the AP editors, implicitly or explicitly, thought it was their role to do so, to some extent. Or am I missing something?

Thus I was provoking you to consider whether we can respond to your question about how to know if one is reporting on or collaborating with terrorists, without our first taking sides in the conflict in question. You have ignored this, the central issue raised by my post. You may think you can discuss this question in general terms without being a metaphysical gymnast, but I still think you are a metaphysician of some caliber if you try. The specific historical context really is everything, as you also suggest. We have already reached the point where it is not fair to say that we know nothing of what happened on Haifa St, unless we indulge fabulously against the spirit of Occamís razor.

As for whether I want all my news from Iraq ìfiltered through the Coalition Press Officeî, no, definitely not. That would surely have a corrupting influence on the forces of freedom I want to prevail ñ and I am not a naÔve utopian, I just believe that relative, step by step, progress in expanding Iraqisí and othersí freedoms is what is at stake in this war. But, since I donít believe in the possibility of neutral reporting, especially in what is in large part a media war, I expect the ethical reporter to reflect on his or her relative independence as the product of historical forces that promote new freedoms over ritualized oppression, forces for which many have died in previous wars, and not fall for the nonsense idea that it is their duty to allow murderous ìinsurgentsî to ìtell their storiesî, as the AP spokesman, Jack Stokes, put it.

Still, we should hear something of those stories, but filtered through the eyes of the independent mind whose side or cause is nonetheless revealed (because one cannot be neutral in seriously discussing a war ñ though it is precisely the role of our ahistorical metaphysical tradition to leave the impression one can), not presented as if magically appearing through some process of ìobjectiveî observation.

Can you pose a serious argument against my position without being frankly anti-American, at least as the present, democratically-elected administration defines US interests? If you are anti-American, or anti-Bush, then letís not beat around the bush pretending that the Haifa St. incident is the key to understanding our differences.

Sorry if I go on ad nauseam, but this is really an issue to care about.

Dec 26, 2004 - 2:50 pm 56. Phnurr:

maryatexitzero,

There’s evidence that people were killed, and that the reporters knew this ‘demonstration’ would be violent.

No, the only “evidence” of what the reporters “knew” is what the AP told Salon:

“The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely ‘tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street,’ said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer ‘definitely would not have had foreknowledge’ of a violent event like an execution, the source said.”

And what’s the reason — aside from agenda-driven supposition, of course — to presume, prima facie, that that’s just a lie?

In fact, there is no evidence that these reporters could have expected this ‘demonstration’ to be peaceful. I’ve never seen a peaceful insurgent demonstration. Have you?

I’ve never seen any insurgent demonstration, and I daresay you haven’t either. It’s a pretty safe bet, though, that if the AP had immediately telephoned the Coalition authorities to report an anonymous tip that “something was going to happen on Haifa Street”, the reaction would quite likely have been “No shit — there are shootings and carbombings on Haifa Street almost every day. Tell us something new.”

But it’s true, to convict these reporters of a crime, more evidence is necessary. And that’s something that the authorities, not bloggers, are required to do.

Fortunately for everyone involved, the authorities have a lot of more relevant things to engage their attention these days than pursuing this flimsy “case against the AP”.

Dec 26, 2004 - 3:10 pm 57. maryatexitzero:

It’s a pretty safe bet, though, that if the AP had immediately telephoned the Coalition authorities to report an anonymous tip that “something was going to happen on Haifa Street”, the reaction would quite likely have been “No shit — there are shootings and carbombings on Haifa Street almost every day. Tell us something new.”

The tip was given for a specific location at a specific time. It’s a pretty safe bet that the Coalition Authorities and the Iraqi police would be glad to receive the tips that AP reporters get.

Fortunately for everyone involved, the authorities have a lot of more relevant things to engage their attention these days than pursuing this flimsy “case against the AP”.

That’s their decision to make.

Dec 26, 2004 - 3:29 pm 58. heather:

This is part one of the information I have gathered this morning - I have sent it to the Belmont Club and to Power Line, and hope you pick it up and send it around too:

The Associated Press is owned by 1500 AMERICAN daily newspaper member, and they elect a board of directors THAT DIRECTS THE COOPERATIVE. (see http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq)

A complete listing of the US newspapers who take AP is in the Editor & Publisher yearbook (not online, look in a library, I guess). A story that appears on AP’s international wire reaches 8,500 international subscribers.

The Associated Press Managing Editors (www.apme.com), is a busy bunch, whose “Statement of Ethical Principles” can be found at http://www.apme.com/ethics. Its current president is

Deanna Sands, Omaha World Herald, deannasands@owh.com

and vice president is

Suki Dardarian, Seattle Times, sdardarian@seattletimes.com

The APME Board of Directos can be found at

http://www.apme.com/news/newboard.shtml

Bobbie Jo Buel, Arizona Daily Star, bjbuel@azstarnet.com, is the Chairman of the “Credibility Roundtables Project” (!!!!)

Next Post: Members of the Board of Directors, AP, addresses, etc. (Buzzmachine, Jeff Jarvis, works with one of them, by the way)

Dec 26, 2004 - 3:30 pm 59. Phnurr:

truepeers,

Can you pose a serious argument against my position without being frankly anti-American, at least as the present, democratically-elected administration defines US interests?

When you put it that way, I’d have to say no. By your lights, that’s where I put myself for refusing to believe that the Associated Press is a “Fifth Column” and their photographer in Baghdad is clearly guilty of being an accessory to murder — based entirely on the circumstantial and suppositional evidence of the Haifa Street photographs.

If you are anti-American, or anti-Bush, then lets not beat around the bush pretending that the Haifa St. incident is the key to understanding our differences.

I hadn’t thought I was either, but I guess I must be for not “expect[ing] the ethical reporter to reflect on his or her relative independence as the product of historical forces that promote new freedoms over ritualized oppression, forces for which many have died in previous wars.” To me that’s a flowery and verbose justification for expecting journalists covering the war in Iraq to be unofficial cheerleaders for the Coalition.

And I suppose I’m anti-American, or anti-Bush, for not wanting my news to be “filtered through the eyes of the independent mind whose side or cause is nonetheless revealed (because one cannot be neutral in seriously discussing a war — though it is precisely the role of our ahistorical metaphysical tradition to leave the impression one can)”. I’m frankly not even sure I understand that entirely, but I take it to mean that since a journalist can’t be objective or even fair, he should quit pretending he is and start unashamedly promoting the “advance of freedom” … as defined, of course, by the “present, democratically-elected administration”.

Sorry if I go on ad nauseam, but this is really an issue to care about.

Oh you betcha it is. What you characterize as treason and criminal complicity, though, looks more to me like an attack on journalists for not toeing your party line and becoming official adminstration propagandists. And that’s an issue that I really care about.

Dec 26, 2004 - 3:36 pm 60. Fresh Air:

Phhh—-

You are obviously a sophist. President Bush had no advance warning of the Sept. 11 attacks. The PDB in question that you and your fellow lefties are so excited about contained about as much actionable information as the evening news. As anyone who has read even the most cursory reports knows, the “news” was not new, and the SOP for hijacking did not contemplate using airplanes as missiles.

This meme was debunked months ago. Go and peruse the Senate Intelligence Committee report if you remain ignorant of the facts.

When you come back, why don’t answer Terrye’s hypothetical for us? Even better, take your little pouch of Daily Kos spitballs and go to a site where people care.

Dec 26, 2004 - 3:47 pm 61. heather:

I keep harping on the Board of Directors of the AP because I know that these characters socialize with a lot of local and national important people. And also, reputation matters to them. How do I know? Well, one of my relatives was involved with a big game hunting outfit: these are expensive forays, and he has met people like Sam Walton and Chuck Yeager. Remember the flap when it was ‘revealed’ that Cheney and Scalia had gone on a hunting trip together??? Well, these board members have to get along with a lot of people whose relatives are over there in Iraq. Therefore:

1. Tom Curley is CEO of AP

450 West 33rd Street, NY NY

2. R. Jack Fishman

1220 Wildwood Drive West, Morristown Tennessee, 37814

Pub & Ed, Morristown Tenn Citizen Tribune, and Pres of Lakeway Enterprises

http://www.lakewaypublishersinc.com

1609 W First N Street

Morristown, TN 37814

Tullahoma News

http://www.tullahomanews.com

505 Lakeway Place, Tullahoma, TN. This site connects other newspapers too: Elkvalley; Winchester Herald Chronicle, Grundy County Herald, Manchester Times

Civil War Courier, PO Box 625, Morristown TN 37815

Publisher is Reece Sexton: cyc1861@lcs.net

Editor: John Ross, cwcedit@lcs.net

3.George Irish,

President, Hearst Newspapers

(for a ‘communications company’, Hearst is shy about giving an address on the web. However, our George adorns the boards of the following:)

American Press Institute, http://www.americanpressinstitute.org

11690 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20191-1498

and

Newspaper Association of America, http://www.naa.org

1921 Gallows Road, Suite 600

Vienna Virginia 22181-3900

plus

United Way of NYC

and

Columbia University Grad School of Journalism Board of Visitors.

4. Boisfeuillet (Bo) Jones Jr

Pub & CEO, Washington Post, http://www.washpost.com

1150 - 15th Street NW

Washington DC 20071

5. Julie Inskeep, jinskeep@jg.net

pub of The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne Indiana

Fort Wayne Newspapers, 600 W Main Street, Fort Wayne Indiana, 46802.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette

It may be of interest that this newspaper maintains something called ìThe Boardî, which is a discussion thing, at http://jordan.fortwayne.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi

6.

Steven O Newhouse

President, Advance.net, at http://www.advance.net

Ed in Chief, The Jersey Journal, 30 Journal Square, New Jersey, 07306

http://www.nj.com/jjournal.com

Jeff Jarvis is President & Creative Director of Advance.net, and it seems he is also a blogger, Buzz Machine (www.nj.com/weblogs/breakingnews)

7.

Mary E Junck

Chair,Pres,CEO, Lee Enterprises, Inc

215 Main Street, Davenport, Iowa 52801-1924

http://www.lee.net

There is a complete listing of the newspapers owned by Lee Enterprises at http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/lee.asp

Of the daily newspapers owned by Lee Ent,

5 are in Iowa, 7 in Wisconsin, 4 in Nebraska, 5 in Illinois, 5 in Montana, 3 in New York, 2 in Oregon, and 1 each in California, Indiana, Minnesota, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Washington, South Carolina, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Dec 26, 2004 - 4:04 pm 62. Terrye:

Ph:

You did not answer my question and as for yours why don’t you go ask Clinton? It is not as if there was anything new in that breifing that th e previous president had not already heard.

Maybe Bush should have grounded all air traffic until the end of time, but if the press had been paying attention to Islamic fascism for the previous eight years it might not have been necessary. I actually bought the 9/11 Commission report and it is intersting to note that Osama really came into his own during the ninties so… answer the question. Would it have been ok to keep that tip to yourself?

You know the AP will not release the photgrapher’s name. That is very unusual. They say for safety reasons, but who is he afriad of? The insurgents, excuse me contacts, already know who he is, after all they told him where to be and when to be there camera in hand…hmmmmm. Maybe he is someone they don’t want to admit dealing with. Speculation I know but sense they refuse to be open about the issue that is all we have.

The point is that he got a tip and he went out there and several armed men pulled some poor bastards out of a car and shot them and the photgrapher took a picture of it that a billion people might see. Just like the shooters wanted him to.

It seems to me that Zarqawi is filtering the effing news here, not the Coalition.

Dec 26, 2004 - 4:19 pm 63. PeterUK:

Is not the point that the “insurgents” stories are not being told,

Where are the interviews with Ba’athists,al Qaeda,Zarqawi, all that they seem able to articulate is death.All tha AP seems to be able to do is furnish evidence of violent deaths,why do they not send someone to interview these people?

A picture with a caption written by AP is not telling the story it is voyeurism.

Heather,Magnificent work.

Dec 26, 2004 - 4:26 pm 64. PJ:

Here is today’s AP fifth column entry, another story about “ignorant” Americans who don’t know that Islam teaches peace and their Muslim victims.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/12/26/sections/news/focus/article_356783.php

You would never guess from the piece (with comments from CAIR) that Mr. Halimah, the victim of our ignorance, that he is a member of a virulently anti-Israel Palestinian support group. Wouldn’t that be relevant to the story, and wasn’t it omitted purposefully because it would slant the story a different way?

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Tarshiha/MoreDirectoryService.html

Dec 26, 2004 - 4:34 pm 65. truepeers:

Phnurr,

I have not argued that AP or its employees are guilty of breaking the criminal law, let alone committing treason. ìCollusion in murderî was my original formulation, which is a political judgment of the ethics involved in publishing the photos. Whether a court would find anyone criminally guilty of accessory to murder would depend on what we as yet donít know about what the photographer and editors knew about what would unfold on Haifa St, and their role thereafter. But one can have sinned ethically and not be criminally liable. Civil liability is something the families of those murdered should be asking about.

I donít expect the press, as you imply, ìto be unofficial cheerleaders for the Coalition.î I expect them to be moral agents in their own right. I still hold it is not possible to be neutral in how one discusses a war, which is perhaps often a reason to shut up in the face of unfathomable violence; but if one is in a position as reporter then one should be frank about oneís inclinations. You should not take this to mean that I think ìthat since a journalist can’t be objectiveÖ he should quit pretending he is and start unashamedly promoting the “advance of freedom” … as defined, of course, by the “present, democratically-elected administration”.

Shame can be a useful, morally productive, experience, though one can of course take it too far. Anyway, what the present administration defines is its casus belli, tactics and strategy. Its policy of pre-emption is historically novel in some respects and can be criticized for its attempt to re-write international law, though I am sympathetic to it for just this reason. As for tactics and strategy, Iím no expert, but I have some doubts. These questions are open to journalistsí criticisms; but as soon as we go down that road we lose focus on the ethical question that started our debate: should the pictures have been published in the way they were (with AP feigning neutrality, in their first press release, and claiming to uphold the responsibilities of such an impossible status).

I am yet unsure what you think. On this point specifically, it all depends on whose side we take and it not unreasonable to expect an American news organization to have enough ethical sense to question its role in publicizing the violence of thugs who shamelessly kill election workers. I donít think it is too much to expect reporters to have a sense of history as a long-term unfolding of freedoms that must be fought for - even if they canít explain why history unfolds in this fashion - and decide whether they think the murderers are on the side that is taking steps forward or backwards, and to be frank about this, without this making them into a coalition mouthpiece ñ because there are still grounds to criticize strategy, tactics, etc.

To be clear, I am not criticizing journalists for not toeing my party line; I am criticizing them for giving terrorists what they want and for pretending neutrality when doing so. In response to this, I point out that they have in fact taken sides, as they must do, and they should be open to political and ethical criticism for their choice.

There are no angels in war. I believe war can only be justified if one believes that, in the long term, oneís victory is reasonably likely (that is if one is not fighting solely in self-defense) and that the short-term descent into violence will contribute, in the long term, to diminishing the conditions for violence in the world, and for increasing the degrees of freedom in the societies on both sides of the conflict (as, e.g., was the outcome in WWII, the war that is perhaps the most readily justified, historically). We can debate whether the Bush administration meets this test. No question about that. But we cannot pretend to be neutral about killing and still consider ourselves ethical or moral human beings.

We live in history, a process that unfolds and in which we must locate our personal faith, one way or another. We do not live in the ahistorical universe constructed by western philosophers who pretend to address fundamental questions using an abstract reason, as if that reason were not itself a product of history. The best that can be said about this philosophical tradition is that it absorbs and defers much intellectual violence; I criticize it because I believe (though this is surely debatable) that we have reached a point in history where this deferral is best continued by another type of conversation with our fellow inhabitants of the global village, one that is more frank about the nature of history, and our place in it, a history understood in terms of the diverse traditions that have evolved from our common human origin. My belief in our common origin ñ the belief that all human languages and religions stem from a singular emergence of the first language/religion - gives me a moral basis to criticize those who think morality is simply relative, held equally by all opposing sides. I think our differences have to be worked through without pretending we can step ìobjectivelyî outside of the history that has put us all in different positions today, even though we all share the universal morality (the intuition of a fundamental human equality, the sanctity of life, and the imperative of reciprocity) that I believe to be the legacy of our common origin. This also suggests why I believe the need to expand freedoms is a universal human imperative, no less for Iraqis than for me.

Dec 26, 2004 - 5:24 pm 66. PeterUK:

Should not the way AP obtained those pictures equate to the concept of ethical investment and fair trading.Just as it is regarded as unethical to buy goods made in sweatshops surely it is unethical to buy picture taken in extremely dubious circumstances?

AP at the very least is acting as an agent provocateur in offering money to those it cannot vet in an area rife with terrorism and gangsterism,very similar to hanging round crack addicts and saying you could do with a new car.

The central question is what did happen on Haifa Street,this is what AP will not give a satisfactory answer to.

Dec 26, 2004 - 6:12 pm 67. PeterUK:

Burke and Hare were two infamous 19C body snatchers, who provided cadavers for an Edinburgh medical school.

Impatient with the procedure of digging up bodies of the recently dead they decided to cut out the loborious nocturnal grave digging and deliver the bodies direct.Burke and Hare were caught after they murdererd their sixteenth victim.

The doctor who bought the bodies was never prosecuted.

There is a moral to this story somewhere.

Dec 26, 2004 - 7:26 pm 68. Joe Schmoe:

Phnurr-

I too would like to point out that you still haven’t honestly addressed the September 11 hypothetical.

Why does the AP need to obtain “news” directly from the insurgents? In what way is what they are doing “newsworthy?”

Thus far, the M$M has given the insurgency plenty of media attention. Despite all of the coverage, I have yet to learn what ideology is driving the insurgency. What beliefs do they hold dear? What is their vision for the future of Iraq?

In some wars, take Vietnam for example, one’s opponent had a recognizable ideology. One might not have agreed with the NVA’s communism and anti-colonialism, but at least they had a set of beliefs, however abhorrent to (most) Americans.

In that sort of war, the press can provide us with a useful picture of our enemies. If we understand our enemies, we can defeat them or at least make peace with them. Personally, I find even this vision of the press repulsive; I don’t think that any American or citizen of a civilized nation should be breaking bread with our enemies, even if they have a legitimate political vision. But I can see how a realist might say that a neutral press can at least serve a purpose here, by giving us an idea of our enemies’ beliefs.

But what beliefs do the insurgents in Iraq have? I haven’t the slightest idea. Some, the Islamists, want to create a Taliban-like state in Iraq. That’s not news, though.

But the others, the Sunni triangle diehards, don’t appear to have any political ideology. In the past, they murdered, tortured, and intimidated their way into power, and they want to do so again. That’s it. No noble vision for a progressive future, no deeply-held beliefs about mankind and society. Nope, it’s the strong vs. the weak. A Hobbesian state of nature.

To my mind, therefore, the insurgents in Iraq are much like serial killers or drug dealers. No self-respecting reporter would promise a serial killer a confidential interview on the theory that his lunatic rantings were “news” that the public “deserves to know,” or becuase the police department is an interested party that “can’t be trusted to give the citizentry the unvarnished truth.” The moral compass of the average reporter just wouldn’t permit it.

But the moral compass of the press is askew when it comes to the war in Iraq. Many members of our media are anti-American traitors. Nothing else can explain why they’d refuse an interview with a serial killer but will gladly answer the call of the Iraqi “insurgents.” They are traitors.

Dec 26, 2004 - 7:35 pm 69. J_Crater:

Phnurr,

I’ve read most of the posting here and can see you just don’t get it, so I will make it simple.

If a terrorist organization were to call me up as a reporter and tell me to meet them at your place for a demonstration. I went there and they performed their demonstration by killing you so I could snap off a few pictures. These pictures would be used in the next editions of the various AP subscribers so could jazz up their front pages and increase circulation numbers, mind you. If I called the police then all reporters would be suspect now.

Would you have no problem with this ?

Dec 26, 2004 - 7:43 pm 70. Joe Schmoe:

J_Crater-

Oh, come on, you are just begging Phnurr to proclaim that his Christ-like sacrifice would not be in vain if only it were reported uncensored to the world by an impartial media.

Of course, without knowing the man or woman, I can feel free ot that’s as close as he/she’ll ever get to any kind of sacrifice.

Dec 26, 2004 - 7:53 pm 71. Neo:

I think J Crater is over the line .. using the term “terrorist organization” is something that no news organization would do.

As for the Iraqis, if the AP photographer were non-Iraqi I would arrest him/her and have thme escorted out of the country as a persona non grata. No country has to stand for freedom of insurection by outside agents.

The AP’s part in the killing of election workers brings up the point of wether the AP really believes in the rights for other that it claims for itself.

Dec 26, 2004 - 7:54 pm 72. heather:

The following is a letter I am sending snail mail to each member of the board of AP; plus Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee; plus (via Email) to various members of the APME board.

Dear Sir:

The attached photo is one of a series taken on Haifa Street, Baghdad, and distributed to the world via your cooperative, Associated Press. A number of questions have arisen regarding this photo, which could lead to a conclusion that your organization is cooperating with Murder, by providing a megaphone for a ìMinutemen Insurgents Messageî as expressed in the photographed slaughter of Iraqi Election workers.

Since the Associated Press is a cooperative of AMERICAN newspapers, and since each of you on its Board of Directors own and operate newspapers serving the American heartland, I know that this charge must be of deep concern to you.

These are the issues, then, as propounded by the blog, Belmont Club**

1. How did the Associated Press photographer happen to be at that particular place on Haifa Street, at the crucial time when the murders took place? Was it on his route to home or work?

2. How did he photograph the execution sequence in the midst of an attack by 30 persons from the middle of the major road? The picture indicates that the photographer remained standing, with a steady hand and no need of a telephoto lens, even though guns were blazing, bullets were flying, in an atmosphere of mayhem and crisis. Such amazing coolness should be rewarded by a Pulitzer - or perhaps his task was well known to the murderers, and integral to the whole ambush. There are many indications that a telephoto lens WAS NOT USED.

3. Such an operation on a busy street had to be done quickly and precisely, as an American response would be rapid and lethal. Yet, the murderers did not simply shoot the victims while they were inside the car. They took the time to drag the men out of the car, onto the road, to the cameraís line of sight. In fact, three of the potential victims managed to escape during this awkward phase of the operation.

4. The photo was taken from the middle of the road. The traffic behind the attack is completely halted. The traffic behind the photographer had probably hurried on as fast as it could. Logically the photography was standing pretty much alone in the middle of the roadway. The camera field shows no evidence that he might have sheltered behind or inside a vehicle. Odds on, the cameraman was between any obstructing vehicle and the killers.

5. Since the head of the man on the left just grazes the top of the taxi, visually speaking, the photographer must be a little bit elevated relative to him (since we assume the top of the taxi is slightly below head height). Perhaps the photographer was a tall westerner? Or standing on a curb? Or even on a chair provided by the ìInsurgent Minutemenî?

6. Given the risk of losing some 30 ìInsurgent Minutemenî in this operation if any advance warning had been given to the US or Iraqi authorities, this was a serious and important undertaking. Yet the victims were only unknown election workers. The objective would seem to have been NOT the murder, but the PHOTOGRAPHS, and moreover, photographs which would be distributed throughout the world by Associated Press.

Now, the Associated Press is owned by some 1,500 AMERICAN newspapers. I am quite aware that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America assures that the ënewsí is unfettered by censorship. However, the Associated Press also has an elected Board of Directors charged with ìdirectingî this cooperative. Surely part of your responsibility is moral as well as financial oversight? Surely, given the fact that the news you spread so easily, and so profitably, you draw the line at being a partner to slaughter?…and dare I say it, slaughter of men engaged in Elections of great interest to Americaís welfare?

I know that you reject any claim your country of citizenship may have upon your activities - but I also know that the newspapers you own are embedded in towns throughout the American heartland. It is from these towns that the American soldiers have sprung. I would not be surprised of you have personal acquaintances whose sons and daughters are even now in harmís way in the War on Terror. The Haifa Street murder victims are unknown to all except their families and friends, far away in Iraq. Perhaps, in this Christmas season, we could spare a thought for them, too.

Yours truly

H McFarlane

cc. Rep. Duncan Hunter,

Chairman, House Armed Services Committee

plus

via email … Various newspapers of interest to Board Members, as well as some members of the Board of Directors of the Associated Press Managing Editors.

**www.belmontclub.blogspot.com

Dec 26, 2004 - 8:31 pm 73. truepeers:

Heather,

Thanks for taking this on. I look forward to hearing what responses you get.

If Roger is listening, this might also be an occasion to suggest a post on how the blogosphere can communicate with the older media world and governments: could individual blogs be served by any form of collective representation through votes, petitions, etc? or can we only communicate results of our discussions through encouraging multiple individual petitions to decision makers?

Also, I am curious to know if people maybe think that posters who use pseudonyms are failing to take resonsibility for their words, or whether, perhaps, such anonymity is a form of self-sacrifice that usefully expands the freedom and creativity of our discussions. If I were using my real name, I would be more circumspect, though perhaps not more disciplined in a useful way.

Dec 27, 2004 - 12:20 am 74. Cap'n Billy:

Re: Steve J. & Phnurr:

Others have addressed these two poltroons far more eloquently than I, but they make me sick to my stomach. At the very least, they seem to think that journalism trumps human lives, and that journalists and photographers do not have to conform to the same standards of decency as the rest of us do. More likely, they are just on the other side, and would like to see the U.S. and the Iraqis who are struggling for some sort of representative government lose. A pox on both of them!

Dec 27, 2004 - 7:26 am 75. Mark Poling:

One of the oldest aphorisms in journalism is “If it bleeds, it ledes.”

The (maybe) new element is the journalist seems happy to hand the knife to the killer. Who would expect the killer to refuse the help?

Dec 27, 2004 - 11:52 am 76. Tom Holsinger:

Roger,

AP may have significant civil liability exposure to the victims’ families in American courts, under the legal theory of civil conspiracy. The conspiracy objective would be to give publicity to terrorists. Every person or organization agreeing to act in concert to achieve a conspiracy’s goals is liable for every act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

American courts have taken jurisdiction, and awarded huge civil judgments, in far more questionable cases. Here is the Lexis summary of Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472(D.C. Cir. 1983):

“The personal representative of the physician’s estate brought a wrongful death and survival action seeking damages based on consequences resulting from the physician’s death during a burglary. The district court found that appellant, who was not a participant in the actual burglary, was jointly and severally liable with her live-in boyfriend for the killing of the physician under theories of conspiracy and aiding and abetting and awarded a monetary judgment against both of them. Appellant sought review on the issue of her liability. The court found based on the record that appellant knew the purpose of her boyfriend’s nightly outings and the means that he used to acquire their wealth. Further, appellant was a long-time willing partner in assisting her boyfriend dispose of the burglary proceeds. Appellant acted as a secretary and recordkeeper for the burglary enterprise and maintained financial transactions solely in her name. Appellant also took unsubstantiated income tax deductions related to the burglary proceeds. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment finding appellant jointly and severally liable as a co-conspirator and joint venturer.”

Dec 27, 2004 - 12:29 pm 77. PeterUK:

Interestingly Genn Reynolds has a post on the difficulties of administering the law in Iraq

pdf format http://www.greenbag.org/McGurk.pdf

Dec 27, 2004 - 2:37 pm 78. Steve J.:

Hi, I will try to respond to the comments to my original post.

CAP’N BILLY: “Funny… I don’t remember being told any of those things.”

Ok, but here’s one mention of an early withdrawal:

Allies to Retain Larger Iraq Force as Strife Persists

By Michael R. Gordon

The New York Times

29 May 2003

Earlier this month, allied military officials said they were hoping to reduce American forces here at a faster rate, drawing the American presence in Iraq down to less than two divisions by the fall.

TERRYE:”The national policy of the US will be regime change in Iraq because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and Bill Clinton guranteed us Saddam would use those weapons if he were not removed from power. Remember that? ”

Yes and I also remember these comments:

POWELL, 2/24/2001: ?He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors? http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

?He [Saddam] does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.? Rice, 7/29/01

?The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained.? Powell, 5/15/01

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he’s harboring terrorists?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is–in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein’s bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html

Dec 28, 2004 - 8:18 am 79. PeterUK:

“There is–in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York”

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ?

Dec 28, 2004 - 9:24 am 80. Cap'n Billy:

Re: Steve J. at December 28, 2004 08:18 AM

“allied military officials said they were hoping to reduce American forces here at a faster rate, drawing the American presence in Iraq down to less than two divisions by the fall.”

I don’t know how you interpret that statement, purportedly made to a NYT reporter by nameless “allied military officials,” but I see it as an expression of hope. Of course, when the Islamic Fascists began their terror campaign that hope was not realized. None of the other passages you quote can be interpreted as promises either.

This may come as a surprise to you, but in war your enemies frequently don’t cooperate in allowing you do what you want, so then you must do what you must. Mountebanks like you do a disservice to the war efforts by claiming that failure to win the war on a timetable constitutes misfeasance or malfeasance. But then I suspect that’s your goal anyway.

Dec 28, 2004 - 11:52 am 81. Greg D:

You know, the KKK want their story told, too. I guess the AP should send some photographers along with them.

Dec 28, 2004 - 1:03 pm 82. jedati:

PJ:

“Here is today’s AP fifth column entry, another story about “ignorant” Americans who don’t know that Islam teaches peace and their Muslim victims.

You would never guess from the piece (with comments from CAIR) that Mr. Halimah, the victim of our ignorance, that he is a member of a virulently anti-Israel Palestinian support group. Wouldn’t that be relevant to the story, and wasn’t it omitted purposefully because it would slant the story a different way?”

Maybe the key to the article is in the last paragraph:

“Our religion stresses acceptance by our neighbors,” Halimah said.

That is a true statement. Islam does stress that the infidels must accept Islam. He does not say that his religion stresses that Mulims must accept their neighbors.

I am wondering why, if Islam is the religion of peace, why peace can rarely be found in Muslim nations? Fruit doesn’t usually fall far from the tree.

Dec 28, 2004 - 4:56 pm 83. Steve J.:

Cap’n Billy:”Mountebanks like you do a disservice to the war efforts by claiming that failure to win the war on a timetable constitutes misfeasance or malfeasance. ”

Army Historian Cites Lack of Postwar Plan

Major Calls Effort in Iraq ‘Mediocre’

By Thomas E. Ricks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24891-2004Dec24.html

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, December 25, 2004; Page A01

“There was no Phase IV plan” for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.

During the period in question, from April to June 2003, Wilson was a researcher for the Army’s Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group. Then, from July 2003 to March 2004, he was the chief war planner for the 101st Airborne Division, which was stationed in northern Iraq.

As a result of the failure to produce a plan, Wilson asserts, the U.S. military lost the dominant position in Iraq in the summer of 2003 and has been scrambling to recover ever since. “In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative . . . gained over an off-balanced enemy,” he writes. “The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since.”

Many in the Army have blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon civilians for the unexpectedly difficult occupation of Iraq, but Wilson reserves his toughest criticism for Army commanders who, he concludes, failed to grasp the strategic situation in Iraq and so not did not plan properly for victory. He concludes that those who planned the war suffered from “stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt.”

Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. “This overly simplistic conception of the ‘war’ led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve ’success,’ ” he writes.

Dec 29, 2004 - 8:59 am 84. PeterUK:

“Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.”

What were they supposed to do, role the document up and puppy train the “insurgents” ?

Dec 29, 2004 - 1:41 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: