Saturday, January 6, 2007

the A(w/t)P and the Truth

You can't read anywhere on the blogosphere today without seeing that (according to) the A(w/t)P has produced Jamil Hussein.

Of course, it's the Iraqi government that says they found him and the A(w/t)P is just reporting it, but it amounts to the same thing. Ms. Carroll (AP headhoncho) claims that blogger attention has made life unsafe for Mr. Hussein, while using his name and location of work for 60+ stories somehow didn't.

It seems some of the confusion was the fact that he was using 2 names (variations) when talking to reporters or picking up his paycheck. He also specifically denied being the source for the burning Sunni's story to the Iraqi government.

Of course, now the left and the MSM are all aglow that this somehow vindicates the A(w/t)P and makes all the stories true. While this does (seem to) answer the question about the named source for the story, it does not shed any light on a story that NO ONE can back up. The A(w/t)P changed this story many times without telling anyone (from 4 burned mosques and dozens killed to finally 1 burned, but not destroyed mosque and 6 immolated sunnis), and as of yet there is no collaboration to it.

For the people on the left and the MSM'ers who feel that bloggers (especially right-wing) have unfairly targeted the A(w/t)P on this story, answer me this: What happened to the sunnis? Where is the evidence to back up the story that NO ONE but the A(w/t)P and Mr. Hussein seem to know about (yes they have 3 more unnamed witnesses, but that does not add accountability to the story). Considering that Mr. Hussein was the named source for 60+ stories and most of them cannot be traced through any other news agency, his existence is a mere formality to the truth of his tips. In a place where reprisals are hard and fast, you would think that six people being dragged from a place of worship and burned alive would warrant some pretty steep payback, yet not a peep was heard from the Sunni Insurgents or anyone else on the ground in Baghdad.

In this age of 'fake-but-accurate' reporting, is this simply good enough? Are we to take the word of an unknown, possibly hostile witness to events that cannot be verified by anyone? If you went to court on the word of one witness and no evidence, would you reasonably expect to win? Of course not, you'd get laughed out of court and rightfully so.

By focusing so much on the existence of Jamil Hussein (as I did), we the blogosphere have permitted the A(w/t)P to get away with much more in there story-telling on the war in Iraq.

When (not if) the war with Iran becomes a two-way war (they declared on us in the 70's sooner or later we will have to declare back); I hope that the county will come together, but I'm not confident in that.

Reading around the 'sphere today, you see the same points over and over. On the right and right-center, you see posts about shoddy reporting, fake stories, bad stringers and scandals that Democrats cover-up/slip by. On the left and center-left you will find bashing of any right-wing(er) who doubted the A(w/t)P's word on Jamil Hussein and posts galore on what it will take for the Democrats in Congress to bring the troops home, no matter what. Of all the blogs I've read, not one (considered) lefty blog seems to care much about winning or even thinks there is a 'win' to be had, not one of them are concerned with the Islamic march toward the global Umma. They are definitely worried about how many trials, subpoenas and witch-hunts that this Congress can get through before the '08 election season.

Before you run to gloat or run to hide, remember this: The existence of a named source about a suspect story still leaves the story suspect.
Reason amongst the dhimmikrauts

No comments:


 Recently played a few games on Caldera (warzone) and then... Lots of luck in this one, but satisfying