Fox News' Hume: AP "has been vindicated" on Iraq atrocity story
SUMMARY: Fox News' Brit Hume said that the Associated
Press "has been vindicated" over its report of six Iraqis who were
purportedly burned alive, after the source for that article, Jamil Hussein, whose
existence has been a subject of dispute among many conservative bloggers, was reportedly
confirmed by Iraq's Interior Ministry to be an Iraqi police captain.
Fox News' Washington managing editor Brit Hume reported on January 4 that "the Associated Press says the Iraqi Interior Ministry has acknowledged" the existence of Iraqi police Capt. Jamil Hussein, who was a source for a November 24 Associated Press article in which the AP reported that "Shiite militiamen doused six Sunni Arabs with kerosene and burned them alive as Iraqi soldiers stood by." That report has been a target of fierce criticism by conservative bloggers, many of whom suggested that Hussein did not exist. Two days after reporting former CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan's claim that he found no evidence to prove the existence of Hussein, Hume said that "the AP, it appears, has been vindicated."
As noted by Media Matters for America columnist Eric Boehlert, spurred by the U.S. Central Command's claim that the attacks the AP reported could not be corroborated and that there was no Baghdad police captain named Jamil Hussein, conservative bloggers seized on the then-disputed Hussein story "to advance their phony notion that the press is to blame for the Iraq fiasco."
The AP reported on January 4:
The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.
Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.
From the January 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: A former top executive at CNN is calling out the Associated Press, saying he could find no evidence that one of its top Iraqi sources actually exists. Eason Jordan, who now runs a website devoted to Iraq news, says neither he nor the government's news outlets and bloggers trying to track down Iraqi police Captain Jamil Hussein have been able to turn up even a family member, friend, or colleague, and the AP isn't helping.
A spokesman says Hussein, who has been quoted in dozens of AP stories and is often critical of the U.S., is someone they've talked to for years, but she would not respond to critics' demands to prove his existence.
From the January 4 edition of Special Report:
HUME: And the Associated Press says the Iraqi Interior Ministry has acknowledged now that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been widely -- had been denied even by both the Iraqis and the U.S. is in fact an active member of the force, who now faces arrest for speaking to the media. Captain Jamil Hussein was one of the sources for an AP story last November about the burning and shooting of six people during a Shiite militia attack at a Sunni mosque. The AP was widely accused at the time of making up Hussein's identity in order to disseminate false news about the war. No explanation was offered about why it took so long to confirm his name or why it is being disclosed now, but the AP, it appears, has been vindicated on this.
There must not be much conservative misinformation today. This post by Media Matters is meaningless. No misinformation or bias here. Simply straight news reporting. Maybe Media Matters thinks that the straight news is biased. Who knows. This has to be a record for the most meaningless post Media Matters has ever put up. It's no wonder this website doesn't have much credibility.
The issue at hand here was the fact that conservatives were saying that the Iraqi police guy didn't exist. They are reporting news that the guy has been confirmed to exist. This post is very relevant.
Media Matters, from time to time, will post SOME good news, such as things Keith Olbermann says. Newsbusters, which the conservative version of Media Matters, does the same thing.
The goal of Media Matters is to try to point out conservative misinformation in the media. This post does nothing of the sort. Media Matters is straying from their stated objective, and this post is inconsequential. But maybe I am a bit confused about the purpose of this post. Is Media Matters trying to point out that Brit Hume is fair and balanced?
You're looking at the bottom line, where Hume, probably through gritted teeth, says, "The AP, it appears, has been vindicated on this." But as I wrote below, Hume's culpability in promoting this manufactured story is clear.
The "Jamil Hussein" non-scandal has been roaring through the right-wing blogosphere and was beginning to seep into Fox. Brit Hume distancing himself from the non-story is noteworthy.
"Brit Hume distancing himself from the non-story is noteworthy."
Maybe, but if anything it just gives Fox News more credibility. It is simply a small amount of proof that Fox News isn't the lying right wing organization that most liberals think it is.
I'll certainly give credit where credit is due. However, if anyone has ever said that the issue is that Fox lies consistently, all the time, they were probably overstating the issue. I like Shepard Smith's reporting during Katrina, for example.
Or, to put it less charitably, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
Fox News is still a group of lying, biased, flagrant and contemptible blockheads.
As Media Matters has documented literally thousands of time.
How many times has Media Matters exposed Hume? Just because he speaks the truth once, doesn't erase his record.
If you accept the ludicrous proposition that if you EVER tell the truth then you are not a lying rightwing propaganda pusher. Instead of if you lie a substantial number of times you become a lying rightwing propaganda operation even if you toss some truth in there when its inevitable in order to salvage any possible shred of credibility with ANYONE
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
I believe this story falls under ".....correcting conservative misinformation” The fact that Hume corroborated the AP’s assertion that the source did exist is irrelevant. Fox News is not the only conservative media outlet. The bottom line is that the AP was castigated for supposedly using a source that did not exist. This was promoted mainly by conservative news outlets. Hume is most likely trying to take the wind out of the story, before it is used against Fox News.
The real question is weather or not he would have done the same if MMFA did not exist?
...that Hume is just as guilty of fueling the false accusations and innuendo as the right-wing bloggers who started the whole thing. It's interesting how Hume often scoffs at bloggers, but he clearly picked up this manufactured story from them.
LOL
The AP claims the guy exists and vindicates itself.
That doesn't answer how a low level officer can comment on areas far, far from his perview, why the AP changed its burning mosques stories from four to one, why it won't verify it's burning sunnis stories, why it used a unsubstantiated source to print years worth of unverified atrocity stories, etc. etc.
Hume was an idiot for saying the AP was vindicated. They have many, many questions to answer for and if they think that verifying there is a live body is some kind of answer to their lies they are grossly underestimating the blogosphere.
it was the iraqi interior ministry that confirmed he existed. maybe all you guys, tommy and truth rejector included, need remedial reading classes. you are not able to grasp the simplest sentences and facts.
That is truly one on the stupidest posts I've ever seen.
Eric Boehlert was vindicated and the war bloggers can now keep their fat mouths shut.
And you can go back and finish 6th grade.
How is Brit Hume being biased here? How is saying that the AP "has been vindicated" conservative misinformation? It seems as if he's just setting the record straight. Seems like fair and balanced reporting to me.
...on MMFA, you would probably have been complaining that they only told one side of the story. I don't watch Fox, so I'd have no way of knowing what Hume said if it weren't posted here, or somewhere.
I don't get what bugs you about this. When MMFA thinks there is misinformation, they state it. This is not being presented as misinformation, it's just reported straightforwardly.
Straightforward reporting ABOUT media misinformation even TD isnt this dumb he is being a troll
I believe the point Media Matters is making with this post is not that Hume is spreading misinformation by saying the AP was vindicated.
Their target is not Hume at all with this piece.
MMFA is pointing out that even conservative Fox News now has to admit that the AP was right all along. MMFA is really targeting the massive amounts of misinformation spread by right-wing blogs, radio, and TV commentators about the "Jamilgate" incident, as they call it.
The sad part of this whole thing is that a man dared to speak to the press, and is about to have his life ruined over it. He dared to say Shiites working for the Shiite-led Iraqi government had brutally killed Sunnis in a mosque. Now that brave informant (Jamil Hussein) is going to be arrested by the Shiite-led government. His life is probably ruined for speaking the truth.
We sure are "bringing freedom" to Iraqi people....
Hume picked up this "story" from right-wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin, who manufactured it out of nothing. Look at his January 2nd report. There's nothing straight about it. He implied that the AP made up Jamil Hussein, just as Malkin and her cohorts have been baselessly claiming for weeks now. It was all manufactured to discredit the AP.
Read Eric Boehlert's column on this site to get the entire history of this nonsense. Glenn Greenwald also has a good column on it today: [link to glenngreenwald.blogspot.com]
[link to mediamatters.org]
Not from you Truth Detector, but below is one of the comments that echoed throughout the Warblogging community.
"Way to put your head in the sand
Having a lying, corrupt Associated Press that pushes an agenda with phony reports, fake sources, staged photos is something the American people should demand be cleaned up.
Of course since they further the progressive agenda, you don't care about the lies and filth the AP perpetuates. Another intellectually empty progressive."
- leatherhelmet / Tuesday December 12, 2006 07:35:54 PM EST
I can understand how Media Matters would criticize the conservatives who thought that the AP ran with a fake story. I just thought the point of this post was that Brit Hume was being biased in some way. However, one poster said that this is a piece of good news that Media Matters is reporting rather than misinformation, so I guess that might be it. My original thought was that Media Matters was criticizing Hume for being biased in some way. This was obviously a fair and balanced report, as Hume was just setting the record straight. So maybe this is just a "good news" post from Media Matters. But it still strays from their stated mission.
Take a deep breath and look at the WHOLE story. Maybe you haven't been following this story--and if not you should go back and read about it--but this is not an example of Hume being fair and balanced. It's an example of Hume picking up a manufactured story from rabid right-wing blogs and presenting it as real news. Don't you wonder why legitimate news organizations haven't reported on this story? It's because it was bogus from the start. Hume doesn't deserve a cookie for saying that the AP has been vindicated. If he was an actual un-biased fair and balanced reporter he wouldn't have given this obviously false story any airtime in the first place.
You're right, I haven't been following the story, but it does seem like a valid news story. I don't see anything wrong with Hume reporting on it. He even gave both sides of the story on the Jan. 2 report:
"A spokesman says Hussein, who has been quoted in dozens of AP stories and is often critical of the U.S., is someone they've talked to for years"
That was simply a fair and balanced report as well. Hume seemed to give both sides of the story, and he was simply reporting on a story that was gaining traction. He then simply updated the situation on Jan. 4. There wasn't any bias from Brit Hume. You can gloat all you want about how the conservative bloggers were wrong, but Brit Hume doesn't deserve any blame.
...who were on an AP witch hunt. And Hume is responsible for picking up this obviously bogus story and implying that the AP had made up a source who reports "stories that are often critical of the U.S." Again, the fact that Hume was forced to acknowledge that AP has been vindicated does not discount the fact that he hyped this bogus story in the first place. It does no speak to Hume's or Fox's credibility that they were fed this story from Michelle Malkin and her ilk.
Please read the background on this story before claiming that this all somehow shows that Fox and Hume aren't biased.
Hume never implied that the conservative bloggers were right. He was simply reporting the story as it was gaining traction. He never gave his opinion one way or the other. He reported that the former CNN executive was skeptical of the AP report, and then he gave the other side:
"A spokesman says Hussein, who has been quoted in dozens of AP stories and is often critical of the U.S., is someone they've talked to for years"
...you really need to go back and read all the links that have been provided to you in this thread. And then I'll ask you again: Why do you think that the only people reporting this story were right-wing blogs and Fox News?
First you say that this was a huge story that I should have known about, and that I am misinformed, and then you say that the only places that this has been reported is Fox News and conservative blogs. Which is it? How is this such a widespread and important story that I should have known about when hardly and news organizations are reporting it?
Anyway, I read the link, and obviously the conservative bloggers were wrong about everything. But the Iraqi Government only said that the source was authentic recently, and it was an unsettled issue before. There wasn't anything wrong with Hume reporting on it. He gave both sides of the issue. Why won't you respond to the quote that I put up by Hume which showed that he gave both sides of the issue objectively?
I said it was a bogus story generated by right-wing bloggers and picked up by Fox News. What you should have been informed about before repeatedly posting in this thread was that Media Matters and other progressive bloggers have been following this rabid right-wing campaign and debunking it along the way.
And I addressed your Hume quote in a post below.
All right. I'm relatively new here, and I haven't been following Media Matters' coverage of this story. My point is simply that this doesn't fall under the category of conservative misinformation, at least on the part of Hume. Hume set the record straight when he said "The AP has been vindicated," and I just don't think this post falls under MMFA's stated mission.
who needs to let everyone know what should and shouldn't be on this site. maybe since you're "new" as you admit and don't know much about this story, maybe you just need to shut up and get caught up to speed.
Meant "hardly any"
...that Hume quote that you keep presenting as "giving the other side" is 100% right-wing spin. For one thing, why would he claim that the source was "often critical of the U.S."?
I don't know. Maybe he is critical of the U.S. But if he wasn't, that would seem more like Pro-America spin than right wing spin.
...is a government. America is a country (actually a continent, but for the sake of argument we'll pretend we're the only Americans here).
I am sick of criticism of the government's actions being portrayed as anti-American. What's more American than criticizing the government? What's the Declaration of Independence other than a long list of complaints about the government?
Sorry to be OT, but this bugs the $#!t out of me...
It isn't. It's noting for the record that Brit Hume had to back off his own allegations - quoted in the story - from two days earlier. This is an example of MM being "fair and balanced" - while noting that Fox had to back off its own misinformation.
BTW - being caught spreading politically motivated misinformation and having to back down is hardly being "fair and balanced."
It's glaringly obvious you aren't up to speed on yet another issue. Makes one wonder why any human would parade their ignorance in public like you do.
"The "credibility" of the right-wing blogosphere"
[link to glenngreenwald.blogspot.com]
"It's glaringly obvious you aren't up to speed on yet another issue."
What was the first issue? I don't remember you saying anything before. Also, I'm not challenging the authenticity of the story in any way. The conservative bloggers were obviously wrong, and Media Matters pointed that out. I just don't understand why Media Matters made this post about Hume. Hume was simply reporting the straight news. There was no bias on his part. Maybe Media Matters title should have been "Conservative bloggers have been proven wrong on their criticisms of the AP."
If this Website has no Credibility than why do you waste so much of your valuable time telling your favorite lies on it. Please go to a site that is credible for gods sakes. Heck, I'm getting very tired of hearing all your Bull.
And everytime someone puts you in your proper place, Tommy comes running to defend you. Are you and Tommy some kind of Republican Tag Team Unit? Sometimes I agree with what Tommy says, but not with you.
If this Website was not credible then Bill O'Reilly would not spend so much of his valuable time calling it bad names and making so many ugly comments about it.
What you fail to understand is when people like you and O'Really?? attack this Website, for getting the truth out, Media Matters can wear that as a Badge Of Honor.
Your attacks verifies to Media Matters that you and O'Really?? are so desperate to stop the truth from getting out to the Voters.
But I'm thankful that the voters could see through all your smoke and mirrors that you Republicans were dishing out prior to the election.
So keep cutting them down, They love it.
This site has plenty of credibility it is YOU who have none.
This crap story of toasted worshippers as they leave the mosque, this is nothing but fuel meant to inflame the saudi-sunni-al qeada insurgency (and it is those three things, that are really one thing, that makes for the insurgency against the Iraqi government in place now, my friends).
It's a sick testament to how much influence that murderous saudi "royal" family has (by way of oil wealth) in the American, privately-owned, "media"... that they can advance their insurgency against Iraq's majority, even here in the U.S., by way of a sick made-up story of toasted worshippers leaving the mosque.
(And yes, you know that murderous saudi "royal" family, my friends... they are the one's who bombed us on 9-11 and got away with it, because they are the president's business partners and "good friends", and because their oil wealth has so much influence in the American privately-owned "media")
I love this quote from Hume-" who(Capt Hussein) has been quoted in dozens of AP stories and is often critical of the U.S". Yes those darn facts are critical of the US. Somehow the media reporting reality are not only supporting the enemy, they are the enemy. There has been a trunkful of bad reporting in this war. How about the reporting of WMDs, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Al Qaeda linked to Iraq, and I am sure I have forgotten something.
The right was beating this story to death. They were not concerned with the veracity of the burned to death story. Eric Boehlert pointed out the fact that Capt Hussein was not the only source. They wanted to discredit the messenger. They dont care about the truth. They willing to accept anything their chosen leaders tell them bc they are good little authoritarians. This all started bc the US military said the capt didnt exist and we all know the US military doesnt lie.
While this has been going for weeks hundreds of US soldiers have died and thousands of Iraqis have been brutally killed. But we are suppose to believe that the AP invented this man to undermine the US, that we are in actuality winning this war.
Gee why didnt the Capt say here I am weeks ago? There isnt any political ramifications are there? No rampant infiltration of forces by militias with their own agendas in Iraqi police and military forces are there? They wouldnt fire him would they? Its not like certain powerful forces would like this man silenced. The man is only facing arrest and possible death and torture.
This story is relevant as Eric Boehlert has been going back and forth with the warbloggers on the AP and Jamil Hussein in their neverending claim that the media is making up carnage to make the situation in Iraq seem worse. Now, one of the Right Wings favorite tools - Fox News- is reporting that it appears the AP is vindicated.
Truth Detector seems like he/she is purposely missing the point. As if MMFA can only report within the narrow confines of their Mission Statement without commenting on any other aspects.
What people seem to be missing here is that Hume didn't just report that the AP had been vindicated; he had picked up the Malkin's version of the story and reported it just two days prior.
...but the idea that the AP needs to be "vindicated" is part of the spin.
This is a faith-based controversy. Facts, therefore, are irrelevant. The polemic will now shift from "Jamil Hussein doesn't exist" to "Jamil Hussein was lying." Because we know the security services are not totally infested with Shi'a death squads, that's just Defeatocrat misinformation....
Remember this started when the US military reported that Capt Hussein didnt exist. The military has press liasson officers, there role is to inform the press. Their job is to inform the press of official US military actions and standing. They are the Tony Snows of the US military. The press takes the info and confirms or denies the veracity of the US information. However what is unusual in this case is that the US military is reporting on the reporters. I dont believe this is their role. Does Tony Snow actively seek to deny the existence of news sources? Not only that but the US was wrong - Capt Hussein is real. This is unusual no? This brings to mind the arrest of the AP photographer Bilal Hussien. The US says he was arrested with 2 Al Qaeda members. The AP responded that who he was with was irrevelent, dont tell a journalist how to do his job. They rountinely have to meet immoral people.
Because surely Malkin, et al, won't just throw their hands up and eat crow, will they? As delightful as that would be to read.
And note Hume's line..."The AP was widely accused at the time of making up Hussein's identity in order to disseminate false news about the war."
Widely accused?
Patterco and others, Malkin, Junk Yard Dog, etc have posted similar items related to the breaking news. For example, this: [link to patterico.com]
I think it's fair to note that the whole Hussein proof of existence chase links back to the original story from November on the 6 burned people, which the right wing bloggers were attempting to verify. Hussein was the source and now that it has been determined that he does indeed exist perhaps the right will find their proof on that story.
That the meat of the warblogger disbelief with the story stemmed from the "non-existent" Hussein. If no Hussein, it must follow that the AP made up the story. Now that the AP has been "vindicated", most of the fuel for this "outrage" on the part of the warbloggers has been effectively extinguished, and I wondered what the new spin would be.
Although, I feel that there is an inherent disbelief with ALL "bad news" war reporting in general on the part of the warbloggers, and that none of these recent revelations will sway that belief.
For THIS story as they did the Atta in Prague story, the Atta Bahghdad memo story (forged), the Terri Schiavo memo was written by democrats story, and the many other such stories, with is none whatsoever. It will dissapear down Orwells memory hole as soon as it is no longer useful for propaganda purposes
Check out the site of one of the "Warbloggers", particularly December 18 and its map:
[link to junkyardblog.net]
I think he asks some reasonable questions about the AP source's whereabouts versus his nominal work location.
Fox spends a lot of energy trying to build crediblity by tearing other news organizations down because Fox isn't, in fact, a credible news organization. It is a propaganda network. Fox News and pundits is a big user of the "liberal media" term, Fox attacks NBC, CBS, the AP, and it goes on and on. If Fox is so concerned about the misreporting on this story, and reports that the AP had been vindicated, why doesn't Fox take the next step and do a story on those who misreported that AP got the story wrong. Why did those parties, CNN and the US military, make their statements without factual basis?
it's horribly troubling to see the "new" iraqi government deny that a police officer exists, then later reverse course yet hold back the truth from the media and from the US officials there working as its advisers/liaisons. the first act is a Sadamite tactic, plain and simple. the second act is a more sophisticated style of modern 'spin by omission of fact.' together they portend very poorly for the new iraq. what if jamil hussein had been disappeared during this blind period? -- a fear he no doubt had. we would forever believe he was fictitious. think about this: a bona fide living breathing official for-attribution police source who provides a free press with on the record info that displeases the iraqi federal administration is declared a non-person.
it gets worse though. ideologically motivated bloggers virally propound the myth that he is a nonperson. and thus he becomes, for all purposes, a non-person. and yet he is a source witness to an alleged but not disproven event that the new iraq and its warblogging allies want to discredit at all costs -- be it true, or quite possibly false.
so 2 things happen:
1) an actual man is washed down the memory hole.
2) free expression and its first-cousin, press freedom, cornerrstones of democracy, are subverted in this fledgling $1 trillion dollar experimental government.
i doubt warbloggers will understand what i am noting here; they are too wrathful and desperate. but for them to have played such an aggressive role in encouraging this dire near-tragedy is a shame i would not want to have to carry.
"it's horribly troubling to see the "new" iraqi government deny that a police officer exists, then later reverse course yet hold back the truth from the media" (fooferaw)
Maybe we ARE importing American style democracy to Iraq>
will join in condemning any retaliation against this man? sign up below.
The AP said he would be arrested on Thursday. It is now Sunday in Iraq and he still hasn't been arrested. It looks like they were lying again, and playing the victim card. They just don't get it; with the new media, when you are accused of lying, you don't get to investigate yourself. "AP says AP questionable source was real after all" doesn't fly.
The NYT is reporting that Sunni fighters set up a fake security checkpoint in a mostly Sunni area of Bagdad. These fighters then killed any Shias that had the misfortune of stopping. Some of the bodies were hung from lampposts. The NYT quotes of Defense Ministry spokesman.
So to review the difference between these two stories is who doing the violence and to whom. The Shia dominated government attempts to deny that Shia militias burned Sunni civilians. However the Shia dominated defense ministry wants the press to know that Sunni fighters are hanging corpses in Bagdad. The US public is unconcerned about what side is doing what. It is the intensity and amount of violence that points to fundemental problems that disturbs even the most fervant war supporters. Both stories highlight the level of hatred and inhumanity as well as the almost total lack of security in Iraq. The question then becomes can the US military provide even a modicum of security in this atmosphere.