January 9, 2007

Comment Thread for Jamil Hussein - What's In a Name?

Hatched by Dafydd

Thread for comments, thoughts, and opinions on my post over at Michelle Malkin: Jamil Hussein - What's In a Name?

No spitting or biting, please.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 9, 2007, at the time of 2:54 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1655

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Comment Thread for Jamil Hussein - What's In a Name?:

» Jamil Hussein - What's In a Name? from Michelle Malkin
This post is by Dafydd of Big Lizards, not by our dearest Michelle. So there. ~^~ According to Curt at Flopping Aces, one reason that the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior (MOI) -- boss of the National Police -- and... [Read More]

Tracked on January 9, 2007 2:56 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: rogerontheright

It keeps getting worse and worse for the AP.

Regarding the "ethics" of using a pseudonymous source, the AP itself claims it never uses fake names. So, doing so against policy would at least seem a breech of some ethical standard.

Not that MSM journalism is really bound by ethics anyway.

The above hissed in response by: rogerontheright [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 3:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: karen

If anyone can buttonhole AP "reporter" Steven R. Hurst, who seems to have invented Ol' Jamil out of whole cloth for non-existent "burnt Sunnis & mosques" claims, then we'd find out why the AP has been trying to smokescreen the whole matter. (Not to mention getting the real skinny all the other Hurst/AP "Jamil-One Source" fables).

Unfortunately for the already-invisible Jamil, Hurst is also the one who "disappeared him" -presumably to some Iraqi police dungeon? - according to Hurst's last Jamilgate installment.

The incredibly obvious problem the AP has with Hurst's stories is this:

How can a reporter (allegedly) interview the guy, name the guy - but have no clue who or where the guy is before, during or after the interviews?

The AP alleges that very scenerio - that the AP/Hurst didn't have any idea who, what or where Jamil was happened at least 60 times : while they were talking to him, relying on him as their sole source.

(Now, thems some interviews I'd like to see! But Jamil seems to have the same problem as Dracula - casts no reflection in mirrors and doesn't show up on film or videotape.)

A bizarrely funny moment in the story is where Hurst "disappears" Jamil, Hurst writes as if it's the first time he had even heard the name despite the fact that "Jamil" was his sole source for the bogus burning peeps/mosques & other suspect stories.
=====
The elusive Jamil, in extra, super-secret custody: "Steve, Steve - don't you know me? I'm Jamil, we confabbed about my Bagdhad Burnings story. Remember? How about my 60+ other stories? Remember my wife Abdul and our 12 children?"

Hurst: "Um....err...ah...well, gotta go now - it's 'all you can eat night' at the hotel "
====
(Maybe Hurst just has a really, really bad memory for faces, names, places - and just about everyting else, for that matter.)

All in all, the AP's excuses just don't hold water and smell mighty, mighty fishy. I truly expect "AP" to replace "B.S." any day now. "Don't A.P. me!" in lieu of "Don't B.S. me!".

If someone ever does buttonhole the AP's Hurst, I suspect he'll be found propped on bar stool in a plush Green Zone hotel. Hopefully he'll be cognizant of his own name; perhaps having at least some vague idea of who he is, what he is and where he's at. But going by the AP's track record, even that might be too much to expect.

KS


The above hissed in response by: karen [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 5:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: tbrosz

If you really want some food for thought, go look at all the wire stories about "police reported XX bodies found in Baghdad today." That's it. Just "police." Anybody ever follow up on those?

The above hissed in response by: tbrosz [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 7:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: kingsbridge77

So...apparently Malkin wants to be embarassed again.
Why don't you challenge the AP to produce the audio of the Iraq Ministry official admission of Hussein's existence? The answer is: Because you are afraid that AP will embarass you again.
You know AP has the audio and transcript, and can and will, if you push it, interview this official again. Or perhaps you should ask him yourself?
Michelle, your credibility is not worse today now than it was before because it never existed. But please don't set yourself up for another embarassment.
AP was right.
You were wrong.

The above hissed in response by: kingsbridge77 [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 8:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Kingsbridge77:

So...apparently Malkin wants to be embarassed again....

Michelle, your credibility is not worse today now than it was before because it never existed.

Speaking of credibility, my fine, feathered friend, you might perhaps have noticed that the very first sentence in the post is:

This post is by Dafydd of Big Lizards, not by our dearest Michelle.

If this is exemplary of your good reading skills, it's hard to take your challenge very seriously... <g>

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 9:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Sachi

kingsbridge77

Why don't you challenge the AP to produce the audio of the Iraq Ministry official admission of Hussein's existence?

Actually many have demanded video tape or press conference by Jamil, including Michelle. So far AP refuses to do so.

AP was right.

And you know that because -- AP says so!

The above hissed in response by: Sachi [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 9, 2007 9:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: megapotamus

Okay, I'm not sure why there is such confidence that, if pressed, the AP can document their assertions. Why should they need MORE pressing at this point? Isn't the state of affairs currently pressing enough? Yes, if they were taking this whole thing seriously, which they are not. It has been a workable strategy so far. Anyhow, it seems the BEST gloss that can be put on this is the Festerbester scenario, given the currently displayed facts, but if the AP were giving their source a pseudonym (for security reasons? plausible and precedented but is always disclosed, no? "A guv source we shall call Joe Blow...") but of all the available Arabic surnames in the phonebook.... Hussein??!?!?!?!? Okay, common enough, common as Johnson but, at the least, a bit larded with baggage. Or aren't these cats up on current events. WTF?!?!??

The above hissed in response by: megapotamus [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 10, 2007 9:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: karen

Speaking of credibility, my fine, feathered friend, you might perhaps have noticed that the very first sentence in the post is:

This post is by Dafydd of Big Lizards, not by our dearest Michelle.
If this is exemplary of your good reading skills, it's hard to take your challenge very seriously...

::giggles::

But cut the poor kid some slack; s/he is may be an AP "reporter" - which would mean a basic grasp of even the incredibly obvious is out of reach.

It's curious how terrified the AP is of scrutiny conducted by their peers, as called for by the Washington Examiner (below) re: the AP-Jamilgate scandal.

"It's time for AP to take the same sort of approach to resolve the Captain Jamil Hussein controversy. But there is one big difference between the present issue and the Dan Rather/"60 Minutes" ordeal - AP provides news to virtually every daily newspaper in America. AP is a cornerstone of the mainstream media. If AP's credibiilty is harmed, every news organization that uses its products also suffers.

Thus, AP should ask the American Society of Newspaper Editors to oversee the appointment and conduct of an independent panel of respected journalists and outside evidentiary experts to determine the truth behind Captain Jamil Hussein and all other sources similarly in doubt.

To allow this controversy to continue to fester without taking decisive actions to resolve it to everybody's satisfaction could be disastrous for journalists everywhere."

KS


The above hissed in response by: karen [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 10, 2007 9:44 AM

The following hissed in response by: Tully

Frankly I was surprised that so few did even basic fact-checking on Steven Hurst's self-serving "Jamil is real" story, given that it was Hurst's own byline on the version of the Burning Sunnis story that hit headlines worldwide. And I said so, blogosphere-wide. Basically, "You're trusting this guy? WHY?"

Glad that cynicism isn't dead.

The above hissed in response by: Tully [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 10, 2007 5:33 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved