[Was hot-linked to Flopping Aces, which has since taken it down — ed.]
Only it wasn't the AP who produced him, it was the Iraqi Police. But that's just details. Latest info on the developing story is at Malkin.
I'm trying to decide what the proper, intellectually honest response to this latest revelation should be. A helping of crow? I'm not sure.
I'll start by listing all of the posts I've made on the subject.
- Journalism 101 links to a snarky lexicon that the AP must be using.
- The First Casualty of War references the initial breaking of the Jamil Hussein story but does not exactly rip AP a new one.
In private, though, I was fully willing to believe that Jamil Hussein was either utterly fictional or that he existed but wasn't who he said he was. After Rathergate, Fauxtography, the Katrina rubbish, and countless examples of media bias and distortion, all of which began when we "lost" Tet in Vietnam when the nation's most trusted reporter decided to blur the line between stating the facts and influencing opinion, it fit into a pattern that I have witnessed during my lifetime.
And given that many members of the MSM have long given up the pretense of reporting the facts, considering it a "higher calling" to tell the "higher truth," I will continue to be skeptical about everything I hear from the MSM, especially as pertains to the war. Any war.
Apologies, though? The bloggers have no need to apologize. They asked legitimate questions, consulted as many sources as they could, concealed no information (as far as I know), and stated no known falsehoods.
As for moving the goalposts, this whole Jamil Hussein thing arose when Flopping Aces discovered a story that AP had produced but could not substantiate from other sources. That's when Curt began to wonder about the source.
So now that Hussein has been found, the original question remains: was Hussein a reliable source or a partisan in a uniform all too willing to feed a pack of lies to an infidel reporter?
If it turns out that everything, or mostly everything, that Hussein reported on was the God's Honest Truth, then the reverse equivalent of "fake but accurate" (OK, they weren't lying this time, but we just know they do anyway) will not be appropriate.
Constant Vigilance™, however, will be, as it always is. Would that it were not; would that it were not.