You’ve probably not read much about it because only a handful of mainstream media outlets have covered it, but the Associated Press – for decades America’s largest and most trusted wire news service – is at the center of a credibility crisis largely of its own making. You probably have heard of the AP story that started it – a horrifying dispatch from Iraq the day after Thanksgiving claiming that six Sunnis had been doused with kerosene as they left their mosque following Friday prayers and burned alive by Shiite-aligned militiamen. The story, which was quickly picked up by virtually every major news organization in the world, also claimed that “the Shiite-dominated police and Iraqi military” stood by doing nothing as the six people were gruesomely murdered. The story was sourced to “police Captain Jamil Hussein.” The problem is there appears to be no such person as Captain Jamil Hussein, at least not who is employed by the Iraqi police. The U.S. military says Hussein doesn’t exist and has demanded that AP issue a correction. The Iraqi government says no such person is on its police payroll. Things have gotten progressively worse for AP since those initial questions about “Hussein” were raised by U.S. and Iraqi officials. A firestorm of criticism has exploded in the Blogosphere as bloggers have researched the names of more than a dozen Iraqi- named sources of apparently doubtful credibility that have appeared in AP stories. The suggestion among many of the bloggers is that AP is being had by Iraqis aligned with the insurgency who are posing as credible sources and are using the world’s most respected wire news service to project to the world a flawed image of the conflict in Iraq. AP s response was initially to accuse its critics of having disreputable agendas. Then the news wire sent two as-yet unidentified reporters back to the scene of the alleged burning and turned up additional sources claiming to have witnessed the murders. AP also says it has verified Hussein’s credibility and its reporters have talked with him in his office, with him dressed in his Iraqi police uniform. Like so many other news organizations, AP believes it must rely upon Iraqi stringers because there is simply too much danger to risk sending its American regular staff reporters outside Bagdhad’s Green Zone. Middle Eastern terrorists groups have a history of taking AP reporters hostage, including Terry Anderson, who spent nearly seven years in captivity in Lebanon. AP further suggested the critics are trying to force the wire service to rely only on official government sources when doing so would compromise the credibility of its reporting. What AP appears not to grasp is that the most serious questions about its credibility are already in the minds of millions of people, thanks in part to the bloggers, but also to the few mainstream media organizations that have covered the growing controversy. What is most puzzling about the AP reaction is its failure to do the one thing that would instantly put the critics in their place – produce Capt. Jamil Hussein. If he is in fact an Iraqi police captain, it is impossible to understand why he cannot be produced and his credentials verified. “Captain Jamil Hussein” is but one of 14 Iraqi-sounding names of sources quoted by AP that U.S. military officials say cannot be verified as credible sources. The present controversy over AP’s source was preceded by the “fauxtography” scandal earlier this year when U.S. bloggers unmasked a Reuters stringer/photographer who was staging and doctoring “news” photos during the Hezbollah war against Israel from Lebanon. To its credit, Reuters fired the offending photographer and Reuters’ CEO admitted in an interview on CNN that he feared doctored news photos are in widespread use because it is virtually impossible to detect “manipulated images and staged images.” So it is no wonder that people hear that Captain Jamil Hussein seems not to exist and wonder if news sources can be manipulated and staged much like news photos. Thanks to a reporter at The New York Times, the controversy is not likely to go away. Tom Zeller said “it is important to find out if this really happened in order to separate the hyperbole from the merely horrible.” In other words, Zeller seems unconvinced that the story reported by AP of six Sunnis being horribly burned ever actually took place. Zeller also noted in a separate post on his blog that a Times colleague in Iraq was unable to verify the story and in fact cast serious doubt on its legitimacy. A Time magazine correspondent also was unable to confirm the story, describing the burnings as alleged. Remember two years ago when bloggers raised questions about a “60 Minutes” segment led by CBS News Anchor Dan Rather? The segment was based on documents provided under strange circumstances by a mysterious source who has never been identified. Rather said the documents suggested President Bush received favored treatment by the National Guard in order to avoid service in Vietnam. Within hours of the 60 Minutes broadcast, however, bloggers were uncovering persuasive evidence that the documents were almost certainly forgeries. CBS convened an investigation by former AP President Lou Boccardi and former U.S. ATtorney-General Dick Thornburgh. Boccardi and Thornburgh were unable to verify the documents. Rather retired. 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.
