The continued flack over the AP story of "Six Sunnis Burned Alive" is bringing up some serious questions about how long has AP been supplying the world with biased and unsourced information:
Michelle Malkin continues to ask AP and others who rely on AP as their single source for the War in Iraq. "Who is Jamil Hussein?"
From Confederate Yankee:
"This developing Associated Press implosion may go back as far as two years, affecting as many as 60 stories from just this one allegedly fake policeman alone. And Jamil Hussein is just one of more than a dozen potentially fake Iraqi policemen used in news reports the AP disseminates around the world. This does not begin to attempt to account for non-offical sources which the AP will have an even harder time substantiating. Quite literally, almost all AP reporting from Iraq not verified from reporters of other news organizations is now suspect, and with good reason. Instead of affecting one show on one network watched by 14 million viewers as Rathergate did, "Jamilgate" means the Associated Press may have been delivering news of questionable accuracy to one billion people a day for two years or more.
In this evolving instance of faux journalism, "60 Minutes" is now potentially 60 billion false impressions, or more.
A principled, professional news organization owes its consumers the truth. To date, the Associated Press, as voiced by comments from officers international editor John Daniszewski and executive editor Kathleen Carroll, has refused to address the rampant inconsistencies in the "burning men" story, produce physical evidence proving their allegations, or produce star source Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein. Arrogantly, they attack the messenger (both U.S military and Iraqi government sources and bloggers), and insist we must believe them, even though they give us no compelling reason to do so, and many reasons to doubt them.'
Commenter Tully from CY:
"In the face of fresh criticism from the New York Post, AP has responded again, huffing and puffing at anyone who would dare question their probity.
It adds up to the same thing as before, with extra vituperation: "How dare you question us, you pajamahadin? We've sent Top Men in to confirm the story! It's a dangerous area, and we're the only ones who've gone there! No one who's gone there questions the story!" (That latter claim, BTW, is completely false.)
What the AP response doesn't do: Produce Jamil Hussein. Provide a single verifiable source for the story. Address the fact that other components of the story have been shown to be completely false (no four mosques involved). Name ANY of the "journalists" whom AP claims later confirmed the story. Provide ANY evidence at all that the alleged incident ever occured, other than additional unnamed and anonymous sources to bolster the Incredible Invisible Jamil Hussein.
Amount of evidence provided by AP to date: Their unsupported word, an invisible and unfindable police captain who cannot even be shown to exist, and a large raft of snotty ad hominem for anyone who questions it. That's it."
NRO has posted a story that relates to all of this Mainsream Media Bias:
A New Media Bias Study:
Two University of Chicago researchers have come out with a new study that connects the media bias of a newspaper to the political leanings of the people who buy it. It's behind a subscription wall, but the New York Times, CBS Public Eye and Slate's Jack Shafer all have interesting takes. Let's look at two beneficial findings of this study: (complete story)
UPDATE: Curt at Flopping Aces (who broke this AP "story" / "fabrication")has a new roundup and updates here and here.
UDATE II: Hot Air has a stinging vidio from Mark Steyn and a new recap here
(Editor's comment to be posted here soon)
ASSOCIATED PRESS, MSM CAUGHT WITH LIES
SIX SUNNIS BURNIN'.............
AP vs Centcom
Media Bias in Todays National and World Affairs