Michael Schrage offers his two cents about what I’m missing:
Subject: You are, indeed, missing something –
I wrote this piece for the washington post a year ago. It speaks for itself…but the jamail hussein saga is a classic example of unprofessional, plame-like hypocrisy by the AP…
They named their source – many, many times – and it was challenged…there
was a myriad of ways they could have handled the query: they could have
called in a favor and gotten one of the AP-member newspapers in iraq to
’interview’ the guy to vouch; they could have done a podcast with the guy;
if the bloggers still insisted the guy was a fraud, then AP itself would be
literally accused of not just perpetrating a hoax but perpetuating one…
…the bottom line here is a vile hypocrisy: the msm will protect their own
people – jill carroll, for example – but they will freely publish the names
of vulnerable iraqis who are (were) sympathetic to the US…
…the principle here has nothing to do with truth, accuracy or public
safety – it has to do with partisanship…
to make a comparison from nro itself: it’s nice that the new york times
has finally published a correction for its flawed Sunday magazine story
about abortion – isn’t it a pity it wouldn’t have done so without a column
from its ombudsman…likewise, it’s wonderful that AP finally vouches for
their source – isn’t it a pity that it does so in a manner that increases
the man’s vulnerability…?
…partisan – and unprofessional…
Michael schrage
(ex-washington post)
UPDATE: Link Fixed. Sorry.