AP Admits to Using Unauthorized Sources

By Robin Boyd (Bio | Archive)
December 10, 2006 - 09:59 ET

Despite all the claims of standing by their stories, the AP now admits to the use of unauthorized sources.  The infamous Qais al-Bashir posted another sectarian violence story via AP this morning. Al-Bashir offered up the typical Sunni-Shiite blood-letting but this time he was honest about his sources:

On Sunday morning, clashes erupted between Sunni and Shiite militants in Baghdad's mixed western Amil district, a policeman said. One Shiite militiaman was killed and six people — five Sunnis and one Shiite — were wounded, the officer said on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to the media.

Al-Bashir could not resist throwing in some of the media's patented techniques of anonymous sources afraid for their safety:

The policemen spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for their own safety.

Witnesses said Shiite militiamen entered Hurriyah after Sunnis warned the few Shiites living there to leave or be killed. Heavy machine gun fire was heard and three columns of black smoke rose into the sky, the witnesses said on condition of anonymity, also out of concern for their own safety.

The use of "anonymous" sources is nothing more than a journalistic ploy to prevent others from verifying the information presented. While the "not authorized to talk to the media" phrase is a step in the right direction, the AP has yet to offer up proof of their best source, Jamil Hussein.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

But... but... I thought the A

December 10, 2006 - 15:47 ET by Nazareth

But... but... I thought the AP was the victim of evil bloggers and that they had done nothing wrong? I think I saw Jamil Hussein walking hand in hand with Elvis the other day.

http://sacredscoop.com

Thank God we don't allow ANY

December 10, 2006 - 18:43 ET by crshedd

Thank God we don't allow ANY news service to use 'anonymous' sources in this country. We all know you cannot trust ANY source that demands to remain anonymous. What do they have to hide? How good is their information? By not naming sources, one has to wonder what is in it for the source.

I say Americans should discount ALL anonymous sources. Demand that news service name their source or don't use them at all.

Is Hysteria Your Only Gig?

December 10, 2006 - 19:52 ET by Guy Arthur Thomas

Is hysteria your only gig? Come on already crshedd, I think far too many of you super-libs are already using this act, at least try something a bit more original.

If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.

I have an anonymous source th

December 11, 2006 - 00:00 ET by jpm100

I have an anonymous source that says crshedd eats raspberry pudding while dancing in a purple tutu at midnight.

That was easy.

jpm shame

December 11, 2006 - 00:16 ET by misterbill

jpm shame--I happen to fancy raspberry pudding, but I will give it up if you will post the video of crshedd in his tutu!

Well, the "anonymous sou

December 11, 2006 - 05:05 ET by Indiana Joe

Well, the "anonymous source" for the Foley emails is out now: it was Rahm Emmanuel's office when he was DCCC head. HE sat on this information for a year, endangering "the children."

I agree with you: THAT name should have been FRONT and CENTER when the story first broke, along with the "partisan puposes" standard line.

Would THAT have suited you? Is THAT what you had in mind when you wrote YOUR post? 

Iraq

December 10, 2006 - 23:10 ET by Tom Blumer

At least when anon sources are used in the states, the press (usually) has the courtesy to ask the official sources (white house, person reported on, police, etc., depending on the circumstances) for their take on what is being reported.

No such conversations with official interior ministry or military officials are noted in the AP article.

There is therefore little reason to believe that the story is real. Until there is corroboration, it should be assumed to have been made up out of whole cloth.

They can bluster all they want, but Jamilgate and the fallout has AP rattled, or they wouldn't have changed their reporting tactics.

odorist reporting

December 11, 2006 - 02:46 ET by foolnomore

maybe it's just a bay-state reporter made famous for plagiarism who's just trying for worst msn. "fill in" ??

So the AP finally admits to u

December 11, 2006 - 05:10 ET by Indiana Joe

So the AP finally admits to using "unauthorized sources"....and then just keeps using them! And what will people remember about this story? The STORY, NOT the admission of the sources.

Big whoop...   Great article, but who's going to care... besides us here, I mean?

(Sorry...feeling a bit cynical about all of this right now....)

Don't you mean the Crutzfeld-

December 11, 2006 - 09:23 ET by gideonmjames

Don't you mean the Crutzfeld-Reinholm AP News Disservice [a.k.a. CR-AP]? The only greater bastion of liberal bias, stupidity, and insanity than the A_s Press is the DNC.

If you like to take it up the tailpipe then make the AP your sole source for news disinformation.