..... now the WashPost has printed another article on the city, this time an upbeat one. What gives? You guessed it.The second one was reported from Ramadi. Case closed, thank you very much. Unfortunately, it's little solace knowing how few journalists ever leave their safe little hovels in Baghdad hotels or Washington, D.C.
Kaus doesn't think "upbeat" accurately describes the WaPo article, which is actually an AP dispatch by Will Weissert. I agree; I'd call it "even-handed."
But there's a larger point, which is that an actual named AP reporter has reported from something other than a "safe little hovel," and from Ramadi no less.
Why? I have to wonder if AP is responding to the current controversy, by doing things it would probably never admit to doing, and certainly would never attribute to having been done because of outside influence. Specifically:
- Does this recent report indicate that AP might begin putting more real named reporters onsite in response to the errors found in previous stories, and the general dubiousness of their "mystery sources"? (Yeah, it could be a temporary measure until the pesky bloggers pipe down.)
- Is AP responding to the concerns about overwhelming negativity of reporting out of Iraq raised by the military, blogs, and others? (Or they could be making sure their tracks are covered.)
- As to Ramadi, is AP out there with a real, named reporter because of doubts first raised prominently by Patterico about the LA Times' "airstrike" story, the people they quoted, and the stringer involved? (AP could be using the same stringer.)
I don't know. What do you say, Jamil?
(Graphic by Doug Ross)
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.