The currently raging controversy about the detention of Bilal Hussein, AP’s photographer in Iraq, is causing extra challenges for the newsreader. Since the Associated Press is front and center in the conflict, objective reporting becomes nearly impossible. Yet, many have grown to place much trust on the largest news organization in the world, and may find it increasingly difficult to formulate a personal opinion about Hussein’s situation.
Thus far, the rants of conservative bloggers, who have happily announced AP’s photographers in Iraq to be collaborating with local terrorist organizations, have seemed outwardly silly and unapproachable. Yet, for the first time, I logged on to their websites to consider the other side. Ironically enough, I did so thanks to the help of the Associated Press.
A September 19th article by AP’s Robert Tanner reads:
Internet critics of the news media said the AP's announcement on Sunday that Bilal Hussein, who covered the war in Fallujah and Ramadi, was in a U.S. military prison as a security threat was vindication of their accusations that he was aiding the enemy.
But advocates of the press coverage questioned whether the critics wanted to block any coverage that doesn't portray the U.S. policy in the best light. An independent press must fully and accurately cover a conflict from all sides, they said.
Right off the bat, I could not help but applaud his effort to conduct balanced reporting. He introduces both “internet critics†and “advocates of the press†anonymously and abstractly, explaining the views of both sides.
On Tuesday, the international group Reporters Without Borders formally called for the U.S. military to charge Hussein or release him. "We call on the U.S. authorities to put an immediate end to this violation of the rule of law," it said in a statement.
Military officials said Hussein was captured on April 12, 2006 in the company of two alleged insurgents in an apartment where there were bomb-making materials. He was being held indefinitely for "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions, because of "strong ties" to insurgents that went beyond the role of a journalist, they said.
AP executives, who made public Hussein's detention on Sunday after months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, said the news cooperative's review of Hussein's work did not find inappropriate contact with insurgents. They said U.N. resolutions don't allow for indefinite detention. Any evidence against him should be brought to the Iraqi criminal justice system or else he should be released, they said.
In the so-called blogosphere, where there have long been accusations of bias among photographers and reporters covering the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East, the news of his arrest spurred a visceral sense of vindication.
Yes, words like “accusations†“visceral†and “vindication†indicate which camp Tanner stands in, but the rest of his article does what good journalism is expected: It educates one of the complexities of the situation. He quotes bloggers James Hanson, John Hinderaker and Michelle Malkin and provides their respective websites.
After reading Tanner’s piece, I decided, for the first time, to allow these conservative bloggers a voice in my often-limited political consciousness. I happened to enter Hinderaker’s respective site, Powerline.com, after he had already posted his response to Tanner’s article.
As expected, Hinderaker responds in a heated manner.
Tanner's purpose seems to be to debunk the criticisms that we and others made, but the AP's responses, as recited by Tanner, are directed entirely at straw men.
Here is the first:
[A]dvocates of the press coverage questioned whether the critics wanted to block any coverage that doesn't portray the U.S. policy in the best light. An independent press must fully and accurately cover a conflict from all sides, they said.
Neither we nor any other critic, to my knowledge, has tried to "block any coverage" of any sort. Nor is our complaint that the AP's coverage "doesn't portray the U.S. policy in the best light." Our disagreement with the AP is simple: we don't think that news organizations should pay stringers to accompany terrorist groups and take staged propaganda photos on their behalf. The AP, on the other hand, views this as appropriately "covering a conflict from all sides."
Here is the second straw man:
AP executives, who made public Hussein's detention on Sunday after months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, said the news cooperative's review of Hussein's work did not find inappropriate contact with insurgents.
See above. We don't think collaborating with terrorists by taking propaganda photos at their behest is appropriate; the AP does.
The third:
At Powerlineblog.com, John Hinderaker accused the AP of benefiting from felony murder.
The AP didn't make any specific response to this one. Scott originally used that phrase to describe the AP's winning the Pulitzer Prize in part on the basis of a picture of a murder as it was taking place, by a photographer who, the AP admitted, likely had been "tipped off" by terrorists to be on the scene at the right time.
The fourth:
The AP on Tuesday issued statements correcting various bloggers who repeated from site to site charges that Hussein had witnessed and photographed executions.
One of Hussein's most controversial pictures - that of a dead Italian man with two masked insurgents standing over him with guns - was taken when the man already was dead, it said.
Maybe someone accused Hussein of witnessing the murder; we didn't. But what's the point? Whether Hussein saw the murder or saw the body afterward, he obviously didn't fear the armed terrorists who were standing over the body, and took the photo as a piece of propaganda that the terrorists wanted disseminated. The AP, once again, is answering the wrong charge.
It goes without saying that readers are now faced with a challenge of formulating an opinion amidst the talking heads. In the battle between journalists, the AP appears to be the goliath to be defeated, and even the most liberal of us may find ourselves pausing to wonder how far the agenda of the Associated Press stretches. Yet, outwardly political writers evoke a similar sense of doubt. Which is more dangerous, large-scale influence or political fanaticism?
I am not sure if an answer exists. Beyond the news coverage, however, the Associated Press emerges as the one fighting the largest Goliath of all. Unfortunately for Hinderaker, it becomes difficult for one to side with the giant, especially when David’s might is found in his intellect.
Alyssa Giachino @ September 21, 2006 - 3:46pm
I'm reminded of the Michael Wines opinion in the New York Times about helping the subjects of interviews.
In AP's case, I believe there is a newsworthy story in the imprisonment of Bilal Hussein. It would be a mistake not to inform the public about the story.
However, Hussein is not alone. There are dozens, or perhaps hundreds, or even thousands of others being held by the US military without charge that are equally worthy of a story. They just don't happen to work for the AP.
So, should the AP ignore the story? I think not. I only hope they will continue to do similar investigations with other prisoners being held indefinitely without charges, or access to attorneys, or being able to see the evidence against them, to expose whether they, too, deserve to either be charged or released if the evidence is insufficient.
»