This comes six weeks after Iraqi and U.S. officials insisted the frequent AP news source, Captain Hussein, was non-existent and that AP reporting attributed to him was baseless.
Here's the latest AP story with the hard news and the background.
Here's the original AP report that sparked the controversy.
But the fuss is not over, lessons must be learned by all involved, and lingering questions must be answered.
All the key players in the Jamil Hussein controversy have been sullied in this process.
Mistakes
Iraqi officials and U.S. military spokesmen look foolish for making the mistake of flatly stating in late November that there was no Iraqi police captain by the name of Jamil Hussein. Those clumsy, baseless statements were unfair to the AP. Those erronenous statements -- and their statements questioning the information the AP attributed to Captain Hussein -- triggered the six-week-long controversy that followed.
Jamil Hussein made a mistake by waiting six weeks to speak out on this matter.
The AP erred in part by responding in a hot-headed, antagonistic way to questions about the existence of Jamil Hussein and the credibility of AP reports featuring comments from Captain Hussein. The AP's harsh statements fueled the suspicions of critics and those who otherwise would give the AP the benefit of the doubt. Another mistake: the AP took too long to provide irrefutable evidence of Captain Hussein's existence.
The AP's most strident critics were wrong to accept the word of U.S. and Iraqi officials as the absolute truth while dismissing the AP's sourcing, stories, and explanations as outright lies.
Third parties -- IraqSlogger included -- trying to get to the truth in this matter did not dig aggressively enough to determine the facts because otherwise we seemingly would have discovered proof of Captain Hussein's existence sooner. In IraqSlogger's case, Iraqi police sources told our team in Baghdad both that Captain Hussein did exist and that he did not exist -- flimsy and conflicting circumstantial evidence from less than reliable sources (information we chose not to report until we could get confirmation, either way, while prompting us in our reporting to leave open the possibility that Captain Hussein was real).
Lessons Learned
U.S. and Iraqi officials should never say they are sure of something unless they are absolutely certain. The Iraqi Ministry of Interior needs to know who is in its employ.
Since Jamil Hussein was willing to be quoted by the AP dozens of times, he should have come forward sooner to end the dispute about his existence.
In the end, the AP did the right thing -- proving Jamil Hussein's existence -- but in the wrong time frame. If the AP had done so sooner, it would have spared itself much grief. Further, the AP should have taken the high road in public statements, defending its reporting without using pejorative language and angrily denouncing those questioning the AP's reporting.
The AP's critics would do well to presume the AP innocent until proven guilty. That said, news consumers, like journalists, should have a healthy skepticism and ask probing questions about questionable reporting and statements.
Third parties trying to determine the ground truth must work harder to achieve that goal. That said, determining ground truth in Baghdad is hugely challenging.
Lingering Questions
Why did it take all parties so long to provide proof of Captain Hussein's existence?
Is Captain Hussein a reliable news source? While we now know he's genuine, he was not an authorized spokesman. His critics, including his Iraqi government bosses and the U.S. military, have challenged the veracity of many of AP reports attributed to him. Many violent incidents reported by Captain Hussein via the AP were not reported by other western news organizations, raising suspicions about whether all those incidents occurred. The controversy likely will linger in this area, with third party reporting being done to determine the accuracy of Captain Hussein's statements to the AP.
Will all involved learn from their mistakes?
