Powerline & the AP

Powerline appears to be backtracking a bit from its absurd and outrageous accusation that a Pulitzer-Prize winning AP photographer was guilty of “felony murder.” (My previous post on the subject)

John Hinderaker casts blame on the AP’s own statements for his accusation. “[F]or the AP to express outrage that we thought there was collusion between the photographer and the terrorists, without even acknowledging that we based that conclusion on the AP’s own statements to that effect, is ridiculous.”

I’m sorry John, but that dog won’t hunt.

First, the Salon statement:

The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely “tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street,” said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name.

A-ha, you wrote — an admission! “So the AP admitted that its photographer was “tipped off” by the terrorists,” you said in a post titled “AP Admits Relationship With Terrorists.”

Errr, no. The Salon article never said who the tipster was. You jumped to that conclusion yourself. The AP now says the tipster was another journalist.

The second statement was an email from Jack Stokes, the AP’s director of media relations, to Jim Romenesko. (Not “Romanesko” as you repeatedly call him):

Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.

Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It’s important to note, though, that the photographers are not “embedded” with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

Now, there’s nothing in this statement specific to the (still-unnamed) AP photographer. News flash: spokesmen are sometimes asked to comment about situations or facts they’re really not informed about. That’s especially the case when dealing with a far-flung news organization like the AP and operations in Iraq. Often, they resort to generalities. You apply those generalities to specific cases at your own peril.

The fact is, John, that the AP never made any statement that there was collusion between the photographer and the terrorists who shot those election workers. In fact, they denied it, calling your allegations “ridiculous” and saying the photog “definitely would not have had foreknowledge” of the attacks.

Yet you continued with your allegations. If you want to stand behind them, fine, but don’t blame the AP for this — it’s all on you.

(Deadparrots has a good take on this, including these comments by a photojournalist. And check here for the AP’s story behind the photos.)

UPDATE: To answer a commenter, I wrote this post before Powerline posted their second note from Gorton. It’s a thorough analysis, but still seems a very slender thread to accuse someone of felony murder. (He thinks it’s suspicious because of the photo caption??)

“There is nothing in the information put forward that would definitively answer critics who believe that the photographer may have been complicit in the event on Haifa St.,” Gorton writes. But it’s not up to the AP to prove its photographer innocent when presented with rumor and conjecture, as Rathergate has noted.

Deadparrots has an analysis of Gorton’s analysis here.