<![CDATA[As explained elsewhere, elsewhere and elsewhere, there are a lot of problems with a New York Times story about the brothers who have collaborated on and battled over IraqtheModel, a Baghdad-based blog about life in Iraq. The reporter, Sarah Boxer, put people’s lives at risk by repeating unfounded speculation about the motives of the IraqtheModel bloggers and whether they are acting on someone else’s behalf.
As I explained over the weekend in “Libel, defamation, slander and confidentiality,” reporters have a responsibility to source information, not repeat allegations as potential fact—reporters are supposed to separate the chaff of rumor from the wheat of fact. Sarah Boxer’s story is incompetent on that front, but I think the subjects of the article have an action against Boxer and the Times, since association with the CIA is a death sentence in Iraq. Certainly, the subjects of the story weren’t anonymous before, but their prominence due to the coverage could make them targets for assassination.
One wonders what editor at the Times decided to run a process story (that is, a story about the process of reporting) that leads a nut graf that reads:
The mystery began last month when I went online to see what Iraqis think about the war and the Jan. 30 national election. I stumbled into an ideological snake pit. Out of a list of 28 Iraqi blogs in English at a site called Iraqi Bloggers Central, I clicked on Iraq the Model because it promised three blogging brothers in one, Omar, Mohammed and Ali.
Who is surprised by the fact the blogosphere contains ideological snakepits or finds its surprising that the topic of Iraq is controversial? That’s not a feature story. It’s not a news story. It’s a poorly conceived article.
I agree with Kate McMillan at Small Dead Animals: Has she no editor? [Emphasis in the original.]
Not only was the story choice ill-advised, apparently no one challenged Boxer to look into the allegations by other bloggers that the IraqtheModel guys work for the CIA. She reports Ali Fadhil denying these allegations but doesn’t contact the entities that were the source of the questions, a Web host called CIATech Solutions that provides IP forwarding services for Iraqi bloggers on both sides of the war issue, including the excellent and very critical Riverbend (a.k.a. “Baghdad Burning”). Boxer mentions Riverbend, but doesn’t explain that her blog is served by the same IP forwarder, nor does she comment on the fluency of Riverbend’s English, which is offered as proof of IraqtheModel’s false provenance.
The Fadhil brothers should sue Boxer and the Times, as the story demonstrates a willful disregard for facts that would be easily reported. The problem is, the facts would have made the story as uninteresting as it really was. Now, the story is interesting as another example of the royal fuck-ups the press executes with so little grace.]]>