THE FBI CRIME LAB PROBLEMS are an old InstaPundit staple. Now prisoners are getting their convictions reversed. That, of course, means that innocent people went to jail — while guilty ones, presumably, continued to prey on the community.

Have heads rolled at the FBI over this? Not hardly. But then they haven’t rolled over the pre-9/11 dropped balls either, so why should they?

A bigger question is why should we have confidence in the FBI’s ability to do its job?

AS LONG-TIME READERS KNOW, I really want an aircar. Here’s an article that’s optimistic on my prospects of getting one. I hope it’s right.

WELL, I’VE BEEN GONE but Andrew Sullivan has been all over the Rick Bragg story. He thinks that Bragg deserved it — but that so does the Times. On the other hand, former Times stringer Rod Dreher thinks Bragg’s getting a raw deal. And Kaus has more:

[I]t seems clear that a) the NYT policy is a lot more permissive than readers ever knew; b) the NYT rules are unclear, which makes them easy to stretch; and c) the paper is less willing to give credit (which would have the effect of discouraging stringer abuse) than other news organizations.

Read the whole thing(s). Meanwhile Cathy Seipp is focusing on Bob Scheer. At least there’s some evidence that the L.A. Times is beginning to notice that it has a reputation for liberal bias.

UPDATE: More support for Bragg’s claim that everybody does it at the Times — or at least that a lot of people do:

Lisa Suhay, a Times freelance writer who says her work on one article was badly distorted by Blair, maintained that Bragg “is being punished for what I, as a freelancer, have seen in four years as common practice.

“I have covered anthrax, plane crashes, roller-coaster disasters, interviewed the family of a local POW — all high-profile stories, with no credit. . . . It was simply understood that I got paid to be invisible, a nonentity, entrusted to go to market to get the choicest bits for the dish being prepared.”

Milton Allimadi, a Times metro stringer for two years in the mid-1990s, said he routinely filed crime stories that were “barely touched” by editors and reporters but never got a byline. “I often wondered how readers I had interviewed must have been surprised the next day. While interviewing them I identified myself as Milton Allimadi, and the next day the byline would be totally different,” he said.

Times reporters and editors, meanwhile, respond that they always do a great job. Now, I’m not even sure that this reliance on stringers is unethical (see my earlier post on this) but the Times has already decided that it is, by suspending Bragg, who has now quit. But the press coverage of this is interesting, because it seems to me that journalists are far more willing to take the word of Times employees and flacks that things are fine there than they would be if they were hearing similar assurances from, say, Enron. Those kinds of assurances are always reported with a hint of a sneer. What’s the difference? That these are journalists, perhaps their friends and classmates, but at least their fellow professionals? Fine. But why should the rest of us care?

Meanwhile it’s interesting to see that people at other newspapers are taking note of the kind of stuff that really hurts their credibility:

Kann also cited “many potential misdemeanors well short of the crimes of plagiarism and fabrication. . . . I am thinking here of the anonymous negative quote questioning someone’s character; the unreturnable post-office-closing phone call that permits a publication to say ‘unavailable for comment’; the closed mind to an inconvenient new fact that doesn’t fit a story line; the loaded adjective where no adjective is needed; the analysis that edges across the line to personal opinion.”

Yep. Some of that stuff is okay in punditry, but not news reporting. And what’s really hurting media credibility is the sense that there’s not much of a difference anymore.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader suggests that this passage from the Post piece quoted above is pretty damning:

Such issues rarely surface in television, a more collaborative enterprise where producers and researchers often conduct key interviews and accumulate footage before the big-name correspondent arrives for a shoot. In 1998, when Peter Arnett, then a CNN reporter, narrated a documentary charging that U.S. forces used nerve gas during the Vietnam War, he was able to distance himself when the story had to be retracted, saying he had “contributed not one comma” to the piece.

“See, I just play a journalist on TV.” Uh huh.

WE’RE BAAACK! Sorry for the outage yesterday. A server — I think it was mine, I’ve got to stop posting so often — or some such caught fire at the operations center and the place had to be evacuated, cleaned out, yada yada. I was posting a bit over at the backup site but I don’t think many people remembered to check it. Bookmark it now, in case, God forbid, this should happen again.

I think any email you sent me during the outage is probably gone forever. Sorry.

FRESH BLOGGY GOODNESS: The latest Carnival of the Vanities, featuring links to posts by all sorts of bloggers, is up.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S AFRICA POLICIES are getting praise from an unexpected source:

Bob Geldof astonished the aid community yesterday by using a return visit to Ethiopia to praise the Bush administration as one of Africa’s best friends in its fight against hunger and Aids.

The musician-turned activist said Washington was providing major assistance, in contrast to the European Union’s “pathetic and appalling” response to the continent’s humanitarian crises.

“You’ll think I’m off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical – in a positive sense – in its approach to Africa since Kennedy,” Geldof told the Guardian.

The neo-conservatives and religious rightwingers who surrounded President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. “You can get the weirdest politicians on your side.”

Former president Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits and apparent empathy with the downtrodden, the organiser of Live Aid, claimed. “Clinton was a good guy, but he did fuck all.”

Um, yes, he did. . . . And there’s more:

Geldof was adamant that the EU was the greater villain for delivering just a small fraction of Ethiopia’s staple needs and refusing, unlike the US and Britain, to supply any supplementary foods, such as oil, which give a balanced diet.

“The EU have been pathetic and appalling, and I thought we had dealt with that 20 years ago when the electorate of our countries said never again,” he said. Warning that the “horror of the 80s” could return, he added: “The last time I spoke to the EU’s aid people, they didn’t even know where their own ships were. The food is there, get it here.”

Read the whole thing. But wait, there’s more in this article from The Times:

BOB GELDOF launched a bitter attack on President Mugabe of Zimbabwe last night as he flew into Africa 20 years after launching Live Aid.

The Irish pop star called on African leaders to challenge despots if they wanted the rest of the world to take them seriously.

“He (Mr Mugabe) is engaging in state-sponsored terror and famine and that cannot be allowed,” Geldof said. “He is a shame on the face of Africa.”

Geldof, on his first official trip to Ethiopia since the days of Live Aid in 1985, added: “You people should be demanding that Mugabe steps down. I don’t care where he goes. He can join Idi Amin in Saudi Arabia, he can join the ghetto of tyrants, but get him out of there.”

Indeed.

CONFIDENCE IN THE MILITARY IS UP. Confidence in the press is down. Maybe the New York Times needs some embedded bloggers!

MAUREEN DOWD has sort of admitted that she made a misleading alteration in a George Bush quote. Emphasis on the “sort of.”

UPDATE: The Belgravia Dispatch is unimpressed with Dowd’s behavior.

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: The head of Al Jazeera has been fired in response to charges that he worked with Saddam’s intelligence services.

Boy, you sure wouldn’t have guessed that from their coverage, would you?

THE STRONGER HORSE: My TechCentralStation column, which is about where we are (and aren’t) going in space, is up.

SPEAKING OF EXCESSIVE SECRECY: Jesse Walker notes that the FCC is behaving in a particularly opaque fashion where its media concentration rules are concerned.

SO WHY DO I CARE ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY? I don’t know. (Reader Vish Subramanian says that my repeated posts on this subject are “boring and annoying.” Sorry, Vish! I’ll get back to my usual obsessions soon, I promise.) Part of it is vindication: despite the cult of the Times, it’s a flawed human institution, as bloggers have been pointing out, and it’s kind of nice to see that presented in undeniable fashion. We all make mistakes, and we all have biases. But the Times is slow to correct the former, and laughably pretends to lack the latter.

Part of it is also that some of this is an insult to our intelligence, much like the Administration’s absurd claims (which I was flaming about repeatedly here last year) that the September 11 attacks were somehow unimaginable. That was absurd. The Columbine killers planned to hijack a plane and smash it into Manhattan, and anyone who has flown over Manhattan has surely thought about the damage an errant airliner could do. Anyone who honestly believes that such an attack was unimaginable, — as opposed to, perhaps, being something that a reasonable person would consider imaginable but unlikely — is sufficiently unimaginative that he/she shouldn’t be working in a position of responsibility.

Weirdly, the White House still seems to be trying to push this line, though, judging by its recent efforts to keep quiet a report suggesting that the President was warned on August 6 that Al Qaeda might try to hijack airplanes. Why? The question isn’t whether it was a possibility. The question was whether it should have been recognized as an imminent threat. The answer to the former is pretty clearly “of course.” The answer to the latter isn’t nearly as clear. But why pretend it’s not a question at all? Who do they think they’re fooling?

UPDATE: Subramanian also notes:

However, while discussing blogs and newspapers, you miss one hugely important point in favor of blogs – the ability to mark corrections on articles. A responsible blogger should always go back and mark the permlinks in case of errors etc. The Times cant. Which is why it is vulnerable to articles like Rich Lowry’s. In fact, over the last few weeks, it is the NY Times which has done fine reporting showing that its own initial reports are misstated. However, the original articles were on the front page and will be read by future generations on microfilm – without the later qualifications.

Excellent point. The character of newspapers makes it harder for them to seamlessly correct errors than it is for, say, blogs. [So why do many people consider them more reliable than blogs? — Ed. Good question!] But making the original versions of articles show evidence of correction is a good idea. Linda Seebach suggests, rightly, that I don’t give the technological problems with this enough attention. But I think it’s important to come as close to this ideal as possible.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Vish doesn’t like it, but other readers can’t get enough of that sweet, sweet NYT blogging. Hank Fenster writes: “I, for one, am following
the NY Times stuff with great interest.” And Bob Spretnak emails:

Is this a Milli Vanilli moment for American journalism? Y’know … passing off the work of someone else as your own, with the public being shocked and angered at the first revelation. Of course, re Milli Vanilli, the public eventually accepted the notion of lip synching (see, e.g., Spears, Britney), but nevertheless Fab & Rob — around whom the scandal originally broke — remained pariahs in perpetuity.

The Jayson Blair scandal is the journalistic equivalent of Enron — massive fraud and deceit. Bragg is Milli Vanilli, minus the braided mophead hair.

And if the NY Times does equal Milli Vanilli, does that make Howell Raines Frank Farian?

(PS: You aren’t blogging about the NY Times ENOUGH.)

Hmm. Well, you can’t please everybody, so — to quote that great journalistic philosopher Ricky Nelson — I guess I’ll have to please myself. And we can at least be grateful that we’ve been spared the hair.

ANOTHER UPDATE: James Lileks explains how to write a New York Times feature story, and offers this observation:

Yes, you can take some stringer’s notes and compose a story, but the difference between that an a piece you wrote from your own research is the difference between a Penthouse Forum letter and your recollection of your wedding night.

Indeed.

THIS JACK SHAFER STORY on Rick Bragg misses some notes, I think. First, despite the advertisement in the title, Shafer’s story doesn’t, in fact, refute Bragg’s claim that “everybody does it.” (Of course — though it’s not disclosed — the titles to pieces aren’t usually written by the authors, so that might be Shafer’s fault. But would the average reader know that?) Shafer rather uncritically accepts a New York Times spokeswoman’s statement that seems to suggest — but that doesn’t actually say — that Bragg’s behavior was unusual for the Times. He doesn’t, and the Times doesn’t, respond to Bragg’s claim that his editors encouraged him to parachute into places just long enough to get a dateline for a story that was really written elsewhere. He also doesn’t fully address the treatment of that issue in this Wall Street Journal story, even though he mentions the story on other points. But the WSJ story includes this statement:

The Times says nonstaff journalists are often used to conduct interviews, provide research assistance or help stake out the scene of news events, especially on tight deadlines, but don’t receive bylines when their contribution is routine. They may receive one “when their pieces reflect unusual enterprise or unusual writing style,” according to a written statement provided by the Times.

Indeed, some Times staffers expressed surprise at Mr. Bragg’s suspension because using material from stringers and assistants without giving credit is common practice at the paper, owned by New York Times Co.

Shafer also suggests that Bragg was doing something tricky by using Wes Yoder as a stringer, but again, the WSJ story seems to suggest that Howell Raines must have been aware of this practice, which would devastate any case that Bragg was putting one over on his bosses. Here’s the key passage:

Indeed, when Times Executive Editor Howell Raines, an Alabama native, visited Birmingham to watch the trial, Mr. Yoder says he sat with the Times’ top editor in the courtroom and they spoke at length. “It wasn’t like Rick was hiding anything from Howell, or anyone else at the Times,” Mr. Yoder says. Mr. Raines went to dinner at least once with Mr. Bragg and Mr. Yoder, Mr. Yoder says.

It’s not open-and-shut, but it’s awfully damned suggestive. Could these guys have really had dinner, talked shop (inevitably) and not parted with Howell Raines knowing what was going on? It seems doubtful, and it’s hard to imagine a journalist taking the word of a flack for any other corporation under these circumstances, but that’s what Shafer’s doing when he concludes that Bragg was guilty of “deceit” by using Yoder on the story.

Shafer’s on his strongest ground when he suggests that the “you are there” tone of the Apalachicola story is deceptive in the sense that it gives the impression that Bragg was there a lot more than he really was. This is pretty strong — but if it’s true, then as Jeff Jarvis points out, every TV reporter is committing unethical journalism by producing reports that give an entirely false impression of how much original reporting he or she is doing, and of what happens when and where. (Jonah Goldberg says the same thing).

It seems to me that there are two questions here: what’s fair to the stringers, and what’s fair to the readers. Where the stringers are concerned, I think it’s all a question of contract and expectations. If they’re promised a byline they should get one. If they’re not, then they’re not entitled to one. And if there’s some widespread journalistic norm (as there is, I believe, among comedy writers where everyone in the room when a joke is written gets credit) that everyone involved gets a credit, then apparently it’s not that widespread. And it’s very notable that Yoder isn’t the one complaining here. In fact, he’s defending Bragg.

From the reader’s standpoint it’s trickier: What do readers want to know? What do they care about? Jarvis again: “My own mother used to tell me about stories she’d just read in the Chicago Tribune and I used to have to say, ‘Yeah, Ma, I know, I wrote that.’ Reporters’ own mothers don’t notice their bylines.” Readers do want to know whether they can trust the reporting. Bylines can be a proxy for trust — or distrust, when it’s, say, Robert Fisk — but usually only insiders care. The average reader, wisely or foolishly, almost certainly pays more attention to the institutional imprimatur than to the reporter’s name. I would certainly favor adding individual accountability, and thus bringing the Times up to the standards of weblogs, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s ethically required.

Which returns to the original question: What, exactly, did Rick Bragg do that was so much worse than what other reporters at the Times do that it justifies a suspension? Shafer’s piece doesn’t answer that, beyond making this unsupported general statement:

Although other Times stringers, interns, and staffers have alleged cases in which reporting for the Times was improperly credited, none has alleged to me a provable violation as dramatic as Bragg’s. In general, it’s a point of pride for newspaper reporters not to slough the reporting off on assistants.

“None has alleged to me.” “In general, it’s a point of pride.” That’s not very strong stuff, really. It just raises more questions.

It’s possible, of course, that — despite the Wall Street Journal report and the emails I got here over the weekend — these practices aren’t really widespread at the Times. If Shafer’s piece had demonstrated that, then it would have provided at least a partial answer to the question of what Bragg did wrong. But Shafer’s piece doesn’t demonstrate that so much as it simply asserts it.

THE BAGHDAD MUSEUM LOOTING STORY was exploded weeks ago, when it turned out that only about two dozen items, not the tens of thousands originally reported, were looted from the Iraqi National Museums displays. In other words, the original looting stories were bogus. Yet today the factually-challenged New York Times describes the museums as having been “largely gutted.”

Perhaps the former Iraqi information minister is now working as one of the Times’ anonymous stringers? As Jerk Sauce notes: “The article raises some worrisome points about the looting of archeological sites in Iraq. But given the reporter’s – or is it his stringer’s – willingness to misrepresent the museum looting, how credible is this?”

Not very, I’m afraid.

MICKEY KAUS asks:

Where’s Howell? Isn’t it time we heard from embattled NYT executive editor Howell Raines about his role in the Rick Bragg mess, not to mention the ongoing “Blair Witchhunt” and the general turmoil in his newsroom? I think Kenneth Lay was more accessible to the press during the Enron scandal. … Is Raines still in charge?

Insiders are invited to email him tips.

WELL, THIS IS NO SIGN OF PROGRESS:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, May 27 — An editor whose newspaper was in the forefront of a campaign against Muslim extremism was removed from his post Tuesday, managers at the paper said.

No reason was given for the dismissal of Jamal Khashoggi, who joined the Al-Watan newspaper in March, one manager said on condition of anonymity. . . .

Many Saudis who had hoped that their country was on a path toward change following the terror attacks against three compounds housing foreign workers were disappointed by the news of Khashoggi’s dismissal.

”This is a bad sign,” said Turki al-Hamad, a prominent writer. ”This will be considered a victory by the extremists. It’s like an invitation for more attacks.”

Based in the southern city of Abha, Al-Watan has won a wide readership since its launch in 2000 owing to its liberal editorials and a policy of promoting a higher profile for women in conservative Saudi society.

The firing was at the behest of the Saudi Information Ministry, which means the Saudi royals’ fingerprints are on it. They’re not our friends, they’re major supporters and exporters of Islamic terrorism, they’re almost certainly incapable of reform, and sooner or later they’re going to have to go.

VIK RUBENFELD COMMENTS on Rick Bragg’s experience with bad publicity:

Mr. Bragg is experiencing, doubtless for the first time, how unfair hostile reporting is. Yet this is what the meanstream press has subjected every other business in America to for decades.

Hostile reporting is the result of the sentence all mainstream reporters say, specifically, “To be objective I must be hostile to the subject of the article.” That sentence is false. Hostility as a goal produces only attacks. It does not produce fairness. This is what Bragg, and the press, are discovering under these unfortunate circumstances.

And the Times isn’t even close to getting the full-bore Enron treatment. Meanwhile, Jonah Goldberg observes:

Frankly I think Rick Bragg is getting a raw deal given the rules he was told to work under. But I can’t muster much sympathy since the Times represents the height of journalistic goody-goodieness and arrogance.

I suspect a lot of people will feel that way, though I’m not sure it’s entirely fair.

MICKEY KAUS offers a close reading of the Wall Street Journal story I mention below. Howell Raines doesn’t look good.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Matt Welch observes: “Maybe the Grey Lady needs to open up a few more bureaus in flyover country.” Indeed.

IS PEER REVIEW POOR REVIEW? Ralph Luker thinks so.

THIS STORY will make Jeff Jarvis happy — it’s about plans to offer Iraqis unfettered Internet access. Make it so.

LARRY LESSIG OBSERVES:

For it is bizarre that we increasingly live in this world where every movement is captured by a camera, yet increasingly, ordinary people are not permitted to take pictures with cameras.

He’s right. Malls, stores, and governments are putting up hidden cameras everywhere, even as the list of places you’re not allowed to photograph mushrooms. Screw ’em. If they want to photograph you secretly — and they do — then you should have the right to, er, shoot back. And they should feel lucky that it’s just with a camera.

After all, if they’re innocent, they have nothing to hide, right? That’s what they’re always telling us.

MATT WELCH HAS MORE ON DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT BY IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS — it’s like he’s got an inside source or something! Seriously, this kind of thing is just pathetic, and heads should roll. Will they?

Not bloody likely. But it’s yet another mark against the not-ready-for-primetime Homeland Security apparat.

I’M ENJOYING SOME RARE SUNSHINE out on the law school’s patio while I do some WestLaw research. But there’s more on why the New York Times’ latest scandals constitute the “revenge of the blog” — along with more book-blogging for your beach-reading summer pleasure — over at GlennReynolds.com.

THE ANNIKA SORENSTAM / DONALD RUMSFELD connection.

LOOTING UPDATE: Rich Lowry writes on “the museum sacking that wasn’t:”

If you only read The New York Times, you might think the only truly important recent event in Iraq was the looting of the Iraqi National Museum. For art lovers, this branded the U.S. occupation with the worst of all possible labels, worse than “imperialist,” worse than “illegal” — “Philistine.”

Robert Deutsch, an archeologist at Haifa University and a licensed antiquities dealer, shakes his head at all the coverage of the museum sacking. The Times originally reported that 170,000 pieces had been stolen. “Nonsense,” says Deutsch. He points out that there would have to be “miles and miles” of display area for such a massive amount of material to be readily available for the snatching. . . .

“They just had to have something to complain about,” Deutsch says of the museum hype from skeptics of the war. “The war was fast. It was clean. They found a small place where they can complain.” . . .

“I don’t see any big or significant damage from this looting,” says Deutsch. “It was very small-scale. And the historical value of an antiquity is in its publication. Once it’s published, it’s part of our knowledge.” Thereafter, its value is mostly as an object of art.

(Via Bill Quick).