Bizarre Journalism

Yesterday, a new tape from Al Qaeda terrorist Ayman Al-Zawahiri came to light that seemed to offer definitive proof that he was not killed in the Pakistani Predator strike. In other words, the first justification given for the strike, a strike in which everyone admits civilians, including women and children were killed, has evaporated.

The second justification given was that the strike killed four other Al Qaeda members, including Abu Khabab (for whom we since learned the State Department posted the wrong picture).

It's on this second justification where the media coverage has simply become bizarre.

ABC's Brian Ross has been the main source of confusion having broken the exclusive story suggesting Zawahiri had been killed and then the exclusive follow-up that 4 Al Qaeda had been killed. In covering the Zawahiri tape, Ross does not note whether Zawahiri disputes whether, in fact, the strike killed Al Qaeda members. He goes on to state:

[Zawahiri] refers several times to the Jan.13 airstrike in the Pakistani village of Damadola, which was meant to kill him but instead killed four of his closest deputies and 14 villagers.

This is bizarre, if not outright misleading, to report this as fact when nobody has gone publicly on record verifying Al Qaeada deaths as fact (the closest was a statement from Pervez Musharaff given after Prime Minister Aziz said there was no evidence of Al Qaeda deaths ... Musharaff said he believed some Al Qaeda were killed but then hedged and said he wasn't 100% sure).

The Associaed Press Report likewise reported Al Qaeda deaths as fact and suggested Zawahiri did not dispute this. The AP stated: "The strike killed four al-Qaida leaders including a man believed to be al-Zawahri's son-in-law ....

On my way home, I heard coverage of the story on NPR and was surprised to hear for the first time that Zawahiri claimed only "innocents" were killed in the attack.

The New York Times then put up an article echoing NPR's coverage by noting Zawahiri's claim that the attack only killed innocents and stated:

Thirteen villagers were killed in the strike, setting off widespread protests in Pakistan. American officials say that several Qaeda figures were among those killed, but have not determined who they were.

From all the information I've seen, the New York Times report appears to be the accurate one. One then wonders why ABC and the Assocuated Press would report something as fact which has yet to be established as such. Certainly, I, as an American, am hopeful that the strike killed Al Qaeda members and, more hopeful that it killed some of their leaders. To kill civilians in a sovreign nation (purportedly without Musharaff's consent - though I doubt it) without successfully killing some truly bad actors would damage or credibility in conducting the war on terror in places, like Pakistan, where we really need to confront Al Qaeda.

But wishful thinking should not pass for journalism. Brian Ross' reporting has been fraught with just that and apparently he, as is the AP, willing to play the conduit for thoise who would like people to accept claims as fact.

[UPDATE: After I had written much of this post but before I posted, I noticed that the AP, as it often does, has revised its story to include Zawahiri's claim that only "innocents" were killed in the attack. The factual statement that 4 Al Qaeda leaders were killed still remains however. I believe when the AP does this, it should openly acknowledge the revision rather than trying to simply slip it by].