What transparency does media owe in Iraq? (UPDATE)

Elemental standards of journalism include that headlines should accurately reflect the story, and that a story should be verifiable and corroborated. Instead, much of the major media is too often engaged in tabloid journalism: rumor-mongering and sensationalism.

The MSM has not been forthcoming about its policies and controls in its use of Iraqi stringers. The MSM has not been forthcoming in verifying the statements of “witnesses”, instead echoing their statements.

Right or Left bloggers may catch some of this. BUT, what is really needed is transparency from the MSM, and qualified independent investigation of the MSM's policies and controls in Iraq.

Americans, whether in favor of or not of U.S. policy in Iraq, at least, deserve reliable journalism upon which to base their judgments. A good deal of the heat in domestic debate would be reduced or eliminated, and a good deal more light shown, if the major media enforced elemental standards of journalism.

As any rookie cop or crime reporter knows, even multiple “witnesses” may be contradictory or unreliable, and that complete investigation is necessary.

In Iraq, this problem is compounded by remote news article writing and editing, by the heavy use of local stringers to report whose qualifications, affiliations, sympathies or intimidation against them may result in suspect reports, and by the prominence given to self-proclaimed witnesses whose story is not vetted for reliability, their background or agenda.

I wrote about the first issue, not-on-the-spot reporting, and referred to the second, in Editor & Publisher. Powerline has a post today about lack of reporters on the scene with our troops.

The report from a “young Iraqi journalist” or “human rights organization” related to Haditha witnesses presented as reliable have been trumpeted across the front-pages and TV news of the world. Yet, it seems the “young Iraqi journalist” is not what was presented. And, it seems the “witnesses” stories have difficulty adding up. (I also wrote about one of these non-tabulations here.)

Another illustration from today’s reporting of the circumstances of Zarqawi’s death.

The Associated Press’ report is headlined, “ Iraqi raises questions on al-Zarqawi death.” This Iraqi says Americans beat the live Zarqawi to death. This would be important news if not for the narrative. “No other witnesses have come forward to corroborate the account…” The AP story is bylined “Associated Press Writer.”

So, where’s the story? Why a story at all when such allegations are frequently made and unsubstantiated, as a Pentagon spokesman is quoted in the narrative? Why not a headline, if there is a story worth reporting, that more accurately informs headline skimmers, like “One Iraqi…” or “Unverified Iraqi…”?

The MSM has a responsibility to itself and to Americans to start coming clean and clear about its reporting policies and practices, and enforcing them. Or, admit to being a tabloid journalism, not claim to be reporters of record.

UPDATE: Protein Wisdom has more on “witnesses”:

what CBS News and Associated Press Television News don’t tell you is that another local man—who also refused to give his name or show his face on camera (or even provide proof of his existence outside of the mind of those who might use his testimony to some peculiar propaganda effect)—disputed the first gentleman’s story, calling it “a questionable recollection of events,” and noting that, if anything, “the US troops who arrived on the scene showed remarkable humanity” in dealing with Mr Zarqawi, with one US serviceman purportedly kneeling beside the mortally wounded terror leader “to apply a soothing poultice made with palm fronds and an herbal paste much favored by the locals” while comforting him “with a stirring version of the Eagles’ ‘Desperado’ in a rich, throaty Alabama twang.”
Me, I’m not sure who to believe here.

Clarification, for those who don't get it: This is tongue-in-cheek.