LA Times revisits controversial Ramadi airstrike story

posted at 2:54 am on December 29, 2006 by see-dubya

Back in November, blogger Patterico spent a lot of time looking into an incident in Ramadi in which it was alleged in the L.A. Times that U.S. airstrikes killed several civilians. The incident in many ways set the stage for the ongoing questions about coverage of the Hurriya burning and the AP’s reliance on “Capt. Jamil Hussein”.

The U.S. military adamantly denied that any airstrikes had occurred in Ramadi on November 15th, and they still do. Patterico asked for a response from Solomon Moore, the Times reporter who wrote that story, but never received one.

Now Moore has responded. And, well, it looks pretty good for Patterico. The headline is “U.S. Says Ramadi Operations Didn’t Rely On Airstrikes”.

There may have been tragic collateral damage as a result of tank fire (or insurgent fire, come to think of it) that day. But Patterico’s point wasn’t that everything is perfect in Iraq. His point was that the U.S. side of this story wasn’t getting told in the LA Times.

Now it is.

Good work, Patterico. And thanks to Solomon Moore for listening; even if he seemed a bit grudging about it, he did the legwork to follow up.

UPDATE: Patterico responds, with more to come.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Does the media get anything right in Iraq when relying on these stringers? This is getting tiresome. It may not be a box of chocolates over there, but I would rather the truth get reported than a bunch of lies from the mouths of lying “sources”.

Stormy70 on December 29, 2006 at 6:22 AM

Over 50 to 1 Kill Ratio in an Urban setting.

Hell, LA Gangs don’t even have that kind of efficiency.

Ringmaster on December 29, 2006 at 7:35 AM

Much too little.
Way too late.

The media lies and this recent LA Times piece was simple an attempt to cover it up after they were caught LYING, again.

georgej on December 29, 2006 at 8:10 AM

So now we go from one bridge to 6 homes destroyed, and from a couple dozen insurgents to 40 or so civilians dead? I’ve always known who was telling the Truth. Now thanks to Patterico, we do too.

We can never believe anything this source says again. His credibility is gone. Since the LA Times refuses to name him and does not screen his stories for truthfulness any more seriously than this, then every story which Mr. Moore writes will be suspect until he can explain how his source gets it so wrong. Every time.

Why would I ever believe anything our enemies say, even when they have some truth to them? They have so consistently lied in the press, I no longer care whether their side gets told, because it is always, and always has been, and always will be, a lie.

Subsunk

Subsunk on December 29, 2006 at 8:26 AM

And speaking of America’s worst newspapers, Allah, did you guys post on the sale of the hilarious Strib in Minneapolis? I don’t remember it.

That would be worth commenting on…

Jaibones on December 29, 2006 at 9:02 AM