AP alters CAIR quote in story about Ayaan Hirsi Ali
posted at 7:36 pm on February 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
From one of our very best tipsters, RLW, comes a great little catch of which I’m not quite sure what to make. Quote #1:
Quote #2:
The first quote comes from an AP article written by William C. Mann and entitled “Critic of Islam finds new home in U.S.” that moved on the wire at 2:05 a.m. The second is from an AP article by the same author with the same title that moved at 10:14 a.m. I compared the text of the first story to the text of the second side by side in MS Word and the two are completely identical except for the CAIR quote.
It’s possible that Mann collected both quotes from Hooper contemporaneously and changed from the first to the second unbidden, simply because he liked the second one better. Except … Hooper’s making the same point in each. He’s just being more politic about it in the second instance by dropping the word “hate.” You can imagine him saying during their interview, “You know what? I went too far. Let me rephrase that last comment” and then giving Mann the second quote — but if that’s what happened, why did the first quote appear in the story that moved at 2:05?
What we’re looking at here, I suspect (but obviously can’t prove), is Hooper having made the first comment during their interview, then gotten buyer’s remorse when he saw how shrill it looked in print. So he called up the AP hours after the fact and asked them to replace it with a more “nuanced” version — and the AP agreed to do so.
Which brings us to our exit questions. First, am I missing some other obvious explanation? And second, if not, is giving sources a do-over on quotes after a story’s been published standard practice in the industry? I’m asking in earnest. I honestly don’t know the answer.
Update: The AP’s Statement of News Values and Principles says, “For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted.” This isn’t a correction, though. Unless Mann mistranscribed it — which is exceedingly hard to believe — he’s simply replacing a harder quote with a softer one. Why?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Dude,
I have HAD it with the Associated Press. They would NEVER sanitize a quote from Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or any other conservative.
But CAIR!!! Oh my gosh! They’ll do their bidding any day!
I’m glad you guys are pointing the spotlight on the AP. They need to be exposed.
freakagriep on February 10, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Not much difference from a dog who’s covering his sh** is it. I saw the Beck interview. Thanks for posting that, by the way. It’s going to be a long fight, Bub. Hope my great great grandkids keep fit.
james hooker on February 10, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Even before getting to this sentence it is what crossed my mind.
Of course, we could give Hooper the benefit of the doubt and assume he was “misquoted”, saw it and demanded he be quoted accurately. However, I would expect a “correction” issued with the article if this was the case.
I’m sure for selected interviewees it is, but it shouldn’t be.
Editor on February 10, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Not usually, no. But when I was in j-school, the web was still a lark for journalism, so the rules were still based on the fact that once a story was ink on paper, it was set.
Slublog on February 10, 2007 at 7:45 PM
It was always my experience that when someone said they were “misquoted,” it meant they were caught saying something they believed, but regretted seeing in print. That’s why I taped all of my interviews, and kept the tapes.
Slublog on February 10, 2007 at 7:46 PM
Trust me, Slublog, I’m not giving anyone at CAIR the benefit of the doubt.
Editor on February 10, 2007 at 7:50 PM
The second quote makes Hirsi Ali sound more dangerous
The first makes her out to be bigoted hater, familiar label in the MSM, seen it before.
The second quote implies, “See all the rioting and violence in Europe? That’s all Hirsi’s fault for getting those youths all riled up with her loose talk.”
Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but I’m certain we’ll see a campaign to shut her up.
She’s too pretty for the MSM to ignore and too
articulatewell-spoken for everyone else to ignore.billy on February 10, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Oh, that’s what I figured. Wasn’t trying to disagree, just add my personal experience. Sorry about that.
Slublog on February 10, 2007 at 7:52 PM
I called my brother-in-law, a member of the press, and he said that, yes you do do do-overs, but make it clear to your readers that you mis-quoted the source, or the source said they were misquoted..why? to avoid someone of your intelligence catching this…He read this as shoddy journalism at best, and he took it that the journalist was not interested in facts as much as satisfying CAIR…
Pam on February 10, 2007 at 7:56 PM
I don’t think anyone was misquoted here, though.
Allahpundit on February 10, 2007 at 8:00 PM
I think the bias of the old media becomes more clear everyday. They will make an undocumented change whenever they want to. To bad there are no “ISO 9000″ standards for that industry.
What does this all mean? I’m not sure but it is disrespectful to their consumers (the few that are left).
Thanks for highlighting this discrepancy Allah…
Zorro on February 10, 2007 at 8:25 PM
It seems as if they want to harm the messenger and the message in the second go-round. Most aren’t lucky enough to think about their statement for a few hours and add to it. They even try to blame Ayaan for all of Europes muslim problems “saw her bring”. What a load of crap. And I DO hope she brings much muslim AWARENESS to America only with a different result than in Europe.
Sure would like to see an interview with the two of them, on feed that is, don’t want any harm to come to Ms. Hirsi.
shooter on February 10, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Why does either version have to be an actual quote?
The third alternative is that the author is simply fabricating…
Don’t disagree before contemplating how many times such has been the case before now. NYT. They got caught with one, how many others are there?
At least the AP didn’t publish a picture of the CAIR creep in a green helmet.
This time.
.
The Machine on February 10, 2007 at 8:37 PM
I’m shocked!
…but don’t question their patriotism
SilverStar830 on February 10, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Dan Rather was unavailable for comment
Wade on February 10, 2007 at 9:10 PM
On the screencap who is the beard in the beanie?
Wade on February 10, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Either quote he uses, the premise is absurd. Hirsi Ali commenting truthfully about the “ROP”(sarcasm intended), is not fueling anti-muslim feelings in this country. SNL Weekend update put it perfectly a while back, the suicide bombings, beheadings, and 8th century brutality is causing the anti-islamic opinions of the civilized world. cair is a willing sycophantic organization dedicated to pulling the wool over the eyes of the dhimmis in this country. The ones that don’t want to accept the facts, that we face a dedicated enemy that will only be appeased by our total destruction.
still468 on February 10, 2007 at 9:14 PM
At least Dougie didn’t call her a “racist” in either quote.
forest on February 10, 2007 at 9:41 PM
The screen cap is Ibrahim Hooper.
rw on February 10, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Another obvious explanation is that the AP decided on its own that the quote needed to be changed to cover their buddy.
Mark V. on February 10, 2007 at 10:04 PM
IF the AP and Reuters continue to behave this unethically in the internet age, where the chances of being caught and swiftly exposed are greatly increased, one has to wonder at the level of malfeasance that existed in the not to distant past.
greggish on February 10, 2007 at 10:42 PM
You mean I’m supposed to trust a pasty-faced, beanie-wearing, whitish-guy over a beautiful Black woman?
Get serious.
profitsbeard on February 10, 2007 at 11:08 PM
All AP needs to do now is a rewrite of the Koran.
Mojave Mark on February 10, 2007 at 11:30 PM
The only I’ve found is Mann’s piece in the Boston Globe, where the 2nd quote is used. (so far)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/10/critic_of_islam_finds_new_home_in_us/
Connie on February 10, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Found it. Can someone do a screen capture?
http://www.examiner.com/a-558231~After_turmoil_in_Holland__critic_of_Islam_finds_home_in_U_S__think_tank.html
Connie on February 10, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Apologies, Allah…didn’t read it right. I guess the question has to be did Mann make one of them up or perhaps Hooper contacted him and asked him to change it. We’ll probably never know.
Connie on February 10, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Just another shining example of the unholy alliance with whom we are at war.
Tony737 on February 11, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Good points billy. Fortunately in the U.S. no one can shut her up. And we won’t let them :)
Whatever the reasons for these differences, both versions attempt to temper AHA’s voice. Never mind that CAIR is louder and faster than an out-of-control jukebox.
Entelechy on February 11, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I do think we will see an attempt to silence Ms, Hirsi. The arguement will probably follow along the lines of “she started trouble in Europe, do we really want that here?”
Her supporters here should start now to nip this line of thinking in the bud.
billy on February 11, 2007 at 1:23 AM
I’m sure that the Saudis who bankroll CAIR don’t like critics of Islam and demand CAIR demonizes those whose can mount persuasive arguments against Islam. Anything CAIR is against, we should be for.
CAIR should consider that the best way to remove the stink from Islam is to stop killing people for their religion.
Tantor on February 11, 2007 at 3:09 AM
::blink:: Huh?
If it wasn’t for that tedious little detail that they believe their religion DEMANDS that they kill people, there might be a chance of that.
Freelancer on February 11, 2007 at 4:43 AM
Actually I think it is crap like this that leads to the rise in Muslim hatred
ON Point in Iraq: Marines “Hit the Jackpot” at Village near Fallujah
LakeRuins on February 11, 2007 at 9:38 AM
I am reminded of Senators stating before a speech in the well of the senate “I reserve the right to REVISE and extend my comments.”
Have any of you ever wondered about that?
Babs on February 11, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Babs
That is so when the cameras are off and nobody is paying attention they will go later and enter what is normally a written update to their comments which are often contradictory of what they said. It results in them being on both sides of an issue. Unless you are the type that likes to pour over the entire transcript on a particular bill or debate you will never know. The result you can be for and against something and then use which ever part you want when running for reelection.
Example Ted Kennedy, co sponsor of the “No Child Left Behind” legislation who has done nothing but criticise it since it has been enacted. He keeps that all powerful teachers union on his side that way.
LakeRuins on February 11, 2007 at 10:50 AM
If that were the case Allah, shouldn’t the fact that Hooper had buyer’s remorse be part of Mann’s story?
oakpack on February 11, 2007 at 11:00 AM
LR _ Exactly. What a bunch of weasels…
Babs on February 11, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Under what authority are they granted the ‘right’ to say they can lie about anything they chose and then change what they say?
News2Use on February 11, 2007 at 11:20 AM
It probably depends on who it is. CAIR, global warming alarmists, in a minute. Rush Limbaugh, Tony Snow, not even if they said what they said from the pain of being on fire.
And risk offending such a good friend of the MSM as CAIR? Are you kidding?
Wolfman on February 11, 2007 at 11:22 AM
I read the first quote as a veiled threat:
“Shut that woman up, or we will riot and burn cars here like we did in Europe.”
As for who “brought the hatred” of Muslims to the United States, I think that was the 19 evil hijackers on September 11, not Hirsi Ali.
aero on February 11, 2007 at 11:48 AM
In my opinion, look for more attempts by CAIR to discredit Ayaan Hirsi Ali by any means they can. Their tactics are getting old: Lie, dodge the truth, avoid direct answers, never give an inch.
After reading Robert Spencer’s book “The Truth about Muhammad” their actions make perfect sense. The Muslim cannot be trusted, they use deception and deceit on a regular basis in any dealings with the “infidel”.
There must be a way to counter any actions by CAIR, in their face, on every issue, at every time, and not give an inch. That is the only tactic that will work with the Islamofacist.
omegaram on February 11, 2007 at 12:49 PM
It’s obvious that, no matter the ‘official’ reason for the rewrite, the objective of the AP was to soften the quote by removing the subjective word ‘hate’ and replacing it with ‘biased’. That would give the appearance of objective reasoning on the part of CAIR and not an emotive response to the woman in question. I have little doubt that CAIR, or one of their supporters, realized the emotive appearance of the original quote and requested that the AP use a different quote in an attempt to give CAIR a more objective appearance.
Since it is almost impossible now to completely remove previous quotes, statements, or public postings from the Internet this is a futile attempt. Any attempt to rewrite a post can cause a larger controversy than the original as the rewrite will be noticed and discussed more that the original posting.
This is a perfect example of the media eclipsing the message. I always thought that was to be avoided by journalists? It seems that journalists has a lot to learn concerning the Internet.
RedinBlueCounty on February 11, 2007 at 1:04 PM
I wrote the following email to a few online publications who used the altered version. I’ll let you know if I receive any responses.
To: (various)
A discrepancy has been noted in an article written about Ayaan Hirsi Ali by William C. Mann.
Mr. Mann’s article appeared in numerous online publications. Most carried the article written as yours was written, but a few carried it with a variation in a quote by Ibrahim Hooper of C.A.I.R. We are trying to ascertain which quote is correct.
The article appeared on (various)’s website here:
(website url)
At 10:14 a.m., the same article moved on the wire and Yahoo posted it here with the quote you used in your version:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_re_us/islam_critic_2
In your article (as well as many others, including the above at Yahoo), Mr. Hooper is quoted as saying,
“We believe that she will bring an increase to the level of anti-Muslim bias in this country that we saw her bring to the situation in Europe,” the council’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, said in an interview Saturday. “Unfortunately her message is one of bigotry, not one of mutual understanding.”
In a Yahoo article, which moved on the wire earlier, at 2:05 a.m.,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_re_us/islam_critic_1
Mr. Hooper’s quote reads differently:
“”We believe that contributes to a growing level of Muslim hatred in America,” said the council’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper. “It is unfortunate that she had to bring that kind of hate from Europe to the United States.”"
We are trying to determine who (at Associated Press) is responsible for changing the text of Mr. Hooper’s quote. It is important to know which quote is the correct one and why the quote was altered. (i.e., does Ibrahim Hooper or the C.A.I.R. organization carry an undue amount of influence with the Associated Press)? Or did Mr. Mann publish twice, and if so, why did he change the text of the quote?
Any light you could shine on this investigation would be appreciated.
Sincerely, (me)
end email inquiry
Connie on February 11, 2007 at 2:22 PM
and when it comes to the matter of disinformation in the media (all media), you are surprised how???????????
Emmett J. on February 11, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Wow, you have exactly one “contribution” to make, don’t you, Emmett J.? Get a new thought.
Kralizec on February 11, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Maybe I’ve just overlooked it, but I haven’t seen any remark, in either the blog post or the comments, on the ambiguous meaning of the phrase “Muslim hatred” in the first version. A reader can easily doubt whether the hatred is Muslims’ hatred or hatred of Muslims. I suspect that ambiguity was the impetus to make any change at all; however, if the intended meaning was “hatred of Muslims,” then an editorial clarification such as “[anti-]Muslim hatred” would have been adequate. Instead, it appears that mere clarification became an occasion for wholesale substitution with mush.
Kralizec on February 11, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Good point. Why does this make me chuckle? I liked it better the first way.
Connie on February 11, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I just read the part (in AHA’s book “Infidel”) about F.G.M.
Absolutely barbaric.
Tony737 on February 11, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Well, back when Connie Chung sandbagged Newt Gingrich’s mother, the revised version of Ethics concluded that no sleck was cut for persons reasonably expected to be familiar with journalists and the need to accurately state your position (CEOs and PR flacks at the top of the list) ranging down to journalistic tricks not OK for elderly housewives like Newt’s Mom.
“the council’s communications director” sounds like the most stringent standards of “you said it, we print it even if you don’t like it”.
Jhn'1 on February 11, 2007 at 10:57 PM
no slack
Sorry for the typo
Jhn'1 on February 12, 2007 at 12:35 AM
How nuanced of AP.
This is a marked woman. The next martyr in America. She needs protection before some jihadist kills her like they did Theo Van Gogh.
Black Adam on February 12, 2007 at 7:25 AM
There that should be more accurate. Maybe add “To open their eyes”.
right2bright on February 12, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Speakin’ of Theo Van Gogh, for all you libs out there that think we can “talk” to the terrorists, Theo’s last words were “Can’t we talk about this?”
Tony737 on February 12, 2007 at 1:53 PM
I agree, it seems entirely possible that in the first quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali was being blamed for causing discontent within the American Muslim community. It isn’t PC to say the Muslims are anything but happy productive members of society so the second quote totally reverses the meaning and gives it a liberal spin that the public at large is discontent with the Muslims. Reading the first quote in that way fits in exactly with what some of the Imams said about uncovered meat or what Robert Spencer said about the Koran not teaching self restraint.
Resolute on February 12, 2007 at 6:19 PM