May 30, 2006

Sunday Times Retracts Atwar Bahjat Beheading Story After Bloggers Fact Check

Bumped....because one can never pat oneself on the back too many times.....

The Sunday Times has retracted their May 7th story in which they claimed they had received a video of the beheading murder of female Iraqi reporter, Atwar Bahjat. As first revealed on The Jawa Report, that video was actually of a slain Nepalese truck driver from August of 2004. Thanks to Greyhawk for following up on the retraction and commenting on it here.

Our original story is here: Atwar Bahjat Beheading Video a Hoax

Times retraction: The Iraq execution video that fooled me

First note that the retraction calls the cold-blooded murder of a civilian an 'execution'. The terrorists that murdered a man by beheading and shot 11 of his co-workers on video deemed it an execution for collaboration with Zionists, Crusadors, and apostates. They use such language because it justifies their actions under Islamic law.

It's not murder, they claim, it's an execution of a criminal. Apparently, the Times agrees. Beyond this, the fact that the Times was wrong should not take away from the fact that a man was murdered. The video still remains a disguisting reminder of the barbaric nature of the "insurgency" being waged in Iraq.

But it is also sad that the story was run without any vetting of the facts and that Ms. Bahjat's friends and family were exposed to such disgusting and gruesome video under the impression that the victim was their loved one. I was horrified watching the video the first time, I cannot even imagine my reaction if I had known the victim.

We were first made aware that the video was probably a hoax by Greyhawk of the Mudville Gazette , after he did a simple Google search and found a Wikipedia entry on Bahjat noting that she had been shot and that images of her body were available from Getty images. The same video sent to the Times had been circulating on the internet at Islamist forums--yes, Islamist forums are full of these snuff videos--as the 'Atwar Bahjat execution' and it was soon brought to my attention that the video was actually that of the murder of a man from Nepal that we had reported in 2004.

While I was away in London, I was contacted Sarah Curnow, a journalist with AustraliaÂ’s Media Watch (affiliated with the Australian Broadcasting Co.), asking me to verify my accusation that the video was a hoax. She also asked me if I could provide her with a link to the original clip. Since I was away I wasn't able to help her out, but in the meantime she independently verified that our story was right.

Despite the fact that we had written to the Times (and so had other readers, including reader Dan) and told them that their story was incorrect, the Times never got back to us. Apparently, they didn't take us seriously. But thanks to Sarah Curnow, the Times has retracted the story.

Here is the relevant part of the transcript of her story as shown on Australian TV:

There was lots of internet chatter too, about whether Atwar Bahjat had been beheaded.

One blog site - The Jawa Report - said The Sunday Times had been duped.

[quote from our story]

This is the video The Jawa Report identifies.

Once again it's too gruesome to play any further.

But we've watched the video closely and it correlates exactly with the details of the murder described by The Sunday Times.

The paper won't confirm that this is the video they saw, but they stand by their story.

Here is an excerpt from the e-mail sent to Media Watch by The Sunday Times, with the note that The Times did not even respond to my e-mail to them:
It would be quite wrong to suggest that [Hala Jaber] watched a video of a Nepalese man being beheaded and imagined that he was her friend, Atwar BahjatÂ… This unfortunate woman was identified as Atwar Bahjat by a member of her family and a close friend who watched the video before publication of Hala Jaber's article. We stand by our story.
Go check out the rest of The Media Watch transcript, which notes that Australian media used the alleged Atwar Bahjat video for their own anti-war agenda.

In any event, the Times and Hala Jaber have now retracted their original story:

THREE weeks ago in these pages, I reported that I had seen a video recording of a friend and colleague, Atwar Bahjat, one of IraqÂ’s top female journalists, having her throat cut and then being decapitated.

I was mistaken. It was a hoax, and I apologise to her family for the pain I have caused them and to the many readers who were distressed by what I wrote.

The video was not of Atwar but of a Nepalese male hostage decapitated two years ago.

Notice the wording right out of The Jawa Report, including the word "hoax" to describe what had happened?

The rest of the story tells how she was duped and offers an apology. Jaber claims she believed in the veracity of the video because it had come from an insurgent group that had proved reliable in the past.

First question: if Hala Jaber has contacts with the insurgency, why is she not being interrogated? Or has the British government forgotten that it is in a shooting war with people that Hala Jaber seems to be acquainted with?

Second question: does the mere fact that you've been to Iraq, are an Arab, and have 'contacts with the insurgency' now make you an 'expert' to the mainstream media? We debunked the Jaber story within hours of learning about it. My only expertise is that I actually follow what the insurgents say by reading poorly translated statements, watching propaganda videos, and lurking on English language Islamist forums. Yet I seem to know more about the Iraqi insurgency than The Sunday Times' expert.

Last, as both Greyhawk and The Media Watch note, what is the underlying agenda of the MSM in wanting to believe this story? Jaber's original story makes a point in saying that the footage is of a 'death squad' murdering Bahjat. That is, she uses the hoax footage to illustrate a point about the 'civil war' which has erupted in Iraq:

There is a wider significance to the appalling footage and the accompanying details. The film appears to show for the first time an Iraqi death squad in action.
[emphasis mine] As we've reported on dozens and dozens of occasions, these video are common from Iraqi insurgent groups and have been so for years. Only someone complete ignorant would dare to make such a claim. Unless, of course, one somehow considers Shia 'death squads' as qualitatively different than Sunni 'insurgents'. Which, if true, also shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq since the al Sadre militias have been doing this kind of murder for years.

So, how did Jaber verify the authenticity of the video that was sent to her by a 'reliable source' in the insurgency?

I set my personal feelings aside and, for several hours, examined the horrifying footage repeatedly with my husband, a photographer hugely experienced in Iraq and in the forensic examination of videos.
[emphasis mine] So, she watched the video with her husband. It was her husband who verified the video, who happens to be a forensic video expert. Right.
A colleague in Baghdad, who had known Atwar well, also spent hours poring over the frames in the video and agreed it was her.
I didn't know Atwar Bahjat at all, but I do know what Ms. Jaber's 'contacts' in the insurgency have done and routinely do to prisoners, because I actually try to follow what they say to each other and not only what they say to dupes in the media! Using nothing more than a Google search, Greyhawk first called this a hoax!

There is more in Jaber's explanation, but it is disgusting and sick. She actually sent the video to some of Atwar Bahjat's friends & relatives asking them to verify it. Some of them emphatically claimed it could not be Bahjat, others swore it was. All of them sobbed and cried.

That's real class. Sending a video which shows someone being slowly beheaded to the friends and relatives of the victim. Excuse me, is that your sister's voice coming through the slit in that body's neck?

Disgusting. I can excuse Jaber for mistaking the victim on the video for that Atwar Bahjat, but sending it to the relatives and friends of the victim? Jaber ought to be fired for that alone.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:02 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1450 words, total size 10 kb.

1 Yes, she should be fired, Rusty, and then sent to prison for colaboration with the enemy. Disgusting!

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 08:33 PM (rUyw4)

2 Thats so sloppy and considering the gravity of the situation for both her family and the broader public, its nearly criminal.

Posted by: Jane at May 28, 2006 09:27 PM (y6n8O)

3 I'm absolutely sure that is the case, Venom, but what of it?

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 29, 2006 04:12 AM (rUyw4)

4 Another example of why would should be skepital of all news coming from that region, and most wary of accepting single source stories. The now discredited story on the supposed new law passed in Iran forcing Jews to wear the yellow star is another such story.

Posted by: john ryan at May 29, 2006 04:24 AM (TcoRJ)

5 Apparently it is "news" to these reporters, and cohort's that you can't trust those who routinely saw the head off civilians with a hunting knife, or kill Iraqi children with car bombs. I guess when you enoble the brave babyhunters routinely, you don't think you're going to be the target of a deception. ah, ackmed you naughty Jihadi you had me fooled with your decapitating bugaboo's, I paid you good money for that video you bad man, I will hope next time you and your brave lions behead someone I will get first dibs on the video.

Posted by: davec at May 29, 2006 05:00 AM (CcXvt)

6 "Although the video came from a group that had been reliable in the past......." It doesn't matter to her that their "reliability" is built on the brutal murder of innocent people. The fact that she's comfortable enough to openly admit to communicating with terrorists says alot.

Posted by: Graeme at May 29, 2006 05:14 AM (kQpJt)

7 You all seem shocked that a liberal reporter would help spread enemy propaganda. Next thing we know, they'll be forging fake documents about the President and outing classified information during a time of war. They are our enemies, and they side with our enemies. There is only one course of action.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 29, 2006 05:49 AM (0yYS2)

8 It's absolutely sickening that journalists protect sources like this for any reason, but feel they should keep those sources secret. All in the name of "getting a story" without regard to the damage they do and the pain they cause. The "story" is above all else. The bigger the story is, the more careless they can be in their zeal to be the one reporting it. To them, infamy and fame are the same thing. If clawing their way to the top means propagandizing for the enemy, so be it. I would say that their purpose is to make it known how ruthless, animal-like and evil the enemy is, but that doesn't seem to be the case when they swap words like murder for execution and terrorist for a banal term like insurgent all the while imposing their own world view on their readers.

Posted by: Oyster at May 29, 2006 05:54 AM (YudAC)

9 I'm pretty sure "hoax" is not a proprietary word belonging only to this blog.

Posted by: Venom at May 29, 2006 07:51 AM (dbxVM)

10 Well, see, the reason none of these people will ever be prosecuted or harassed by the US government in any official capacity is because the US government seeks to present itself as a neutral entity, pursuing no interests in the region. Consider what passes for moral action for this "conservative" administration. If you have a vested interest in the action, its obviously evil and you can't be caught dead doing it ("We were not there because of the oil," etc.) If you use the US military to primarily benefit the United States, its obviously evil ("We were there for the benefit of the Iraqi people.") If you present yourself as having an agenda, a way that you would want the country to turn out, and furthermore work to make the country turn out specifically that way rather than give the reigns of power over to a hungry mob, that too is evil ("Democracy is democracy.") So now we have the sad spectacle of the "conservatives" getting into power, but being useless gits because the liberals have already reeducated them into accepting their false moral premises. For the most part, in fact, virtuall all conservatives accept these moral premises, and merely argue that the US went into Iraq for selfless, altruistic reasons rather than selfish, rational ones.

Posted by: MiB at May 29, 2006 09:27 AM (B9sDR)

11 "...is because the U.S. government seeks to present itself as a neutral entity, pursuing no interests in the region." lol

Posted by: Venom at May 30, 2006 07:41 AM (dbxVM)

12 Well, of course it sounds absurd, because it is. But that seems to be the image the US government wishes to project.

Posted by: MiB at May 30, 2006 12:22 PM (RwDCC)

13 Anyway, good job Rusty.

Posted by: MiB at May 30, 2006 12:23 PM (RwDCC)

14 Ah, the Jawa Report strikes again. I see more and more people are coming here as your reputation soars, Rusty, but I hope we don't lose the characters like IM. I know he goes over the top sometimes, but he is still a character, and we need characters to make us think, to make us laugh, and to make us realize what will happen if we do not act now.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 02:18 PM (rUyw4)

15 Insurgent group reliable? These people need their collective heads examined.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 30, 2006 05:17 PM (gf5iT)

16 Gee, maybe the reason the US government isn't prosecuting these people is because the reporter is British, and the "Sunday Times" as it's referred to here, is the London Times. Just look at the URL, you crack investigative reporters. I know everyone wants to uncover the next "Rathergate," but it seems to me you're trying a ittle too hard here. The reporter got a video of what she thought was a very good friend being beheaded. Several of the victim's family members also thought it was her. But soemone who is apparently more of a student of beheadings than the reporter discovered that it was footage from a previously released video. So the reporter wasn't as well versed in beheadings. So big deal. It's not as though someone studied the video and found things she had missed. It appears her big crime is that she wasn't aware of the other video. So you're reduced to nitpicking - "did she say execution instead of murder?" Ridiculous. Do most of the commenters here even know what the London Times's stance on the war is? And it's amusing the way you assume that she just sent the videos to the victim's relatives, like a surprise in the mail. Do you know that she didn't contact them ahead of time, and ask them if they wanted to view them?

Posted by: Chris at May 31, 2006 11:48 AM (80Sf7)

17 Chris, call it nitpicking if you want. There is a difference between the words "execution" and "murder." Execution is the word used for the state sanctioned ending of a person's life for a criminal act. Right or wrong, moral or immoral, this is the definition. Murder is the wanton killing of the innocent. It is, in fact, the reason many places still practice execution. To call her murder and execution gives some sense of legitimacy to the callous act of cowardly murder that these chimps perpetrate day in and day out. Words mean things, and the Times knows this. This is part of their subtle attempt to change our perceptions of what is going on.

Posted by: attentionseeker at May 31, 2006 05:50 PM (duIgM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
35kb generated in CPU 0.0211, elapsed 0.1884 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1769 seconds, 266 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.