Correction to Najaf story.
Well, isn't this interesting.
By Moe Lane Posted in War — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is an update - and, to be honest, a correction - to streiff's earlier post. Hot Air has noted that the photo found here is actually of Baghdad, not Najaf. Zeyad of Healing Iraq notes "Ironically, the misleading photo was posted by bloggers who routinely attack the media for its perceived bias and sloppy reporting."
Ouch. I'd be offended, except that if an Iraqi blogger mistook Trenton, NJ for Elizabeth, NJ I'd probably snark about it, too.
Welcome to the wonderful high-speed Internet: although I retain a shred of dignity in knowing that we're not the only ones who got mixed up about this. I'll also note that "incorrect photo of Najaf protest" does not equal "tens of thousands of people attended after all*"; although I think that Col. Steven Boylan just volunteered to show us the actual photos that he based that 5,000 to 7,000 number on. There's a few people laughing at this - and us - right now, you see.
Moe
PS: Oh, yes: our apologies for providing incorrect information. It was unintentional on our part.
Update to the Update: Confederate Yankee indicates that the photo is actually a stock picture from 2005.
*Aside from everything else, Omar's own post on the matter seems to back up the military's sttement.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Cannibalism Is Best Practiced As A Spectator Sport — Comments (5) »
Correction to Najaf story. 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...indicated that there were aerial photos to the Najaf protests, and I'd quite like to see them.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The MNF one.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I could see it, usually you need your nose to tell them apart.
Sorry couldn't resist.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Moe,
If you go to the full link you provide above, you get the photo with a caption identifying the location as Baghdad.
HOWEVER, if you just go directly to the mnf-iraq.com web site, you get the same story and photo.... but NO caption. If you right-click on it and go to Properties, THERE you can find the caption. But if you don't do that, there's the photo, then the story begins with dateline-Baghdad but launches into discussing Najaf. Natural association....
(Full tech disclosure: Using FF2.0.something, not IE....)
Always post corrections with as much prominence as the original, as soon as you can reasonably do so.
Doing it that way (as you have done, Moe) adds to credibility. Doing it the NYT way makes people doubt what they are seeing, and doubt your commitment to the truth.
--
See the Academy
that Thunder over Louisville, an airshow and fireworks display, is coming up next weekend. We'll back 250,000 people down on the waterfront here, shoulder to shoulder, standing room only.
Maybe we can get the folks who do the counts for the newspapers declaring "tens of thousands" at those little events to do ours, I'd love to see Louisville Ky in the record books for holding largest fireworks show ever with "tens of millions" in attendance.
...they haven't updated their post to reflect our public correction. I don't know why: surely you told them about it, being over there and everything. Dog eat your blogcomment?
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
in a peaceful march waving Iraqi flags. That's called freedom.
And I can't tell the difference.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
So if I understand correctly, the previous post, bashing the 'breathless accounts' of the Najaf protest was based solely on the evidence contained in the picture, that turned out not to be a picture of the event at all.
Now your sole evidence is the commentary of some blogger that seems to backup the military's estimate.
To quote Steriff remarking on my post in the original thread:
"what you are saying is just patent nonsense. It is illogical. It is just silly.
You did notice the photos are not aerial, right?"
...by the military that there were aerial photos that indicated a certain size; and that there was a photo provided as an example. The latter has been since contradicted; and now we're going to find out why the former was stated in the first place.
So do not presume on my good nature. This is a correction, the subject is not closed and your quote is not accepted as being appropriate.
Retract it, sir.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Yesterday, in strieff's earlier post, I opined that the the photo in question showed way more than 7,000 people. Strieff suggested that I contact MNF concerning my doubt. I did. This is the response I received:
Sir,
You have overlooked something, but it's our fault. The sergeant who runs our press desk mistakenly included a photo from last year's anniversary demonstration in Baghdad's Firdos Square. We've removed the photo from our site, and we have no military photos of the Najaf demonstration. The mistake was inadvertent, and we are sorry for any confusion.
-- Webmaster
Mistakes get made and I appreciate the MNF being forthright and correcting the mistake of including a year old-shot of a Baghdad rally by removing it. Personally, I'm now more inclined to believe the military estimate of the Najaf protest since, IMHO, the photo included on the MNF site contradicted the estimate.
...the article still states that the military's estimate is based on aerial photos.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
are not aerial. Protests always look large when you focus in on the crowd.