I just posted a link to this piece at a website where we were discussing the "canary in the coalmine" aspect of blogging. Very timely, and a good catch.

http://landv.net/IC/index.php?s=9534635d81013572cff8968d93d413d4&act=ST&f=4&t=741&st=0&#entry10127

It would be nice to find another source that confirms "Healing Iraq"'s version of events.

Either way, you should mail/email this to Newsweek or the author of the article. See if they're brave enough to correct this story.

ElcapitanAmerica
Here's another source USA Today:
The senior U.S. coalition adviser to the electricity commission, Peter Gibson, argues that the average Iraqi gets more electricity today than before the war, except in the capital. "The only reason folks in Baghdad got more (electricity) was because of Saddam," he says. "We are attempting to promote fair treatment for all peoples of Iraq."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-28-anger-usat_x.htm

This is what I love best about the blogosphere, and why I now consider it to a news resource superior to the likes of "Newsweek".

Perhaps if the liberal media wakes up to the fact that their reporting will be subjected to this kind of fact-checking and analysis they'll take more care to be more factual, regardless of how much it pains them.

I tell you this problem with the news media is turning into a quagmire. There I have said it...the Q word in reference to the most pressing problem with the Press, inability to leave a post where liquor is availible for a post where only dust is availible. Maybe we should form a sub committee to look into whether we can somehow get a mobile bar set up so we can find out what else is happening around Iraq.

hehe...

Great post btw...direct and to the point.

Pierre

I guess from now on I will only read and believe all the positive things about Geo. the Younger and his merry band.

Well done...

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but I wonder if the media will start to abuse this fact-checking in the Blogosphere to generate hits. I know it seems far-fetched, but how many people are going to read that Newsweek story only because it's been linked here?

That's more page-views for Newsweek because of poor journalism. It's sad when they are rewarded for their mistakes.

That's not to say that bloggers should stop fact-checking, it's just something to keep in mind.

Good job on catching the mistake in the authors article.

Not to be a party pooper.. BUT, does this mean that you will now go through all other "outlandish" articles looking for the historical inaccuracies? And when you find these written atrocities will you highlight the mistakes that are within the article? If so, then why didn't you start back when the repubs were showing all those ads about the amazing lies that Gore was doing? And does this mean we can expect a balanced "lie detector" with the upcoming elections and ads coming from both sides?

Besides, good job in taking away from the remaining parts of the article. You know, the areas where they are talking about the no-bid contracts going to certain companies and the corners cut to make that happen.

Eh, you know me.

Pat;

That's right, the only two choices a concerned citizen can make is believe either Newsweek or President Bush are perfect and immaculate in their honesty. Clearly the only point of Scott catching Newsweek in error is to prove that Bush is right in all things. Glad that you've seen the light.

Pat & Annoying Old Guy;

> I guess from now on I will only read and believe all the positive things about Geo. the Younger and his merry band.

No, what it means is that Newsweek failed in that particular piece of reporting. The author of this blog is pointing it out, and hopefully Newsweek as a responsible news organization can correct the mistake.

It's really simple. Who you trust or not trust is a judgement only you can make, and only you should make. But correcting errors on articles by Newsweek is nothing wrong. Specially when they make us look like bumbling idiots as opposed to the deposed dictator. Seems like a rather important point, no?

Joshua:

Fact checking is one of the raisons d'etre of the entire blogosphere, and is why this article is getting as much attention as it is (Hi there instapundit readers!) If I catch another big (or even small) media outlet at it, you bet your ass I'm going to highlight it.

I have no recollection of "lies that Gore was doing" in relation to the occupation in Iraq. If you have any examples I'd be glad to see them. Otherwise you're just standing up another straw man.

This story, and the Newsweek story that inspired it, has nothing to do with the upcoming election, and your attempt to imply that it does is a particularly shiny red herring. Please, keep to the subject at hand.

The ultimate thrust of my article is "if they get the easy stuff wrong, how can we trust them to get the hard stuff right?" I am deeply sick of journalists who think trolling around downtown Baghdad gives them insight into anything other than downtown Baghdad. Their oversimplification, poor research practices, and barely disguised bias are sabotaging their own efforts to ensure this venture does not fail due to our own bungling. Halberstam got his Pulitzer by going everywhere in Vietnam, and reporting everything. These people seem to expect a Pulitzer by going nowhere and reporting only what they find in press releases or on the street outside their air-conditioned hotel.

>the areas where they are talking about the no-bid contracts going to certain companies and the corners cut to make that happen.

Josh, have you ever worked for goverment insitutions before? I have on a regular basis, on the county and federal level, and have experienced the process of acquiring contracts first-hand. It is a process where the quality of the work and reputation of the potential contractees is often set as a lower priority than the cost. Hence, if I recommended a company based on my analysis of the quality work they would produce (after contacting several bidders, no less), I would be told to "Find three others that will be more expensive so that we can approve the contract." Never mind if the getting the work done was crucial to daily operations, saving a few bucks was the key concern.

The "no-bid contract" meme hurled by the left is really nothing more than a case of special pleading. Haliburton and its subsidiary, Brown & Root, had contracts with the Department of Defense going all the way back to the Clinton administration, some of which were renewed during Clinton's presidency without the bidding process. Does that mean that Clinton was trying to protect Haliburton's (and Dick Cheney's)interests? Of course not-- the company had demonstrated competence in fulfilling their contracts, and the DoD provided them with renewals based on their track record, yet no wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left on this issue. Apparently the left's outrage kicks in only when it is a Republican giving the renewals.

Josh and I stand alone so far. lololol We know what is really going on. lololol

I forgot to include Annoying Old Guy. I am a very annoying old gal, just ask Scott.

Scott:

First off, I never said that this article had anything to do with the upcoming elections. I was merely asking if with the upcoming elections, were you going to be filling your site with the inaccuracies from both parties. Remember I gave you props for pointing out the errors.

I will stand down on the listing of "Gore's Lies" and the actual truth behind them becuase it doesn't advance the conversation we are having at this point. I will be more then happy to discuss these areas with you outside of the site, where the discussion would be more properly focused.

I agree that starting off an article with the wrong information could invalidate the rest of the facts. That's where a sticky situation comes in. But, that does not excuse the apparent switch of attention to the point of the article. Again I admit it's a sticky situation, but it should, at least, raise a few eyebrows, not just on the opening section, but the information found within the entire article.

Chris:

I have worked with government agencies for the past 10 years and have plenty of experience with contracts, bid and awards. I have been on both the giving and receiving end of such bids, awards both on the state and federal level, including the DOD. And in my experience, and what I have witnessed, renewing a contract is different from awarding a new contract. Of course when renewing a contract other companies are free to dispute the renewal and try to get their foot in the door, but unless the agency is incredibly tired of the existing company, then the renewal goes through and the disputes are listened to, filed and then let alone. It is my understanding, while this could be wrong and in which case some more investigating would be necessary on my end (I'm never ashamed of admiting that when needed), the recent contract awards that have been given for the re-building of Iraq, specifically with Haliburton, etc, these are new contracts and not simply renewals. This is where my annoyance comes into play.

Oh, and not to be a total asshat (which does happen on occasion, I admit) please follow Scott's lead and call me Joshua. It's what I prefer. Thanks.

I've only written for a weekly newsmagazine once (and then the piece was a personal narrative), so I don't know what their fact-checking policies are.

However, I wrote for women's magazines for years, and we writers had to have every single fact and quotation nailed down and supported, period. We turned in contact info & sources with the article.

Each magazine had a fact-checking department that contacted our sources and CHECKED what we'd reported. That's why it's called "fact-checking." In magazine journalism, though not in newspaper journalism or in book publishing, actual human beings hold positions called "fact-checker."

They check stuff.

I'm almost certain NEWSWEEK operates on the same system. THE NEW YORKER'S fact-checking department used to be legendary, and it's a weekly magazine, too. (Horrifying the way Seymour Hirsch's various distortions get past the department . . . . )

In any case, there's no excuse for NEWSWEEK getting this story so profoundly wrong, and it does speak to bias. It may be unconscious bias, in the sense that anti-war writers and editors are so naturally inclined to see the occupation as a disaster that it doesn't even occur to them to ask the right question, which is: what's wrong with this picture?

If Saddam fixed the electricity in 3 months, and we can't do it in 6 months, is there something the writer has missed?

That's the question a smart fact-checker would need to ask him- or herself to properly fact-check the NEWSWEEK piece.

Magazine ideology was always a source of frustration to me, speaking as a writer. As tough as the fact-checking department could be, certain statements and claims didn't have to be fact-checked at all; they were simply taken as true. Negative statements in particular were often given a pass. You could always say that whatever social problem you were writing about was "skyrocketing," no questions asked. For instance, women's mags (& newspapers) were HUGE on the idea that divorce was skyrocketing. I used to laugh, reading that stuff: it was obvious to me that if divorce skyrocketed any more, we were going to be hitting a rate of 2 divorces for each 1 marriage within a year or two. It was ridiculous.

Writers & editors have a strong bias toward quagmire, no matter what the subject--except when it comes to things like Having Babies at 40! or Using Exercise to Turn Back the Clock! or Daycare Builds Better Kids! or (remember this one?) Having It All!

No fact-checker was going to pick up the phone and call some researcher who'd done a study showing you can't have it all . . .

Josh: " If so, then why didn't you start back when the repubs were showing all those ads about the amazing lies that Gore was doing? "

I think it has something to do with the fact that weblogs either didn't exist or hadn't hit the popular consciousness at the time.

Yes, the Newsweek article seems to have been seriously misleading and poorly researched. No excuse for that.

But it's also true that there have been failings in the re-electrification of Iraq. Specifically, there has been far too little effort to bring in large portable generators and use them to support important "point loads" (major factories, water pumping stations, etc) It would have been much more useful, as well as more accurate, for Newsweek to focus on this aspect of the story.

The problem is that many journalists are so filling with resentment toward our government (and often, our society) that they are not interested in pointing out *tactical* problems and tactical improvements that can be made...they want to engage in broad sweeps of denunciation.

Yes, the Newsweek article seems to have been seriously misleading and poorly researched. No excuse for that.

But it's also true that there have been failings in the re-electrification of Iraq. Specifically, there has been far too little effort to bring in large portable generators and use them to support important "point loads" (major factories, water pumping stations, etc) It would have been much more useful, as well as more accurate, for Newsweek to focus on this aspect of the story.

The problem is that many journalists are so filling with resentment toward our government (and often, our society) that they are not interested in pointing out *tactical* problems and tactical improvements that can be made...they want to engage in broad sweeps of denunciation.

Having worked for the Feds for 25 years, I'm pretty well versed in how contracts run, too. I also have the bulk of my career in the Middle East, particularly the oil states.

There are two companies in the world competent to do major turn-key operations, especially those involving oil. One is Halliburton; the other is Schlumbacher. Schlumbaker happens to be be a French company.

Does anyone reasonably think that the USG is going to give taxpayer dollars to a French company for the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure? Not in this dimension.

"Sole sourcing" can be a problem when/if it's abused. It's not abusive, however, to contract with the only company that can do the job. This isn't exactly pencils or lightbulbs, right?

In case by "Schlumbacher" you mean Schlumberger, they were formed by two Frenchmen around 70 years ago. They became a success in the USA, and are a multi-national, not a French company. Corporate headquarters is in the USA, as are their largest product centers. Among their ~50,000 employees from almost every nation on earth, the largest number are American.

B.Durbin

Well, that is a possible conversation that would not result in any agreeable ending (much like politics). There are political blogs that I have read for the past 5 years, but for and against the current leaders. In Scott's defense, this blog was not running during such time. But I was just trying to point out that sometimes when it comes to fact checking reactions are different when the shoe is on the other foot.

No, neither side is perfect and mistakes happen, even media wise. Those evil-doers of wrong facts get misunderestimated all the time. Then again, maybe that was their strategery the whole time?

don't forget, there is a "ua" at the end of Josh

Great job! Now if we can just get this information to everyone who reads Newsweek.

Joshua,

Just because Scott has done some fact checking on something that did not ring true to him does not make him the "fact-checker" blog. He is under no obligation to check any fact ever again if he doesn't feel like it. Furthermore, having certain biases himself, he is bound to find things that don't pass the smell test that are different than, say, you or Pat for example. Those who have their own biases in favor of Gore or other Democrats or against Bush or whatever are, of course, free to start their own blogs and check facts aplenty. Why should Scott do your legwork?

Just want to say it's inspiring that any blogger in the 'sphere can catch the Big Boys with their pants down. HoAhhh! emmm, sorry...

Any chance the the 500 transmission towers cowardly Ba'athist mercenaries have destroyed might have something to do with it?

Forest meet trees.

Jason

Someone is attributed as saying:

"There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting. "

So, with this in mind. I would hope that not only Scott, but others would want to take the proper road and investigate not only those articles that go against their personal or political bias, but to look for the real truth behind statements that they find interesting or "flaming", from both sides of the fence. What this means is that while you might not like the opposing parties candidate, do not discount all stories attacking the person. If there is an article coming out that speaks ill toward the opposing view, do not hold it high above your head and march proudly, but make sure that what is being said is fully and accurately much like Scott did with this one article.

There is more truth out there then what is spun, generated or otherwise put forth by those we find on the same side of the fence as we. This is how we come to have a more well-rounded view of reality, here is where we admit our weaknesses and troubles amongst our peers. Here is where we begin to grow.

Joshua,

I guess my point was: you should not count on Scott to debunk flowery things said about Bush or sketchy things said about the Democratic candidates, and it's not his responsibility. I should leave Scott out of this, though, since I'm not his spokesperson and maybe I'm inaccurate in his biases. I'll just speak for myself.

The great thing about the blogosphere is, it's cumulative. I'm not saying anyone should stick their head in the sand. If truth comes to light, it should not be ignored just because one doesn't like it. I'm a Republican. I'm inclined to believe the current president when he tells me things. Some of them may turn out to be lies, even if they ring true to me. He says an awful lot of things, so I cannot be expected to fact check everything myself. Instead, I let others do the accusing, listen to them, and see if they make more sense than Bush. (So far, I haven't heard anything to change my mind.)

On the other hand, I'm not inclined to give, for example, Wesley Clark the benefit of the doubt. When I hear something from him like, "I was against this war from the very beginning," it smells fishy to me, and I might go check it out to see if I should accept that statement. If I and others like me find the statement at conflict with reality, I might post something about it. Perhaps it would be nice if the fans of Wesley Clark would do the same kind of checking, but it can hardly be expected. All one can ask for is that they listen to his detractors and see if they make more sense than him.

I hope you are not worried about a lack of accusations of inaccuracy and lying from the Left. There are plenty. I read them. I assess them for myself.

Jason

I tried to take the nice Buddhist way of looking at things in a further explaination of what I was trying to get across (which I think Scott should appreciate). You avoided it and continued on your "Us guys vs. Them guys" attitude. Again, not what I would consider a well-rounded way of approaching something. Because of that avoidance I don't feel guilty about pointing out the errors of your ways. With the aid of some quotes that should lok all too familiar, by the way.

So, instead of accepting the fact that yes, there should be more "truth detecting" for both sides of the fence and in the media from someone who claims to be interested in politics, you maintain your steadfastness on a partisam view:

I'm a Republican. I'm inclined to believe the current president when he tells me things. Some of them may turn out to be lies, even if they ring true to me."

So, in those words, even if the President says something you don't feel is true, you just don't care? Well, ok, you worry about it a little:

Instead, I let others do the accusing, listen to them, and see if they make more sense than Bush."

Hmm, makes more sense? Note you did not say "Points out truth." You just said "makes more sense." Interesting. Well, you know, sometimes the things that make more sense aren't true. And thus, your blind assumptions become invalidated.

I agree with what you said about the President saying lots and there might not be enough time to check every little thing he says. I never asked for that though. What I was asking for was:

"to look for the real truth behind statements that they find interesting or "flaming", from both sides of the fence."

I added the bold for this comment.

So, by your own admission, Bush makes comments that false statements that you feel to be true. It's those statements that I would hope you investigate. Not every thing he says, like you inferred from my statement.

But then things get even more quirky in your comments:

"I'm not inclined to give, for example, Wesley Clark the benefit of the doubt. When I hear something from him like, "I was against this war from the very beginning," it smells fishy to me, and I might go check it out to see if I should accept that statement."

OK, so someone said something that you don't like. The next step you take is to investigate it to see if you should follow it or not. That is a good thing. But, then you go and post:

"Perhaps it would be nice if the fans of Wesley Clark would do the same kind of checking, but it can hardly be expected."

Hmmm, yup, that would be nice wouldn't it. But then again, why would you hope for the them do that when you yourself admit not doing the same for the person you are a "fan" of. That falls under the "do as I say not as I do" statement doesn't it? Yup, thought so. I'm not saying the Clark people are 100% right. Maybe they did check the facts. Maybe they didn't. I don't know, I can hope, but I personally don't know. I would also hope that anyone closely following one candidate would mindfully check bold statements like that, but i digress. In my opinion, since you already admitted to not checking on things that Bush says that might be "fishy", your request is worthless.

Why there must be this partisan wall of righteousness I will never know.

No one person is always correct. And when said person makes a statement that sounds "fishy" regardless of their political/religous/or sexual affiliation, it should be looking into. Period.