Blackwater Reporting

Who credited Blackwater with rescuing Polish ambassador - and who didn't

With so much negative news coverage of Blackwater in recent weeks, one would expect that its October 3 rescue of the Polish Ambassador to Iraq after an assassination attempt would be front-and-center in the initial press reports.

Most of the early reports buried the Blackwater reference deep into their stories. Here's an initial survey of the coverage, as surveyed online, late on October 3. Some of the stories will have been updated but on the same links, so the emphasis might change. Even so, here's what we found.

Associated Press correspondent Kim Curtis reported on Blackwater's role in the first sentence of her article.

Al Jazeera and the Voice of America ignored Blackwater's role in the rescue. Al Jazeera made no mention of Blackwater at all. VOA's Jim Randle said nothing about the rescue mission but reported that the attack was the type that prompted the State Department to hire Blackwater. Randle then recycled derogatory information from the New York Times about the company.

Associated press correspondent Bushra Juhi buried the item in the 14th paragraph.

Bloomberg News, in a report by Katya Andrusz, ignored Blackwater's involvement. So did an unsigned story by the BBC.

CNN reported on the Blackwater rescue operation in the 3rd paragraph of its early report.

Los Angeles Times staff writer Tina Susman mentioned Blackwater in the third paragraph, but said that "helicopter provided by Blackwater USA . . . was used to fly the wounded from the scene." Note the passive voice, as if Blackwater pilots and crew played no role.

McClatchy Newspapers put Blackwater right in the headline, in a Baghdad piece by Jay Price and Hussein Kadhim, "Blackwater helicopter becomes air ambulance after bombing."

MSNBC said nothing as of the time of this posting.

New York Times reporter Paul von Zielbauer stuck the reference to Blackwater in the 14th paragraph.

Deborah Haynes, writing in the online edition of The Times of London, put Blackwater in the 10th paragraph, but editors illustrated the article with a photo of a Blackwater "Little Bird" helicopter with a caption crediting the "controversial" company.

The Washington Post said nothing by the time of this posting.

Virginian-Pilot more upbeat after Prince testimony

What has happened to Bill Sizemore? The scrappy anti-Blackwater crusader seemed to wilt during Blackwater CEO Erik Prince's congressional testimony October 2, writing a story for the Associated Press that is about as fair and balanced as any. The article is a total turnaround for Sizemore, a reporter for the Virginian-Pilot in the Norfolk area and whose circulation area includes Blackwater headquarters.

Sizemore's coverage is far from the rabid stuff that had given him hopes of winning the Pulitzer, and is moving closer to that of his colleague Joanne Kimberlin.

Prince "gave little ground to critics" in "an unprecedented public performance" at the hearing, wrote Sizemore, who quoted the Blackwater owner in a favorable light and gave even-handed treatment to the company's critics like Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), and its supporters like Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT).

"Several committee members thanked Prince for the protection Blackwater provided them on trips to Iraq," Sizemore wrote.

Sizemore even put things into proper context: "Responding to data compiled by the committee showing that Blackwater contractors have been involved in nearly 200 shooting incidents in Iraq since Jan. 1, 2005, Prince said it is important to put that number in perspective. He said the incidents amounted to fewer than 1 percent of the company’s convoy missions in 2006 and less than 3 percent of missions so far in 2007."

“I’ve heard a lot of complimentary things about what you all do,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), one of Blackwater's harshest critics on the panel, conceded to Prince. “And I’m sure you do a great job."

"But it’s not about what you do well," Cummings added. "It’s a question of, when things go wrong, where is the accountability?"

According to Sizemore, "Prince replied: 'Sir, we fired him. We fined him. But we, as a private organization, can’t do any more. We can’t flog him. We can’t incarcerate him. That’s up to the Justice Department. We are not empowered to enforce U.S. law.' Prince added that he would be 'happy to see a further investigation and prosecution by the Justice Department.'"

All in all, it looks like Prince tamed Sizemore with his testimony. Sizemore's colleague Joanne Kimberlin, who almost always told readers some of the good side of Blackwater, gave a vivid account of what went on in the hearing room.

Commenting on the assembled spectators, she said, "If they were expecting to see a thrashing, they were disappointed. Prince entered the room at the last minute, triggering a barrage of shutter clicks from nearly two dozen photographers. Trim and tan, with his close-cropped hair neatly parted, Prince, 38, looked more like a young scoutmaster than the leader of what critics call a mercenary outfit."

Her article is titled, "Observers admire Prince's poise while in the limelight." Even critics on the panel "openly admired [Prince's] performance. 'You're a very impressive witness,' conceded Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.

"As the hearing wore on, Prince found himself responding to the same questions over and over - thanks to the fact that panel members tend to periodically leave the room to take care of other business. As a result, they walk back in, toss out questions that have already been asked and expect an answer.

"Toward the end of the hearing, Prince was given the option of taking a break or dealing with final questions. 'I'll take them, and then let's be done,' he said."

Milbank's skewed donor concerns

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank seems more concerned with Republicans who take defense industry funds than with Democrats who rely on the trial lawyers.

This bias matters in his October 3 column on Rep. Henry Waxman's hearing about Blackwater, with Milbank implying that GOP congressmen were kind to Blackwater CEO Erik Prince because they receive significant defense industry campaign contributions.

But Milbank (pictured) says nothing about how much Waxman and his Democratic colleagues receive from the trial lawyers. This is important, because a prominent California trial lawyer prompted current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Waxman last December to hold hearings on Blackwater on behalf of his clients. (Click here for the trial lawyer's letter to Pelosi and Waxman.)

Writes Milbank: "'Blackwater will be held accountable today!' vowed Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has received only $6,300 from defense contractors over the past 17 years.

"'Blackwater appears to have fostered a culture of shoot first . . . and then ask the question,' trumpeted Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), whose career contributions from defense interests tally a mere $1,200."

Well and good. But what about Waxman's trial lawyer money?

NYT's Maureen Dowd needs to brush up on military history

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd (pictured) shows she's out of her league in commenting on the Blackwater controversy. Not only does she misuse the word "mercenary," but she shows only a frail grasp of American military history.

In her October 3 column, "Sinking in a Swamp of Blackwater," Dowd makes several factual errors:

1. She abuses the word "mercenary" (this is getting pretty tired), twisting the pejorative in ways that do not apply to its definitions in law or the dictionary. She mis-applies the word repeatedly in her column. Under the Geneva Conventions, a security guard is not a mercenary, and people serving their own governments in private capacity are not either.

2. Dowd writes, "Americans have been antimercenary since the British sent 30,000 German Hessians after George Washington in the Revolutionary War." The statement as it stands is perfectly true. The Hessians were fighting another country's war merely for money. Nothing more. The Continental Congress even denounced the arrival of the "mercenaries" - it used the word correctly - in the Declaration of Independence.

However, if Dowd accepts her own invented definition of mercenary and applies it to the Revolutionary War, then her own premise is wrong. George Washington's own aide de camp, the Marquis de Lafayette, was a citizen of France while in the Continental Army. The general who trained and disciplined Washington's forces at the lowest point of the war was the great Prussian general, Baron von Steuben. The chief engineer of Washington's army after 1776 was a young officer from Poland, Tadeusz Kościuszko who, among other things, contributed to the American victory at Saratoga. Another young Polish officer, Count Casimir Pulaski, served on Washington's own staff and is remembered as the father of the American cavalry. Pulaski died of his wounds in the Revolution.

Private American businessmen also fought, in their private capacity, in the American Revolution. They were the privateers, who built a navy far larger and more effective than the government's Continental Navy. Washington himself was part owner of a privateer warship as one of his wartime investments. These private warships, that were authorized by Congress but not under Washington's military chain of command, were vital to winning the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

3. Dowd also takes several shots at Blackwater owner Erik Prince's religion. Those might not be factual errors. They're just signs of Dowd's own bigotry.

The spin: How news organizations covered the Blackwater hearing

Initial news coverage of the October 2 congressional hearing on Blackwater was decidedly mixed, with some news organizations reporting with highly biased leads and others being surprisingly fair in their tone. Some of the links below may have changed since this posting.

Associated Press: "Blackwater chairman defends his company" (Richard Lardner)

Christian Science Monitor: "More questions on Blackwater" (Peter Grier)

CNN: "Blackwater boss defends contractors' 'honorable work'"

International Herald Tribune: "In House hearing, Democrats assail Blackwater" (Brian Knowlton and John R. Broder)

MSNBC: "Blackwater founder defends Iraq role" (AP Richard Ladner story)

Los Angeles Times: "Blackwater founder defends role in Iraq" (Peter Spiegel)

National Journal: "Blackwater CEO confident - and for good reason" (Jane Roh)

New York Times: "Blackwater chief defends employees before House panel" (John R. Broder and Brian Knowlton)

Wall Street Journal: "Lawmakers criticize Blackwater for its Security Tactics in Iraq" (August Cole)

Washington Post: "Blackwater chief defends guards' action in Iraq" (William Branigin). In the Washingtonpost.com homepage the headline was very biased: "Blackwater Chief Defends Staff's Role in Shooting."

Most biased coverage

Reuters headlined its initial coverage by arguing that Blackwater CEO Erik Prince was "defensive" before the congressional panel, but those of us who watched the hearing saw little evidence of that. Correspondent Sue Pleming's first article is headlined, "Blackwater on defensive in Congress."

By far the most biased coverage in our survey was William Sizemore's piece in the Virginian-Pilot, the Norfolk-area paper whose circulation area includes Blackwater's North Carolina headquarters. The paper used Richard Lardner's AP story to cover the hearing, with Sizemore running a harshly critical piece headlined, "Blackwater Fired First In Most of 200 Incidents, Data Show." For someone pursuing a Pulitzer prize, Sizemore's coverage looks more and more out of the professional mainstream.

Junk journalism: Rivera messes up several facts at once on Fox News

Not that Geraldo Rivera is anybody's idea of a real journalist, but September 30 edition of "Geraldo At Large" on Fox News featured a video about Blackwater that was riddled with inaccuracies.

Geraldo (pictured revealing the battle plan that got him booted from Iraq) wasn't on that night, but the video, narrated and produced by his brother, Craig Rivera, was wrong on a number of facts:

• Wrong fact #1: Craig Rivera narrates the video about the September 16 incident, saying that Blackwater guards used "heavy weapons." Rivera's statement is false. Blackwater diplomatic security support teams in Iraq are not issued heavy weapons. A "heavy weapon" at its lightest is a belt-fed machine gun. Blackwater is not issued such weapons for convoy use. Its men generally carry the M-4 carbine.
• Wrong fact #2: Craig Rivera says in the video that Blackwater used "attack helicopters" in the incident. Several things are wrong with this statement. First, only one helicopter was involved in the incident, so the use of the plural is an exaggeration. Second, Blackwater does not fly attack helicopters in Iraq. The only Blackwater helicopter at the incident was an MH-6 helicopter, nicknamed "Little Bird." The MH-6 is not an attack helicopter. According to the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms, an attack helicopter is "A helicopter specifically designed to employ various weapons to attack and destroy enemy targets." The MH-6 was designed as an observer and scout helicopter and can be used as an assault helicopter for special operations, but it is not an attack helicopter. Finally, sources close to the investigation of the incident say that no one aboard the Little Bird fired a shot.
• Wrong fact #3: The mother and brother of Jerry Zovko, a Blackwater contractor killed in Fallujah, were guests on the show, but Rivera's presentation erroneously showed the photo of another Blackwater contractor, Scott Helvenston, who died in the same 2004 incident. Viewers were left with the impression that the picture was of Zovko.
• Wrong fact #4: Rivera calls Blackwater "the most powerful mercenary army in the world." Blackwater does not fit either the legal or dictionary definition mercenary, and it is not an "army." Rivera weasels his way on this one, citing anonymous others as making the label, not himself personally, but as the video shows, this is an editorial tactic to inject his own opinion disguised as others' views.

Using the word 'mercenary' - Deliberately inflammatory, or just uninformed?

Most of the journalists who use the term "mercenary" in reference to Blackwater are either being deliberately inflammatory (and knowingly misleading their readers), or simply are not informed about the definition of the term.

Either way, mis-use of the word reflects negatively on their reporting and on their editors.

First of all, Blackwater's diplomatic protection services in Iraq are defensive in nature. Their guards do not hunt down insurgents. They do not go on offensive combat operations. They defend American diplomats and others as directed by the State Department. Their job is to fire back at suspected attackers in order to save the lives of the diplomats and other officials. Theirs is a simple bodyguard function. Bodyguards are not mercenaries.

Second, Blackwater's diplomatic protection services do not fit the legal definition of "mercenary." They are bodyguards fully funded and authorized by the US Congress and hired by the US Department of State under its Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

Blackwater's protection services also do not fit the definition of "mercenary" under international law. The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts gives six characteristics that define "mercenary," as Protocol I, Article 47.2 shows:

A mercenary is any person who:

(a)  is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b)  does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c)  is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d)  is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e)  is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f)  has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Blackwater security guards are not "specially recruited" to "fight in an armed conflict;" they do not take direct part in hostilities as their role is as guards, not soldiers; their motivation is not "essentially the desire for private gain," as despite the high pay with no benefits, the main motivation for most guards is to help the United States; and all Blackwater personnel guarding the State Department are nationals and residents of the US, a party to the conflict (support staff are multinational). So they do not meet the Geneva Conventions' six standards to be considered mercenary.

Third, from an editorial viewpoint, "mercenary" as applied to Blackwater is an improper term because the usage is wrong according to the dictionary. Mercenary implies that the individuals are venal, working only for money, and not motivated by a sense of service or other reason. Used in the press, the word unjustly and incorrectly questions the motives of the individuals.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines mercenary as: "one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service."

The Random House Dictionary defines mercenary as: "working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal," "hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc." (adjective), and "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army" and "any hireling" (noun). A "hireling" is defined as "a person who works only for pay, esp. in a menial or boring job, with little or no concern for the value of the work" (noun), and "serving for pay only," "venal; mercenary" (adjective).   

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines a mercenary as: "a soldier who fights for any country or group that pays them" [sic]; the given adjective is defined as "interested only in the amount of money that can be obtained from a situation."

Use of the term "mercenary" in reference to Blackwater is pejorative and inaccurate. Pejorative or uninformed use of the term only brings discredit on the journalists and news organizations using them.

We will keep a running count of journalists and news organizations who use the word incorrectly.

Some of the journalists who misuse the M-word

Some of the journalists who carelessly use the term "mercenary" in covering the Blackwater story include:

Geraldo Rivera, Fox News. A typically Geraldo sensationalist video, produced and narrated by Craig Rivera and broadcast on September 30, makes no attempt to be "fair and balanced" and is riddled with inaccuracies.

Sudarsan Raghavan and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post. Ricks is a fantastic reporter, but it looks like there were too many cooks involved in making the September 26 article on tensions between the State Department and DoD; five others contributed to the report. The article concludes with a powerful quote from an anonymous military intelligence officer who inaccurately calls private security contractors "mercenary forces."

Dina Temple-Raston, National Public Radio. A September 28 item quotes, without correction, a Georgetown University Law School fellow who inaccurately uses the mercenary epithet.

Where the word has been used responsibly

By contrast, veteran international affairs columnist Georgie Anne Geyer casts a bit of skepticism on the M-word in her September 20 column. Matthew Lee, one of the more careful Associated Press reporters on this story, uses the word in a September 21 story to explain how many Iraqis view the PSCs, treating it with proper caution. AP diplomatic writer Anne Gearan gave the term similar treatment on September 28.

Kimberlin adds some balance to Virginian-Pilot bias

Apparently the Virginian-Pilot editors are aware of the built-in biases of their reporter Bill Sizemore, and they've allowed reporter Joanne Kimberlin (pictured) to write her second Blackwater story in two weeks.

Were it not for the reverberations from Sizemore's sensational negative reporting, Kimberlin might be considered adequate balance. But positive, informative reporting is not as conducive to repetition as the negative. So the Virginian-Pilot's coverage overall remains unfairly biased.

Even so, Kimberlin herself is making an excellent effort to clarify misunderstandings about a company that employs hundreds of people in the Virginian-Pilot's circulation area.

In her September 30 article, "Making Sense of the Iraq War and Blackwater," Kimberlin asks common questions about Blackwater then answers them in an even-handed way. (Sizemore contributed to her story.) She begins by observing the public confusion about exactly what the company is all about:

"Could it get any worse for Blackwater? Over the past two weeks, the paramilitary company in Hampton Roads’ backyard has been accused of slaughtering civilians, smuggling arms, stonewalling Congress, complicating the war and, quite possibly, causing a lethal fracture in the wobbly Iraqi government.

"The company is used to being mistrusted in some quarters – blamed for everything from the sinister to the just plain bizarre.

"An anti-Blackwater crusader in California believes the company staged O.J. Simpson’s latest arrest to deflect attention from the Sept. 16 Baghdad shooting that left 11 Iraqis dead.

"A Virginia Beach woman calls the newspaper regularly to complain that Blackwater is controlling her mind and body – right down to her visits to the bathroom."

Then the serious part of the article kicks in with its Q&A approach. "Why is Blackwater such a big deal" to the local area? "Is Blackwater the biggest contractor in Iraq?" No. "So why are they always in the news?" More questions: "How effective are Blackwater's tactics?" "Are Blackwater contractors trigger-happy?" "Does Blackwater get special treatment?" "How has the company changed the course of the war?" "What's the ripple effect" "Any chance the contractors will go to trial in Iraq?" "What's this about an arms-smuggling investigation?" "Does Blackwater still have any fans?" "Is Blackwater through?"

Fair questions answered fairly. We encourage readers to write complaints about bad reporting; here's an example of good reporting that needs public support.

Write letters to the editor praising Joanne Kimberlin's reporting. To write a letter to the editor to the Virginian-Pilot, click here. Pay close attention to the rules: concise writing at 150 words or less, with all your contact information so the editors can verify that you are who you say you are.

Write to Virginian-Pilot editors by email: letters@pilotonline.com.

Write to Virginian-Pilot editors by fax: (757) 446-2041

Write to Virginian-Pilot editors by mail: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 449, Norfolk, VA 23501-0449.

Write to Joanne Kimberlin: joanne.kimberlin@pilotonline.com.

We'll be watching press coverage at the October 2 hearing

We will be watching the press coverage of Congressman Waxman's October 2 hearing on Blackwater. We'll be paying close attention to unwarranted bias, omission of facts, spinning of facts, and other journalistic unprofessionalism.

And we'll be reporting on it here, with the names of the sloppy or one-sided journalists and their news organizations, with excerpts from and links to their articles and comments.

The Duke 'rape' reporters now bring you Blackwater 'news'

Remember the sensational fake story about the Duke University lacrosse team members who supposedly raped an "escort service dancer"? As one of Duke's nearby newspapers, the Raleigh News & Observer played a big role in that story, for better and for worse.

Now that same paper - through Joseph Neff, one of the very same reporters on the Duke story - is doing a job on Blackwater. And as with the fictitious rape report, the wire services and big chains like the McClatchy Newspapers are trusting the News & Observer (N&O) and recycling its stories. (The News & Observer is a McClatchy subsidiary).

US News & World Report suspected the Duke rape story was untrue and called reporter Joseph Neff on it in the summer of 2006. Neff got defensive. "It would be irresponsible for us not to report what the local district attorney is telling the community," he said. "That's our job." US News didn't buy it, calling the coverage "Duke's Trial by Media."

Contact Joseph Neff and his editors

Joseph Neff of the Raleigh News & Observer openly solicits readers' views. Please oblige him by posting comments on his blog, or contacting the newspaper directly. Just be sure to be polite, not use abusive language and so forth. Show a little class and gentility.

Letters to the Editor. To write a letter to the editor of the Raleigh News & Observer, click here. Pay close attention to the rules: concise writing at 200 words or less, with all your contact information so the editors can verify that you are who you say you are.
Write to News & Observer editors by fax: (919) 829-4872.
Write to News & Observer editors by mail: The People's Forum, PO Box 191, Raleigh, NC 27602.
Call the News & Observer editors by phone: (919) 829-4517.
Contact Executive Editor Melanie Sill. Telephone: (919) 829-8986. Email: msill@newsobserver.com.
Contact Joseph Neff. Telephone: (919) 829-4516. Email: joseph.neff@newsobserver.com. Include your name and hometown.

Washington Post obscures partisan nature of allegations

In covering the report issued by Rep. Henry Waxman's oversight committee, Washington Post reporters Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung (pictured) obscure the partisanship of the authors.

Their September 28 story fails to make clear to the reader that the opposition Democrats running Waxman's committee were the sole official authors. Kessler and DeYoung do report in passing that the report is "by the majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform." However that reference, well-located in the second paragraph, is not explicit about the partisanship involved.

The journalists quote a Blackwater spokeswoman as calling the report "one-sided," but do not cite any Republican staffer or member of the committee. By contrast, the Associated Press did quote the Republican chief of staff, David Marin.

Finally, the Post article completely omits the fact that the authors based their report heavily on material provided by a trial lawyer who stands to gain financially from a lawsuit against Blackwater. (A copy of the trial lawyer's letter asking for initiation of a hearing is here: Download callahan_pelosi_letter.pdf)

Click here to send an email to Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung. Keep it concise and polite.

Sizemore's article is misleading about partisan report

Reporting on Congressman Henry Waxman's staff report about the 2004 attack on Blackwater guards in Fallujah, Bill Sizemore of the Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA) fails to tell the reader that the "congressional probe" was carried out exclusively by Democratic staffers and based heavily on information from a trial lawyer who seeks to make millions from a suit against Blackwater.

Sizemore's omissions in his September 28 article, "Congressional Probe Faults Blackwater in Fallujah Ambush," are either sloppy or deliberately misleading.

The reporter makes no reference to the partisan nature of the report, identifying the authors merely as "investigators on the staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee." By contrast, AP and the McClatchy Newspapers were up-front about it.

Nor does Sizemore's article quote the congressional committee's Republican staff director, David Marin, who criticized the report. Other reporters, including Richard Lardner and Mike Baker of the Associated Press, did provide the minority party's side.

By portraying the "probe" as objective, Sizemore misled his readers.

Ready for Waxman: Neff starts Blackwater blog

Just in time for the October 2, 2007 Waxman hearing before which Blackwater CEO Erik Prince will testify, Joseph Neff launched a new Blackwater blog on the Raleigh News & Observer website. (The N&O is owned by McClatchy Newspapers.)

Blackwater fans are encouraged to post comments on Neff's blog. Here's the link: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/blackwater

Neff makes little attempt to be fair and objective. In announcing his new blog, he writes that Prince has a lot to tell Congress, then rattles off a litany of issues that reflect poorly on Prince and his company. Not that Neff, whom US News & World Report took to task for his reporting on the fake Duke University lacrosse rape case, would find anything positive in a business whose guards take gunfire almost daily form insurgents and which lost 30 of its own people protecting American diplomats, congressmen and convoys.

Neff inaccurately portrays Prince's willingness to appear before Waxman's committee. Implying that the Blackwater founder is somehow recalcritant or unwilling to appear, Neff claims that Prince "is not knocking down the door to testify."

Rep. Henry Waxman's office indicates that Prince will be testifying freely on October 2, adding that Waxman only requested the testimony - and didn't require it or make any threats to subpoena.  Click here to contact Neff and his editors.

Violating ethics, in search of a Pulitzer

Few people outside the greater Norfolk, Virginia, area have heard of the Virginian-Pilot, but the newspaper is influential in a major mid-Atlantic military community and has broken some national and international stories. One of its star reporters, Bill Sizemore, is finally making a big name for himself with his aggressive reporting about Blackwater.

Aggressive reporting is healthy when the journalist attempts to be objective and fair. The Virginian-Pilot has had a good reputation in that regard until Sizemore went over the edge from objective reporter on Blackwater to relentless partisan against the company. Some longtime readers are worried that though Sizemore's coverage is bringing the newspaper international attention, it is also imperiling the integrity of the paper's own Code of Ethics and Professionalism.

After 35 years in relative journalistic obscurity, Sizemore has been nominated for the coveted Pulitzer Prize for his Blackwater articles. But so far nobody seriously has called him for some sloppy and unprofessional aspects of his reporting. Since his stories are now fodder for the wire services and major newspaper chains on Blackwater, the Virginian-Pilot has an inordinate influence in shaping national and international perceptions.

So we encourage people to make their opinions known to the reporter, his editors and the public.

AP omits, then adds, major fact in gun story

How did federal authorities learn about the two Blackwater employees who ultimately pled guilty to stealing guns in Iraq?

Readers wouldn't know from most of the press coverage. AP's September 21st article about a Joseph Neff Raleigh News & Observer/McClatchy story omits a major detail: Blackwater USA discovered the crime, fired the employees, and alerted federal authorities who made the arrests.

The next day, on September 22, the AP's David Scott reported a very different version: "Blackwater said Saturday the company immediately fired the men after learning they were stealing from the company and invited the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to investigate. The company pointed to news coverage from 2005, in which a spokesman for the ATF's Charlotte office confirmed the company came forward to authorities and asked for help."

Again we see a bias in the headline-writers. Rather than say that Blackwater alerted ATF in 2005, the Associated Press editors chose inflammatory and guilty-sounding language in the headline: "Blackwater Denies Smuggling Allegations."

AP casts doubt on Neff's word

The Associated Press has picked up on Joseph Neff's Blackwater coverage, and in at least one case cast doubt on its reliability.

On September 22, AP correspondent Matthew Lee ran a piece based on Neff's now-discredited report that federal authorities were investigating Blackwater as a company for arms smuggling. "The News & Observer, citing unidentified sources, reported that the probe was looking at whether Blackwater had shipped unlicensed automatic weapons and military goods to Iraq without a license," the AP reporter wrote, adding his own professional doubts about Neff's report: "The paper's report that the company itself was under investigation could not be confirmed by the AP."

Washington Post headline not supported by facts

The Washington Post ran Matthew Lee's September 21 AP story on page A10 of its September 22 edition, attaching a headline and sub-head indicating that Blackwater as a firm is the subject of a smuggling probe, and that the company might be charged.

The version appearing on the WashingtonPost.com contained the full AP text. But Post editors cut down the story to 9 paragraphs in the print edition - none of which said that Blackwater USA was the subject of investigation or might be charged.

Nevertheless the headline and sub-head stated as fact, "Security Firm Is in Smuggling Probe; Blackwater May Be Charged for Bringing Weapons Into Iraq."

Sloppy AP editors twist correspondent's reporting

Sloppy editors at the Associated Press put another phony headline on their reporter's careful coverage of Blackwater USA.

This time, they took a September 21 story by correspondent Matthew Lee and added a headline that directly contradicts Lee's reporting. The headline on the AP website reads, "Feds Target Blackwater In Weapons Probe."

But Lee doesn't say that in his story. Indeed, he reports the opposite.

(1) Lee never says that federal authorities are targeting the company itself - he reports that they are probing two employees. But he neglects to say are ex-employees whom Blackwater had fired.

(2) In contrast to the headline, Lee cites unnamed US officials who "could not say whether the investigation would result in indictments, how many Blackwater employees are involved or if the company itself . . . is under scrutiny."

(3) The AP reporter quotes the Raleigh News & Observer (Joseph Neff) as "citing unidentified sources" who reported that Blackwater itself was being investigated. But he does not take the newspaper's report at face value. Lee carefully adds in the 10th paragraph of the story, "The paper's report that the company itself was under investigation could not be confirmed by the AP."

So why the misleading headline? At least one AP editor appears to be twisting the reports of his own correspondents, skewing the headlines to reflect negatively on Blackwater. A Google News search shows those headlines have been repeated in newspapers around the world.

Contact Bill Sizemore and his editors

Readers of the Virginian-Pilot, as well as the paper's own editors and reporters, need to know that there is another side to the Blackwater stories. The newspaper publisher encourages public input. As always, be courteous and professional in all your correspondence. Rude, ignorant and socially unacceptable messages only harm your cause.

Letters to the Editor. To write a letter to the editor to the Virginian-Pilot, click here. Pay close attention to the rules: concise writing at 150 words or less, with all your contact information so the editors can verify that you are who you say you are.

Write to Virginian-Pilot editors by email: letters@pilotonline.com.

Write to Virginian-Pilot editors by fax: (757) 446-2041

Write to Virginian-Pilot editors by mail: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 449, Norfolk, VA 23501-0449.

Contact Bill Sizemore. Telephone: (757) 446-2276. Email: bill.sizemore@pilotonline.com.

The Virginian-Pilot's editors often provide links for readers to comment on specific articles, or polls soliciting their opinion. It's important to add legitimate and constructive comments, and always to answer the poll questions.

Straight news from Kimberlin at Virginian-Pilot

The Virginian-Pilot's Joanne Kimberlin writes a straight news story about a local man with what she calls "insider's view of how the company [Blackwater] moves people from here to there inside a war zone" in Iraq.

The interview took place earlier this year, but the Virginian-Pilot used it for Kimberlin's story immediately following the September 16 incident in western Baghdad where Blackwater guards felt the American convoy they were protecting was threatned, resulting in a firefight that left many civilians killed.

There's no bias or agenda in this story; just straight news from a primary source who had seen Blackwater security in operation firsthand.

Contact Joanne Kimberlin at (757) 446-2338, or at joanne.kimberlin@pilotonline.com.