Retraction and Apology to Our Readers for Mint Press Article on Syria Gas Attack

[ProSense]

Retraction and Apology to Our Readers for Mint Press Article on Syria Gas Attack

Eric Garris

On August 31, Antiwar.com reprinted an article from Mint Press News: “Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack.” We originally linked to it, but then reprinted on our site at the request of Mint Press because traffic on their site was crashing their server. The validity of the story was primarily based on the fact that the supposed co-author (Dale Gavlak) is a reporter for Associated Press.

Many other articles have been written which refer to the information contained in the Mint Press piece, including ones appearing on Antiwar.com.

Dale Gavlak has issued a statement saying he did not co-author the article and denies that he traveled to Syria or contributed to the article in any way. Here is his statement:

Mint Press News incorrectly used my byline for an article it published on August 29, 2013 alleging chemical weapons usage by Syrian rebels. Despite my repeated requests, made directly and through legal counsel, they have not been willing to issue a retraction stating that I was not the author. Yahya Ababneh is the sole reporter and author of the Mint Press News piece. To date, Mint Press News has refused to act professionally or honestly in regards to disclosing the actual authorship and sources for this story.

I did not travel to Syria, have any discussions with Syrian rebels, or do any other reporting on which the article is based. The article is not based on my personal observations and should not be given credence based on my journalistic reputation. Also, it is false and misleading to attribute comments made in the story as if they were my own statements.

The staff of Antiwar.com sincerely and deeply apologizes for being a part of spreading this article. We also apologize to Dale Gavlak.

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/09/20/retraction-and-apology-to-our-readers-for-mint-press-article-on-syria-gas-attack/

Oops!

[tammywammy]

1. k&r n/t

[The Magistrate]

2. Damn, Ma'am: A Correction And Retraction From Infowars?

A quick look out the window did not disclose the flight of pigs doing aerobatics in tight formation overhead I was expecting to see, but still --- I will always remember the 20th of September....

This will not slow down citation of the article, and claims of who its author is, of course; we will be seeing it for years in the screeds of the usual suspects.

[ProSense]

5. No, different site.

Not the Alex Jones kooks.

[The Magistrate]

7. I See, Ma'am --- The 'Antiwar.com' People --- Not Much Better Than Jones, and Still Quite Remarkable

I remain surprised by the act of contrition.....

[Scurrilous]

3. Up next with their retraction & apology: Russia Today

Russia Today Airs Fake Footage of Rebels Using Sarin Gas in Syria

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3691313

Or maybe not....

[Junkdrawer]

10. Wonder if this Catholic Nun will apologize? Claims AQ kidnapped kids for propaganda videos.

Ridiculous.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/169025372/Study-the-Videos-That-Speaks-About-Chemicals-Beta-Version

[ProSense]

15. Maybe

she should: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023691117

[Junkdrawer]

16. Maybe it's being discussed....

everywhere but here.

Delicate flowers we are. I mean unless AQ isn't fighting someone we hate more.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. So someone supplied a little pro Assad anti-rebel propaganda.

Pity we can't find out who did that.

My estimation of Antiwar.com goes up a notch. By correcting the record they show themselves to be a more reliable source of information than others who won't ask questions or debunk lies. (I won't name names.)

[The Magistrate]

6. No Idea Why My Cursor Is Jumping Around Like This Lately

Comment has been placed where intended above now....

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. That would be sir, not "Ma'am" thank you very much.

There are many sources of information, not all of them equal.

Antiwar.com shows a real willingness to correct the record when they get something wrong, even when it may go against their argument and editorial preference. That means on a scale of X to X they are +X. If I see them cover a story against another source that is questionable, I will weigh their opinion more favorably.

[The Magistrate]

11. The Comment Was Intended For Ms. ProSense, Sir

How I managed to append it to yours, I have no idea; I had not seen your comment before my post went up.

When I was a moderator here, we removed links to 'antiwar.com' on sight, and my view of it remains most unfavorable. I judge a thing that appears there by two standards: first, how does it advance the paleo-con racist agenda of its owner, and second, by what I find at the actual source of a piece, which will on occasion prove reputable and reliable.

[maddezmom]

8. Good to see this

Just hope the folks that kept posting it and pushing it here will give it a read.

[The Magistrate]

12. You Are a Beautiful Dreamer, Ma'am

The thing will be cited for years and years and years, and even by people here on DU....

"Visualize Whirled Peas!"

[maddezmom]

13. True enough, Sir.

Just was in another chemtrails thread....people just really want to believe things I suppose.

[lamp_shade]

14. Thanks. I'm bookmarking this one for sure. n/t

[tammywammy]

17. kick n/t

[BelgianMadCow]

18. Kick

for truth.

That being, the Mint Press article is a dubious source. Important to know.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, ProSense.

[SidDithers]

20. antiwar.com, run by Justin Raimondo...

who describes himself as a "conservative paleo-libertertarian"

Wonder what his DU name is.

Sid