Late in December 2007, The Associated Press reporter Salah Nasrawi wrote a story about a Bin Laden audiotape that had just been released.  

Headlined "Bin Laden Threatens Israel, Warns Iraqis," Nasrawi's piece details Osama's dire threats to expand al Qaeda's jihad in Israel and to "liberate Palestine, the whole of Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the sea," threatening "blood for blood, destruction for destruction."  

Then, 11 paragraphs down, Nasrawi writes: "The authenticity of the tape could not be independently confirmed. But the voice resembled that of bin Laden. The tape was posted on an Islamic militant Web site where al-Qaida's media arm, Al-Sahab, issues the group's messages."  

If the tape can't be vetted, it shouldn't be used. That's Journalism 101. At the very least, the fact that it can't be authenticated should be mentioned in the story's title and continuously mentioned throughout the story as the quotes are being used. 

Worse, all the mainstream TV outlets picked up on Nasrawi's story and liberally quoted "bin Laden" without bothering to use the word "purported" or another adjective indicating they had no proof it was Bin Laden on the tape. Collectively, what these journalists are doing is worse than outright lying to the public. They are literally helping dangerous people with deadly hidden agendas create a virtual reality by unquestioningly conveying their messages. 

Are The Osama Tapes Fake?