Guest blogged by Brad Jacobson of MediaBloodhound
From the aftermath of the 2003 “shock and awe” bombing campaign all the way through Thanksgiving Day 2008, major US news outlets have nearly uniformly blacked out or downplayed reports of the Iraqi death toll. But a recent Associated Press article reveals the depths to which these outlets are still willing to delve to censor this information.
In the November 27 article “Iraqi Parliament OKs US Troops for 3 More Years,” by Christopher Torchia and Qassim Abdul-Zahra, AP editors approved the following characterization of Iraqi deaths suffered since the US invasion:
How’s that for a statistically rigorous accounting? With the exactitude of a third-grader’s book report cribbed from a novel’s dust jacket copy, the AP — America’s #1 wire news service — blankets US news outlets with a quantification of Iraqi casualties that would’ve made Stalin proud.
Seriously, it’s 2008. Everybody knows the emperor has no clothes and no clue. Barack Obama is the President-elect. Reality, thankfully (however tentatively), is in vogue. Yet America’s “most respected news sources” are still treating the Iraqi death toll as if we’re living in a pre-neoconned world.
As MediaBloodhound reported last April, when Opinion Research Business (ORB), a well-regarded non-partisan British polling agency that has conducted studies for the BBC and the British Conservative Party, released its January 2008 follow-up report estimating over 1 million Iraqi deaths since the US invasion — which both reconfirmed its September 2007 estimate as well as supported prior findings of the 2006 John Hopkins study published in the British medical journal Lancet (650,000 deaths) — a LexisNexis search showed no US mainstream news outlet carried the story.
MediaBloodhound also pointed out at the time that, writing in FAIR’s newsletter Extra!, Patrick McElwee cited an “Associated Press poll in February (2/24/07) that asked Americans how many Iraqis have died received a median response of less than 10,000.”
The November 27 AP article in question, which glibly and mindlessly quantifies Iraqi deaths since the invasion as merely a “far greater, untold number” in comparison to Americans killed in the war, reflects how AP’s February 2007 poll respondents could be so clueless.
Even Iraq Body Count’s estimates, proven to undercount for a few reasons (for one, they only attempt to account for “noncombatants”), were tens of thousands of casualties higher than the median estimate provided by respondents in the 2007 AP poll. Today, the Iraq Body Count estimates around 100,000 Iraqi deaths. The World Health Organization (WHO) published its estimate of Iraqi dead last January, though its count only covered the time from the beginning of the war through June 2006. Its findings then, which wouldn’t account for nearly two and a half years of the war since? The WHO estimated between 104,000 and 223,000 deaths, with a median of 151,000.
Whenever citing the Iraqi death toll since the 2003 invasion, the AP, and any news outlet wishing to be seen as credible, should at the very least either a provide a range of estimates from viable sources (e.g., 200,000 to over 1 million) or a median estimate (e.g., roughly 600,000).
As McElwee stated nearly a year ago, “If Americans are to make informed judgments not only about the invasion of Iraq and whether the occupation should continue, but also about future wars our government may wish to start, then we need to have good information about the war’s impact on Iraqis.”
Major US news outlets, with their number #1 wire service now leading the way in censoring the Iraqi death toll, continue to report on this subject, the rare times it surfaces in articles, as though it’s still 2003. It was wrong then. Today, it should at least be grounds for editors to be reprimanded or lose their jobs and for immediate corrections to be printed.
It’s 2008. Enough is enough. Give us the damn facts and get out of the way.
UPDATE: Yesterday’s New York Times article “More Iraqi Dead Last Month, But Fewer Than Last Year,” by Alissa J. Rubin, keeps up this grand tradition of censoring the Iraqi death toll in a report about the Iraqi death toll. Here’s the lede:
The number of civilian deaths last month was 148, compared with 118 in October and 156 in September.
The number of I.E.D.’s was 108, compared with 79 in October and 113 in September. Most measures of violence remain much lower than last fall.
As far as numbers go, that’s all our paper of record provides. No range of estimates on the number of Iraqi dead. No median calculation derived from that range. Not even a reference to the overall Iraqi lives lost since the US invasion. AP’s “far greater, untold number” may be woefully deficient yet Times editors managed to ignore the topic altogether, as though counting Iraqi deaths is only possible in monthly increments, microcosmic snapshots that conveniently keep the genocidal numbers out of sight and out of mind.
Cross-posted at MediaBloodhound.
Oh yeah, an how’s charpey face goin ta vote?
That would be lie berr man, if you haven’t a clue.
In war, it is the first imperative that you de-humanize the enemy.
At the heart of this article is the basic truth:
WAR IS EVIL.
Given that war is evil, you can expect all those who support war will do anything and everything they must to assure that they can continue their evil.
You hardly ever hear ANY major party person talk about the Iraqui deaths. You don’t even hear most of them pronounce the country name correctly. If they did, they would have to explain why we are still there, doing what we are doing, and why the people who perputrated this war aren’t being tried as war criminals, and they simply will NOT do that.
I have a tag called “fascist media” at my blog, and it’s exactly this type of crap that inspired the name. In the U.S. I thought I was living in, people would have been smashing their tv sets against corporate headquarters in their thousands by now… but, no. Barely a peep. Sometimes a private tsk, in the commercial break of America’s Biggest Loser….
Reality’s in vogue because Obama was elected? I don’t see him crying over the fate of the Iraqis. He’s a practical politician, and he’s not going do to ANYTHING that might be spun as “unpatriotic”, including indicating that the US might be guilty of war crimes of any kind. But I know, you don’t want to piss off the Obamazombies. I wonder if they’ll get it, by the time he leaves office, that he’s a lot more concerned with obeying the military-industrial complex than with doing the right thing?
One last thought, re:
I got news for you, and it ain’t good: most Americans don’t give a sh*t. Case in point: I have two good friends, both ardent Obama-ites/”progressives”/etc, who tell me that the sanctions in Iraq in the 90’s weren’t “monstrous”. Now, they don’t deny that those sanctions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. But still, that doesn’t quite rate “monstrous” for them. Of course if it were their kids, it would certainly be “monstrous”. But it isn’t their kids; and after all, we had to do SOMETHING to keep Hussein-the-paper-tiger from wiping out our way of life, even though that was never a possibility.
More and more “progressives” are embracing the ideals of the military-industrial complex, whether they think they are or not. Or at the very least, they don’t give a damn about what crimes it commits in their name, as long as their lives remain convenient and it’s doesn’t become TOO difficult to lie to themselves about it. How else do you explain Obama’s mandate, when he’s consistently and repeatedly supported the nonsense about Iran being a “grave threat”, and how we have to escalate our involvement in Afghanistan.
Oh, and for you folks who think he’s going to get us out of Iraq, here’s what his website said in February:
Obama’s website, as of Feb, 2008
http://web.archive.org/web/20080222011828/www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
and the current version:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
People with a bit of Internet savvy and even the slightest interest can already search for several estimates of the number of Iraqi people dead. These people already get it.
People who watch TV and get their opinions from a talking head never will get it. Never.
I don’t see room for much middle ground other than slowly weaning people off TV and newpapers and onto Internet news (which is happening already, and Obama seems to be supporting that).