Media Lens: Paved With Good Intentions - Iraq Body Count - Part 1
In December the Independent on Sunday made fleeting mention of Iraqi casualties in its review of 2005:
“Death toll in Iraq war stands at 30,000 Iraqis, 2,140 US soldiers and 97 British service personnel.” (Independent on Sunday, December 18, 2005)
This was clearly a reference to the IBC total - for +civilians+, not all Iraqis. But anyway, as we have seen, the IBC figure is selective in its sources, is the lowest estimate of eight serious studies, and relies on “professional rigour” in the Western media that does not exist.
Posted on January 25th, 2006 at 11:59 am
| See also • Tsunamis and Armies • Lest we forget • I don’t want the truth. I want something I can tell Parliament! |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Chicken Nuggets, Iraq, T.W.A.T. |
• |
Is it really worth knocking the IBC? For ages it was the only source of Iraq mortality figures anywhere…
Sure, its methodology is definitly hobbled by its sources and the figure is an underestimate, but they’ve made more of an effort than certain other parties (hello TB and GW) to make people aware of Iraqi casualties.
I think the point is that they’re not knocking the IBC per se but pointing out that it provides the lowest figure of eight serious studies, has one the least scientific approaches and this is the one most people (with vested interests) place their faith in.
When it was the only game in town Jack Straw wouldn’t touch it, now there are seven other polls in the field, he’s all, “The Lancet is rubbish, IBC say…”
I wouldn’t call them at all for doing what they do. It’s the people who ill-use the figures who need a slap.
“It’s the people who ill-use the figures who need a slap”
See the Daily Ablution for more. Most days.
The Lancet quoted 100,000 Iraqi (civilian) deaths in its article but this is assumed to be an overly large extrapolation by many people in power and media.
The UK and US governments have repeatedly accepted this methodology by the same group behind the Iraq figures before, when counting deaths in the terrible civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Blair (and Colin Powel) were happy to quote these figures as fact, whilst refuting the specific Iraqi deaths findings. It is also the method used by drug companies, and CDC in cases of disease outbreak
Find articles discussing this at:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050905_burying_the_lancet_part1.php
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050906_burying_the_lancet_part2.php
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050906_burying_the_lancet_update.php
It is also important to note that Iraq Body Count accept their figures are likely to be vastly underestimated, as only some of the violent deaths everyday in Iraq reach the press, a prerequesite to being added to their tally. For example, US forces claiming 100 insurgent kills in Tal Afar include all men, women and children killed, whether there is credible evidence of insurgent activity or not. By *being* in an “insurgent stronghold”, they become insurgents. These deaths will thus be reported in the press as insurgent deaths, not civilians, and cannot be added to IBC total.
The Lancet actually gave out the lowest estimate that could be extrapolated so as not to overestimate: the real death figures by the group are between 100,000 to 280,000 civilians killed in the first 18 months of the war. Fallujah was specifically excluded, and by random chance other Iraqi flashpoint towns, mainly in the Sunni Triangle, were not included either. So much for taking figures from the worst affected areas.
As Les Roberts, a world renowned epidemiologist and lead author of the Lancet report says:
“By picking random neighborhoods proportional to population, we are likely to account for the natural variability of ethnicity, income, and violence… Please understand how extremely conservative we were: we did a survey estimating that ~285,000 people have died due to the first 18 months of invasion and occupation and we reported it as at least ~100,000.
“Finally, there are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq. The source most favored by the war proponents (Iraqbodycount.org) is the lowest. Our estimate is the third from highest. Four of the estimates place the death toll above 100,000. The studies measure different things. Some are surveys, some are based on surveillance which is always incomplete in times of war. The three lowest estimates are surveillance based.”
the curmudgeon had the best take on all this
http://thecurmudgeonly.blogspot.com/2006/01/civilian-dies-in-iraq.html