Do Iraqi Lives Matter? - an email exchange with the BBC
Dear Steve Hermann,
In “Violence marks Iraq anniversary” (BBC News website, Monday, 20 March 2006), there is an insert, with the title “Cost of War”.
It reads: “Iraqi civilians killed: 32,600-35,700 on 1 March. Police: 1,900. Source: Iraq Body Count campaign group”
Again, this is factually wrong.
IBC simply records the Iraqi civilians deaths reported by English language media. On the IBC website, you may read: “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.”
So, even if you want to use the numbers provided by IBC (instead of scientific data provided by the Lancet study. WHY?), you are using these numbers in a wrong way and your use is objectively deceiving.
Why do you keep repeating something that you know perfectly well is false? Why do you keep hiding the truth?
A few days ago, the Independent wrote: “But IBC admits that with the increasing inability of journalists to move around and report freely, its method of monitoring civilian deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)
The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote: “This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)
Here some important articles regarding the Iraqi civilian deaths.
Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005
When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2
BURYING THE LANCET – Update
Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006
Regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Dear Gabriele Zamparini
Thanks for your emails on this subject. I will consider them and reply as soon as I can.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Herrmann
***
Dear Steve Herrmann,
Thank you for your reply.
Please, don’t rush. The deaths can wait.
Can your conscience?
Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
[Related e-mail]
Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online
In “US military probes Iraq killings” (BBC NEWS website, Tuesday, 21 March 2006), there is this paragraph: “Iraqis often accuse US troops fighting insurgents of committing war crimes.”
Please, would you mind to explain the meaning of such a paragraph in such a context?
It would seem pure racism used as a tool for propaganda.
If you have another explanation I would be much interested to know it.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Dear Steve Herrmann and Paul Reynolds,
The RELATED INTERNET LINKS for the BBC News website article “Iraq Body Count: War dead figures” list:
Iraq Body Count
Iraqi government
US Central Command
Pentagon report on Iraq
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
Since in the article it’s mentioned also The Lancet study, please could you add its link among those listed?
This is the URL for the Link
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Dear Gabriele
Thanks for pointing this out. We have added a link to the Lancet to this story.
Yours sincerely
Steve Herrmann
***
Dear Gabriele,
In response to your email about our story on the Iraq Body Count figures, I would make the point that we reported on this as part of our overall effort to cover the war in Iraq and its consequences as fully as possible across a wide range of coverage.
We reported on the Iraq Body Count (IBC) as a credible attempt available in the public domain to count the civilian casualties of the war. We do not think their count is faultless, and indeed we have pointed out that because it relies on deaths reported by the media, the IBC itself suggests its figures are an underestimate as “many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported”.
The Lancet study is a snapshot taken more than 18 months ago and though the methodology has been widely acknowledged as standard, there has been argument about whether the sampling method is the most appropriate for this kind of survey. By featuring the IBC count of civilian deaths in Iraq we are not seeking to dismiss the Lancet study. We have reported on the latter extensively and refer to it in our report on the IBC.
Yours sincerely
Steve Herrmann
***
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your reply.
You must have been ill-informed.
You write that “there has been argument about whether the sampling method is the most appropriate for this kind of survey”.
Can I ask you who told you that? There has been no argument whatsoever within the scientific community. As I wrote many, many, many times to you and to the BBC:
- “This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)
- “’Les has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology,’ says Bradley A. Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Indeed, the United Nations and the State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts on previous conflicts as fact -- and have acted on those results. (...) Mr. Roberts has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done surveys in locations including Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. His three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee, a nongovernmental humanitarian organization, in which he used methods akin to those of his Iraq study, received a great deal of attention. ‘Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity,’ he says.” (Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005)
The Lancet is a very prestigious medical journal and has published Les Roberts’ study. Why did it disappeared from the BBC’s coverage? Which scientific expertise do you and the BBC have to ignore it? It’s not up to a journalist nor to the BBC to discredit a serious scientific study, acknowledged as such by the scientific international community. Do you agree?
It’s false that the BBC has reported on the Lancet “extensively” as you write and you “refer to it in our report on the IBC” only because you have been pressed repeatedly by media activism. You know that I can prove it, don’t you? And of course, that reference is simply outrageous. After fifteen months the Lancet published this study, you gave to it a 35 word mention!
I keep sending you all the rational arguments, the articles, the studies that contradict what you wrote in your email. Please, this time take your time to seriously review them and I would really appreciate if you could reply my serious questions and concerns with a serious reply.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
Again, here you can and should read:
Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005
When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2
BURYING THE LANCET – Update
Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006
In “Violence marks Iraq anniversary” (BBC News website, Monday, 20 March 2006), there is an insert, with the title “Cost of War”.
It reads: “Iraqi civilians killed: 32,600-35,700 on 1 March. Police: 1,900. Source: Iraq Body Count campaign group”
Again, this is factually wrong.
IBC simply records the Iraqi civilians deaths reported by English language media. On the IBC website, you may read: “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.”
So, even if you want to use the numbers provided by IBC (instead of scientific data provided by the Lancet study. WHY?), you are using these numbers in a wrong way and your use is objectively deceiving.
Why do you keep repeating something that you know perfectly well is false? Why do you keep hiding the truth?
A few days ago, the Independent wrote: “But IBC admits that with the increasing inability of journalists to move around and report freely, its method of monitoring civilian deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)
The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote: “This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)
Here some important articles regarding the Iraqi civilian deaths.
Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005
When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2
BURYING THE LANCET – Update
Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006
Regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Dear Gabriele Zamparini
Thanks for your emails on this subject. I will consider them and reply as soon as I can.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Herrmann
***
Dear Steve Herrmann,
Thank you for your reply.
Please, don’t rush. The deaths can wait.
Can your conscience?
Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
[Related e-mail]
Dear Steve Herrmann, Editor, News Online
In “US military probes Iraq killings” (BBC NEWS website, Tuesday, 21 March 2006), there is this paragraph: “Iraqis often accuse US troops fighting insurgents of committing war crimes.”
Please, would you mind to explain the meaning of such a paragraph in such a context?
It would seem pure racism used as a tool for propaganda.
If you have another explanation I would be much interested to know it.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Dear Steve Herrmann and Paul Reynolds,
The RELATED INTERNET LINKS for the BBC News website article “Iraq Body Count: War dead figures” list:
Iraq Body Count
Iraqi government
US Central Command
Pentagon report on Iraq
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
Since in the article it’s mentioned also The Lancet study, please could you add its link among those listed?
This is the URL for the Link
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
***
Dear Gabriele
Thanks for pointing this out. We have added a link to the Lancet to this story.
Yours sincerely
Steve Herrmann
***
Dear Gabriele,
In response to your email about our story on the Iraq Body Count figures, I would make the point that we reported on this as part of our overall effort to cover the war in Iraq and its consequences as fully as possible across a wide range of coverage.
We reported on the Iraq Body Count (IBC) as a credible attempt available in the public domain to count the civilian casualties of the war. We do not think their count is faultless, and indeed we have pointed out that because it relies on deaths reported by the media, the IBC itself suggests its figures are an underestimate as “many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported”.
The Lancet study is a snapshot taken more than 18 months ago and though the methodology has been widely acknowledged as standard, there has been argument about whether the sampling method is the most appropriate for this kind of survey. By featuring the IBC count of civilian deaths in Iraq we are not seeking to dismiss the Lancet study. We have reported on the latter extensively and refer to it in our report on the IBC.
Yours sincerely
Steve Herrmann
***
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your reply.
You must have been ill-informed.
You write that “there has been argument about whether the sampling method is the most appropriate for this kind of survey”.
Can I ask you who told you that? There has been no argument whatsoever within the scientific community. As I wrote many, many, many times to you and to the BBC:
- “This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)
- “’Les has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology,’ says Bradley A. Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Indeed, the United Nations and the State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts on previous conflicts as fact -- and have acted on those results. (...) Mr. Roberts has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done surveys in locations including Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. His three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee, a nongovernmental humanitarian organization, in which he used methods akin to those of his Iraq study, received a great deal of attention. ‘Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity,’ he says.” (Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005)
The Lancet is a very prestigious medical journal and has published Les Roberts’ study. Why did it disappeared from the BBC’s coverage? Which scientific expertise do you and the BBC have to ignore it? It’s not up to a journalist nor to the BBC to discredit a serious scientific study, acknowledged as such by the scientific international community. Do you agree?
It’s false that the BBC has reported on the Lancet “extensively” as you write and you “refer to it in our report on the IBC” only because you have been pressed repeatedly by media activism. You know that I can prove it, don’t you? And of course, that reference is simply outrageous. After fifteen months the Lancet published this study, you gave to it a 35 word mention!
I keep sending you all the rational arguments, the articles, the studies that contradict what you wrote in your email. Please, this time take your time to seriously review them and I would really appreciate if you could reply my serious questions and concerns with a serious reply.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
Again, here you can and should read:
Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005
When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2
BURYING THE LANCET – Update
Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006
posted by The Cat's Dream at 11:08 AM
![[ACLU Execution Watch Counter]](https://www.aclu.org/graphics/dpcounter.gif)
<< Home