Silence kills and silence is complicity - email to IBC's Sloboda

Dear Mr. Sloboda,

I hope all is well with you and IBC.

I have read your reply to Joe Emersberger on ML board.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1144570208.html

I would like to make just two points, even though I am afraid you won’t reply my email as you have never in the past. Hard to believe we both belong to the same antiwar movement and to the same international network, the BRussells Tribunal

Point 1.

About what 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.” (“Iraq: The reckoning”, Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)] you write that “Nobody from IBC said it to anyone. It appears to have been a mistaken attribution by Raymond Whitaker, originally made some 18 months ago.”

I am glad that after a month from that Independent’s article and after 18 months from the original “mistaken attribution”, you finally decided to speak out after a Media Lens’ debate.

In this light, I would like to remind you your same words written just a couple of days ago to David Edwards and David Cromwell, the two Media lens’ editors:

Dear Davids,

Thanks for your letter.

Unfortunately the events of the last three months have convinced us that direct correspondence with you is unproductive. We've said it before, and we say it again, though we do so with regret.

Yours sincerely,

John Sloboda (April 7)

Now that you could clarify this “mistaken attribution” thank to Media Lens, I assume you will change your mind about what you wrote in your email to the Davids and will begin to reply the many questions still waiting for an answer.

Also, always about this “mistaken attribution”, please could you suggest your colleague Josh Dougherty to manage his anger and not using an abusive tone and an offensive language? He called me repeatedly a “liar” because I quoted that Independent’s article paragraph [“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.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)].

Point 2.

Now, let’s get serious, Mr Sloboda. To Joe Emersberger’s question ["Do you agree that the deteriorating situation for journalists in Iraq makes your monitoring technique less accurate?"] you reply:

“Again, Josh has already replied to this question on the MediaLens message board. I commend his reply to you:

"At the same time that Western journalists have been reporting on limitations to their abilities to move, IBC has seen a trend of increasing reliance on Iraqi reporters doing the groundwork on incidents, with more Iraqi bylines in the reports (sometimes anonymous for their protection, but obviously known to their employers), and resulting in better coverage than before in some ways. Whether it's more or less *complete* than some previous time period in the war (which is what we take to be meant by "increasing inaccuracy" in context) is difficult to say, but IBC is recording considerably more incidents per day now than it was in 2004, and it is increasingly Iraqis, not Western journalists, who provide the core of this reporting. This trend is also discussed here: link
So, it's a more complicated issue than you present. The people at IBC who observe the reporting of the war in great detail and on a daily basis don't see sufficient evidence to warrant any claim of an "increasing inaccuracy" in IBC on those grounds, and so obviously did not and would not make such an "admission".
(the relevant posting from Josh can be seen in full at [link]).

Sincerely,

John Sloboda.
Co-founder, Iraq Body Count.

You recently wrote to John Pilger:

“1. We have little confidence in the estimates based on the Lancet study and recent extrapolations, for the reasons explained. We think that the UNDP study offers a more reliable estimate for the period covered by the Lancet, and one which is not inconsistent with the type of data we have gathered. (para 6.0 a of "On IBC")

2. Thus, the Lancet is not strong evidence for a massive deficit in accounting for war deaths (although this does mean there is not any deficit - just that the Lancet doesn't show what that deficit is).”

This is what you write in the IBC last press release:

“Although what has been described as ‘sectarian violence’ undoubtedly contributes to a growing proportion of deaths, the last year’s total includes 370 known civilian deaths from military action by US-led forces and 2,231 from anti-occupation activity against coalition and Iraqi government targets. The post-invasion increase in criminal activity remains an important concern, but the majority of media reports do not allow a clear identification of the perpetrators or their motives. The “unknown agents” who did most of the killing could fall into any of the categories above, as well as other types of ‘terrorist.’ Reports also indicate that the past year has seen an increasing number of extra-judicial executions.” (Iraq Body Count Press Release 13, 9th March 2006)

This is what the ‘Lancet study’ (the one you have little confidence in) found back in 2004:

"The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery." ('Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004)

Considering all this above, do you think that the IBC’s figures give a realistic picture of the Iraqi civilian deaths? Since there are other studies and analysts talking about hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq since the US-led invasion, what should one think of the enormous and terrifying difference between your IBC’s figures [max. 37943] and the hundreds of thousands of the other studies? Your colleague Josh Dougherty write: “IBC is recording considerably more incidents per day now than it was in 2004”. Could you explain what this line is supposed to mean in this picture? In other words, do you really believe that the IBC reported deaths (let’s remember, reported by the English language media with an online website) could be any way close to the real civilian deaths in Iraq?

These questions are not an “attack”, like you and your colleagues like to call them. We are witnessing a man-made tragedy of colossal proportions. Answers are desperately needed to halt this tragedy. I leave you with Dr. Polya’s words: “Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.”

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini