Gabriele Zamparini writes to Michael Albert

Dear Michael,

I read with interest and surprise a correspondence you had with Stephen on one Gabriele Zamparini. Stephen himself posted that correspondence on Media Lens message board [Reposted at the end of my reply]

Very briefly:

1) I have never claimed ZNet published “the article titled "Is the U.S. Responsible for a Million Iraqi Deaths?" by Patrick McElwee and Robert Naiman in response to pressure from Gabriele Zamparini” as your correspondent writes in his question to you;

2) In my latest piece, that paragraph brought to your attention by your correspondent was meant to chronicle the facts as they developed since you and I started our correspondence. As you may remember, during our correspondence started because a ZNet article published the IBC figures without even mentioning the only scientific studies on the subject and their findings, we had the following exchange:

ZAMPARINI: By the way, I have been trying to find in ZNet website the following article published on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 by CommonDreams.org but I couldn't find it.

Is the U.S. Responsible for the Death of Nearly a Million Iraqis?
by Robert Naiman

This is a very important article and I am sure ZNet must have republished it. Maybe I missed it?

If ZNet hasn’t published it yet, maybe this could be a good timing for publishing it?

ALBERT: We don’t see everything on common dreams, and even when we do, we don’t rerun it all…very rarely in fact…If naiman sends to us, it will go up, of course. I think you are right about the good timing, though, so perhaps you could suggest to him that he send it our way?

[Then I wrote to Naiman as you suggested. You may read that correspondence here]

3) I won’t comment on the many comments you made about me in your exchange with Stephen. You know perfectly well that this unfortunate situation is the result of your refusal to issue a fair and due correction about that article. I have explained many times why that would have been extremely important. IBC and its figures are the main instrument used by the warmongers to hide the real human cost of this carnage. IBC did all it could to help the warmongers’ propaganda. Yet, IBC has been used not only by the mainstream media but by too many on the left and the alternative media (included ZNet) when it was clear from the beginning what that operation was all about.

4) From the excellent article by Patrick McElwee and Robert Naiman (for which I congratulated both Naiman and you the same day it was published) one understands perfectly well the reason why we all should stop using IBC to communicate the real extent of the Iraqi carnage. That was what I have been trying to communicate to you and ZNet for all this time. I’m sorry I was not able to convince you.

5) ZNet published a few days ago an article by UFPJ. That article is about a UFPJ’s report that reads:

"Iraqi Civilian Casualties: estimates range from 71,017 - 600,000+"

The first mistake is that the IBC figures are not an estimate but a count from Western media.

Now, this UFPJ report is supposed to circulate among peace activists and anti-war campaigners.

I simply ask why UFPJ needed to state: "Iraqi Civilian Casualties: estimates range from 71,017 - 600,000+"

Why couldn't UFPJ simply refer to the best estimates we have?

As Robert Naiman wrote in his article:

"Unfortunately, the debate over whether the U.S. military should end its occupation of Iraq remains largely uninformed by accurate estimates of Iraqi deaths, at least here in the United States. Worse, there seems to be a lack of interest in how many Iraqis have been killed even as many who oppose withdrawal warn of the deaths that would ensue if the troops left. As a result, the American public is completely uninformed as to how many Iraqis have been killed. An AP poll in February asked Americans how many Iraqis had died as a result of the war. The median response was just under 10,000.

The best estimate indicates that more than a million Iraqis have been killed as a result of the invasion and occupation. It is reasonable to suppose that if politicians and news media in the United States were forced to confront this reality, pressure for the end of the war would increase dramatically, and cavalier discussions of new military actions in Iran and Pakistan would be less likely."

6) After one million Iraqi deaths, we are still here talking about IBC. After one million Iraqi deaths, IBC is still taken seriously by the alternative media and the antiwar movement. After one million Iraqi deaths, IBC is still used in the alternative media, like that article on ZNet I pointed out and that started all this debate. I’m sorry if I have hurt your feelings and probably I did use too many strong a words. But I am NOT sorry I started this debate on the use of IBC and the real extent of the Iraqi carnage we are responsible for. I am surprised that you have found the time to reply on this issue to people trying to delegitimise my central point about IBC but not one word you have ever had on that central point.

7) In spite of all this, and in spite of the low consideration you have for me as you stated in your email to your correspondent, be assured I still have great respect for you, your history, your work and for ZNet, as the many links to ZNet and to you personally on my website and blog show. My questions were about two single cases, both extremely important because both the result of dangerous propaganda that has consequences for millions.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

***

THE FOLLOWING CORRESPONDENCE WAS PUBLISHED ON MEDIA LENS MESSAGE BOARD BY THE USER STEPHEN, MICHAEL ALBERT'S CORRESPONDENT:

Correspondence with Albert

Posted by Stephen on September 14, 2007, 12:44 am, in reply to "Re: P.S. Please, feel free to publish my piece on UKWatch and to send it to ZNet if you wish [nm]"
User logged in as: longusername

Email to Michael Albert.

Dear Michael,

Did you publish the article titled "Is the U.S. Responsible for a Million Iraqi Deaths?" by Patrick McElwee and Robert Naiman in response to pressure from Gabriele Zamparini?

I should perhaps have explained, the reason I ask is that Zamparini claims on his blog, "After more than a month of correspondence and pressing initiated on 8 August 2007 ZNet finally published an excellent article written by Just Foreign Policy's Patrick McElwee and Robert Naiman".

Some posters on medialens find the implication in this sentence difficult to believe.

I hope you don't mind my asking.

Regards,
Stephen

Reply from Michael Albert

Answer: no.

He is really quite contemptable, and of course had zero impact in any positive sense on us. After a bit of taking him seriously and respectfully attempting to clarify obvious points for him, when he proved obtuse to it, We simply ignored incoming mail from him thereafter, as we do now. That piece went up automatically - being from one of our writers, Naiman...

It is as if he sent us messages after message saying why did you put up a piece that called for reforms in the economy when you know parecon is better, truer, or whatever - for a week or two. And then, in the natural order a piece about parecon went up, and he took credit for it saying we did it because he pressured us.

Evidence which should only be necessary, if at all, for someone literally totally ignorant of Z: such pieces are entirely in line with our overall policies and have been going up on ZNet, as they arrive, for ages, as Zamparini must know.

If there is any doubt, to make the point by analogy, it is as if Zamparini saw a piece on ZNet calling for some kind of reform in the economy - let's say a higher minimum wage - and sent off to us and others a scathing assault on us, questioning our motives, etc., saying we are mere reformists, obscuring reality, supporting capitalism, and why don't we remove the essay or append a comment saying the author is a sellout reformist, and publish the truth - parecon is better than capitalism.(Note, the author wouldn't even be a reformist, in the analogy, just happened to be writing on behalf of a particular reform).

I suppose if Zamparini had no familiarity with our content at all, and didn't bother looking at the site before making claims about it, and had a horrible approach to assessing the motives of people and how to deal with things disagreed with, one could excuse the behavior. We did excuse it, giving him a gigantic benefit of doubt. And so we replied with relevant information, privately, not attacking him, all of which he ignored - blasting away no longer without comprehension, but presumably simply for the pleasure of blasting, or in hopes that his doing so would attract attention. That is sad, among other things.

Then in the normal course we put up a piece about parecon (in the analogy) and he says, (you are telling me he said this, I haven't seen it), that we have done this having been educated/pressured by him and having responded at last in accord with his lessons/demands. It is beyond sad, though all too typical in some respects.

He asked us to do what we naturally do, making believe we don't, then apparently claimed credit when we did it again, predictably, as is normal for us.

(PS. If anyone is confused, and you care enough to communicate with them, you can forward this message as having been sent to you in answer to your question...)