IBC and Munir Chalabi's numbers: ZNet and Michael Albert's reply

IBC and Munir Chalabi's numbers: ZNet and Michael Albert's reply
by Gabriele Zamparini




ZNet’s co-founder and co-editor Michael Albert has finally decided to reply publicly to my two questions I had been asking for a very long while [see the References at the end of this article].

I would like to stress very strongly that this is not a bickering between people with different points of view. I have asked two precise questions and given the reasons and the arguments for those two precise questions. I'm not debating on different opinions but on facts; more precisely on those particular facts called 'numbers'.

In The tip of the iceberg, I wrote:

1) Since the total lack of IBC’s scientific credibility and IBC’s frenetic activism in discrediting the Lancet’s, why does ZNet keep considering IBC, its figures and the whole operation a credible humanitarian project? Why couldn’t ZNet even publish a decent, fair correction instead of that insulting farce that once again has hidden the real extent of the horror inflicted upon the Iraqi people?

2) Since the total lack of credible sources in ZNet’s frequent contributor Munir Chalabi’s article, Political Observations on Sectarianism in Iraq, published originally on ZNet on 24 January 2007, why don’t both Chalabi and ZNet provide some reliable sources for those Chalabi’s number claims that, at the present, appear to be just sectarian propaganda?

This is Michael Albert's reply:

From: Michael Albert
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007
To: The Cat's Dream
Subject: RE: A new public reply to Michael Albert

Dear Gabriele Zamparini,

Gabriele, if you want to quote this reply, that is fine given that you seem hell bent on that path – but quote it in full, please.

---

I had not, I think, previously seen or at least registered, such explicit questions. Perhaps I missed them in longer missives struck by other aspects. I believe I have replied to you, however, a few times by email indicating that I thought asking us various questions – not to mention sending them around – that include wording and accompanying commentary that you know to fly in the face of reality is either highly confused or highly manipulative. I prefer to assume it is the former, but in any case it doesn’t deserve serious time on your part or our part because it doesn’t have serious substance, as I suspect you are well aware by now, if not at the outset. That doesn’t mean that content about the IBC, for example, isn’t serious. It means that your assertions about us aren’t. But, since you persist - here are brief answers
–

You ask: “Since the total lack of IBC’s scientific credibility and IBC’s frenetic activism in discrediting the Lancet’s, why does ZNet keep considering IBC, its figures and the whole operation a credible humanitarian project? Why couldn’t ZNet even publish a decent, fair correction instead of that insulting farce <http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2007/08/guardian-vs-znet-case-study-for-noam.htm> that once again has hidden the real extent of the horror inflicted upon the Iraqi people?”

When you ask why does ZNet do x – an answer implies that the question is in some degree correlated to reality and worthy of recognition. But your’s isn’t.



On ZNet there are roughly 1600 articles on Iraq..


I round 21 that even mention IBC.

Of those I found only one that had confusion – perhaps I missed something - other than a couple that were up in context of debate. That one is the article you have been focused on, sending me and cc-ing others messages about it, as if you have uncovered a horrendous violation of the people of Iraq, etc. and as if we are steadfast in persisting in our horrible violations. That article is, however, actually about Hiroshima. It mentions, in passing, current historic horrors and in that context includes the following three sentences referring to Iraq…



“And dead Iraqis there are. An estimated 68, 347 and 74,753 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the military intervention, according to the log of reported deaths kept by Iraq Body Count. In the chaos of occupation and civil war, this is invariably a conservative figure. [See ZNet editors note below]”



Note that even in this single case, as compared to articles on the site literally addressing the IBC and its failings, the qualification “conservative figure.” The author was pointing out that even with conservative figures the death count is horrible. For that, it seems Zamparini feels the author should be castigated as obscuring the value of Iraqi life, etc.



The editors note from ZNet follows, as well…



[ZNet Editors Note: A Media Lens letter to the author points out "Iraq Body Count (IBC) does not record numbers of 'Iraqi civilians [who] have died as a result of the military intervention'. That would include figures for deaths from disease, malnutrition, infant mortality, accidents due to collapse of infrastructure, etc. IBC only records Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of violence, and of these only deaths that have been reported by mostly Western media that are mostly unable to function in Iraq." They go on to point out that the article does not mention the "peer-reviewed science of the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies produced by some of the world's leading epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins and published in the world's leading science journal." End note.]


Apparently the above three sentences, plus the note, alongside the other 1600 articles including about 20 revealing the character of the IBC statistics – one or more of which may well be where Zamparini got insight on the IBC, reveals to Zamparini that “ZNet consider(s) IBC, its figures and the whole operation a credible humanitarian project.” By what logic the deductions about ZNet follow from all the above sentences, we don’t know.



Note, for the sake of clarity, even if an article on ZNet did what Zamparini claims, which none (that isn’t debated on site) does that I am aware of, it would not mean ZNet does it too. Web Sites don’t have the political views of every article on them, obviously.



The above few lines also justify, to Zamparini, occupying the time and email of a goodly number of folks with formulations that assert diverse kinds of malfeasance and “insulting farce” by ZNet, not least because we did not agree that the author or the above lines should be condemned, and not least because we saw and see no need to enter a contentless nasty exchange with Zamparini.



In our view, debate on the left, where substance is at stake and where all parties are interested in exploring information and ideas to move forward is a very desirable thing. Indeed we try quite hard to create room for and facilitate such exchanges. On the other hand, the kind of “debate” that is mere posturing, whether intentional or otherwise, isn’t useful and mostly just puts people off, and rightly so.



Zamparini writes: “That so-called ZNet’s correction is first of all a vulgar insult to those 1 million Iraqis killed by the Anglo-American invasion and ZNet Editors should be ashamed of themselves.”



We find this rather remarkable and not the kind of formulation that warrants response – as if it were based in substance and sincerely and carefully conceived. Anyone who thinks, instead, that the above makes sense is entitled to the opinion, of course. Likewise, we are entitled to ignore extrapolations that jump from near zero material, interpreted in a way that is nothing but spin, to massive condemnatory claims that bear no relation to our beliefs or our actions.



1) Since the total lack of credible sources in ZNet’s frequent contributor Munir Chalabi’s article, Political Observations on Sectarianism in Iraq <http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11948> , published originally on ZNet on 24 January 2007, why don’t both Chalabi and ZNet provide some reliable sources for those Chalabi’s number claims that, at the present, appear to be just sectarian propaganda?


Zamparini would have to ask Chalabi why he does or doesn’t do what Zamparini wishes…ZNet has a staff of two, however, and is not about reworking or further exploring the content of all 3000 or so articles that go online yearly, or even just a subset that Zamparini chooses, other than by publishing useful explorations of the issues as they are submitted by authors focused on respective topics. .

I received Michael Albert's reply while I was traveling, so I sent Michael Albert the following email:

From: Gabriele Zamparini
Sent: Friday, August 31
To: Michael Albert
Cc: editor@medialens.org
Subject: RE: FW: A new public reply to Michael Albert

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your email

I'm not in London at the moment and can't reply or publish your reply on my blog. I'll get back to it once i'm back next week.

Please, one little detail I'd like you to pass to your editors right away. Your editors write: "Zamparini would have to ask Chalabi why he does or doesn’t do what Zamparini wishes…" Please, tell your editors that Zamparini wishes to read on ZNet not lies and propaganda. I hope this is not too much to ask.

Best wishes,

Gabriele

After a few minutes I received another email from Michael Albert:

From: Michael Albert
To: Gabriele Zamparini
CC: editor@medialens.org
Subject: RE: FW: A new public reply to Michael Albert
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007

You seem not to understand what it means to be civil – or what it means to communicate – and you seem to be interested only in pursuing your own visibility, not actual information.

That is sad and because it seems the case, I am not interested in arguing with you ad infinitum -- we both have much too much to do.

So please take me off your mailing lists – do not write me further. You may think this kind of thing is productive, but I am afraid I don’t.

This was my reply:

From: Gabriele Zamparini
Sent: Friday, August 31
To: Michael Albert
Cc: editor@medialens.org
Subject: RE: FW: A new public reply to Michael Albert

thanks Michael

don't understand why you got so upset

i just wrote i can't reply now but i'll do next week

about the little detail, those numbers in chalabi article have nothing to do with my wishes as your editors wrote - that is all i meant

i thought it was clear... maybe i should have been clarer but was not my intention to be rude or provocative obviously since i had written i would reply next week

regards

gabriele

Michael Albert replied after a few minutes:

From: Michael Albert
To: Gabriele Zamparini
CC: editor@medialens.org
Subject: RE: FW: A new public reply to Michael Albert
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007

This is what you sent me:

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your email

I'm not in London at the moment and can't reply or publish your reply on my blog. I'll get back to it once i'm back next week.

Please, one little detail I'd like you to pass to your editors right away. Your editors write: "Zamparini would have to ask Chalabi why he does or doesn’t do what Zamparini wishes…" Please, tell your editors that Zamparini wishes to read on ZNet not lies and propaganda. I hope this is not too much to ask.

Best wishes,

Gabriele

----

As to getting upset with you – that is not exactly my state of mind. More, I suppose I am sad that a fellow radical behaves as you choose to, and that feeling is not due to this note alone, but the whole process, including material quoted in the letter I just sent you, of which I could have quoted quite a bit more.

As to your comment –

My editors didn’t write anything – we have no editors. There are two people who work on znet full time, myself and chris Spannos, and some people who help as volunteers. So, in other words – you do your blog – and two of us do the whole of ZNet, among other things. You may have time for this, I don’t.

If you think the last sentence is civil and worthy of political exchange, and likewise for the rest of your assertions, so be it. That you do is half of why I have no more interest in communicating with you. The other half is that there is simply nothing to communicate about – no substance worthy of more time, or even the time given so far. There are your hyperbolic claims, bearing no relations to reality, and deserving no reply. And there is nothing else. Thus, I believe we are finished.

Since you are ccing content to media lens, why don’t you ask them whether they think znet is a repository of propaganda and lies, cares not for the Iraqi people, etc. etc.

Finally, this was my last reply to Michal Albert on Friday, 31 August 2007:

From: Gabriele Zamparini
Sent: Friday, August 31
To: Michael Albert
Cc: editor@medialens.org
Subject: RE: FW: A new public reply to Michael Albert

thanks Michael,

as i already wrote you, i really have no time to reply you with the care i'd like to at the moment but I will next week

about asking media lens, etc... i am not interested in trials to anyone's conscience... there are two cases here, i presented them with care, arguments and these two cases have at the centre numbers... in both cases, those numbers are the result of propaganda... znet published the first numbers and when asked refused to issue a serious correction in the first case; in the second case znet published those numbers and when i pointed out the sectarian propagandistic nature of them and asked for relieable sources of them, finally all i got was:

"Zamparini would have to ask Chalabi why he does or doesn’t do what Zamparini wishes…ZNet has a staff of two, however, and is not about reworking or further exploring the content of all 3000 or so articles that go online yearly, or even just a subset that Zamparini chooses, other than by publishing useful explorations of the issues as they are submitted by authors focused on respective topics. . "

In my many pieces I have given the reason why those numbers seem at present dangerous sectarian propaganda... it has nothing to do with zamparini's wishes, as it was pointed out by your reply, but with facts... i have been asking znet and chalabi to give the sources of those numbers many times since January when znet published that article...

the seriousness of both these two issues cannot be dismissed as you do... in both cases readers came to znet to have real information and to know the truth and not propaganda.... in both cases those readers could not get real information nor the truth... in these two cases those readers have been deceived

there are two specific cases here that i seriously question... the rest of znet's performance has nothing to do with these two cases....

as i wrote, i will reply with much more care when i am back in london

best wishes,

gabriele

I'm back in London today.

In my numerous pieces [see below for the References] I have documented two cases of lies and propaganda published by ZNet. I challenged Michael Albert and ZNet and I questioned the numbers given in two different articles published originally by ZNet. In both cases, those numbers are the result of propaganda exercises. In both cases, ZNet and Michael Albert have helped to spread lies and propaganda.

In the first case, the ZNet’s article read:

“And dead Iraqis there are. An estimated 68, 347 and 74,753 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the military intervention, according to the log of reported deaths kept by Iraq Body Count. In the chaos of occupation and civil war, this is invariably a conservative figure.” [We Are All Living on Planet Hiroshima, Mark T. Harris, ZNet, August 07, 2007]

I started to email daily Mark T. Harris, ZNet’s Michael Albert and other activists and intellectuals on Wednesday, 8 August 2007. Other people have emailed in the following days. [You may read all my correspondence with Harris and Albert here]

After four days of emails, ZNet’s Editors added the following note at the bottom of Harris’ article:

[ZNet Editors Note: A Media Lens letter to the author points out "Iraq Body Count (IBC) does not record numbers of 'Iraqi civilians [who] have died as a result of the military intervention'. That would include figures for deaths from disease, malnutrition, infant mortality, accidents due to collapse of infrastructure, etc. IBC only records Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of violence, and of these only deaths that have been reported by mostly Western media that are mostly unable to function in Iraq." They go on to point out that the article does not mention the "peer-reviewed science of the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies produced by some of the world's leading epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins and published in the world's leading science journal." End note.]

I have called ZNet's Editors Note an "insulting farce" and that is really the least one can say. In a paragraph starting with "And dead Iraqis there are", both ZNet and ZNet's author have not given ZNet's readers the findings of the only serious, scientific studies conducted by the world leaders in the field of epidemiology and published as peer-reviewed scientific papers in the world's leading medical journal. With their Note, ZNet's Editors chose to ignore those scientific findings to favour the propaganda coming from Iraq Body Count. One needs only to add that Iraq Body Count has been carrying out a three year long campaign to discredit the two Lancet studies and its authors. For just one of the many, many, many examples of this pernicious IBC's campaign, see a very meaningful observation posted by Media Lens' Editors on their message board today

Michael Albert and the other ZNet's Editors should consider that the one million plus Iraqi deaths is a conservative estimate. To this, one needs to add the four million Iraqi displaced, the unknown numbers of maimed and missing persons, the effetcs of depleted uranium, etc.

In other words, the difference between Iraq Body Count’s figures of 70,000 (more or less) and reality is the difference between a four year long war and genocide.

The genocide is still going on and the government-media’s propaganda campaign to deny it is stronger than ever.

In the second case, I have also given the reasons and the arguments why ZNet and Chalabi published very important numbers that - without any reliable source - must be considered sectarian propaganda. Those reasons and arguments are explained and illustrated in Dissent this! - Part 1: ZNet between numbers and parallels, Once upon a time in Iraq… A Nobel Peace Prize for the Anglo-American Peacekeepers?, Alice in Wonderland – ZNet and the art of numbers, and The tip of the iceberg

I have nothing to comment on Michael Albert's tone and ad hominem attacks. Asking reasonable questions motivated by reasonable arguments has become an unforgivable sin in some quarters on the left. It’s not my job to speculate on ZNet and Michael Albert’s reasons behind these two cases. I have only registered these two cases, given my arguments and asked my questions. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

I apologise to my readers for the excessive length of this blog entry. I would have preferred if Michael Albert had replied right away to my two questions and published his reply on ZNet. Obviously he doesn’t consider these two questions important enough for ZNet’s readers.

Finally, I would like to thank many readers who wrote me in private or posted their comments on my blog. I want to reassure these readers: There are really many people who agree with my arguments and support my two questions to Albert and ZNet. I know that some of these people happen to be well known intellectuals, journalists and activists. I may only hope they too will find the time to voice their point of view publicly.

References

Dissent this! - Part 1: ZNet between numbers and parallels, Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog, 30 January 2007

Once upon a time in Iraq… A Nobel Peace Prize for the Anglo-American Peacekeepers?, Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog, 17 July 2007

Once upon a time in Iraq… Money makes the world go around, Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog, 23 July 2007

ZNet, Iraq Body Count and that omerta on the left, Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog, 8 August 2007

The Guardian vs. ZNet – a case study for Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog, 14 August 2007

Alice in Wonderland – ZNet and the art of numbers, Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog, 20 August 2007

The tip of the iceberg, Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat's Blog, 28 August 2007