What the Independent says... and what it omits

Dear Richard Garner,
Education Editor
The Independent

In your latest Independent article you write:

“Conservative estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the invasion stand at around 85,000.”

This so-called “conservative estimate” (coming from Iraq Body Count, even though you didn’t mention the source) is NOT an estimate but a simple count based mainly on Western media. As Education Editor, you should know there is nothing scientific about Iraq Body Count and, always as Education Editor, you should know there are serious scientific studies on this issue a serious newspaper should refer to if its aim were offering serious information to its readers. (Please, see below for the links to these studies)

It’s dreadful that after five years the US and UK governments illegally invaded Iraq, committing the supreme international crime for which the major Nazi war criminals were hanged in Nuremberg, the Independent is still hiding the truth to the public. The shame is total considering the title of your article, “Iraq: teachers told to rewrite history” and the title of its second part, “What the MoD's guide says... and what it omits”. Paraphrasing your words, I would say:

“Iraq: journalists told to rewrite history” and “What the Independent says... and what it omits”.

I’m sorry if this e-mail may sound bitter to your eyes, but after five years of lies and omissions coming from mainstream media (including your Independent), your readers are sick and tired of this disinformation and propaganda responsible for huge crimes against humanity.

Education is a serious thing. Please honor the title you have at the Independent and stop rewriting history.

Sincerely,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

1) The sudies conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad and published on the British medical journal The Lancet

2) The studies conducted by British ORB

September 2007 – More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered

January 2008 - Update on Iraqi Casualty Data

***

REPLY FROM INDEPENDENT'S RICHARD GARNER

Dear Gabriele


Thank you for your abusive email.

Actually, the inset on the second page to which you refer wasn't written by me but by our defence correspondent. The word "conservative" means an underestimate so he was tacitly agreeing with you that the casualties are higher.

also, I do think that if you think the piece written by me was a pro-war rant and not critical of the Ministry of Defence, you need your head examined..

Richard Garner

***

MY REPLY TO INDEPENDENT'S RICHARD GARNER

Dear Richard,

Thank you for your reply.

I’m sorry you feel that my email was “abusive”. I don’t agree on this, please could you point out exactly which word/sentence you consider “abusive”?

Thank you for informing me that that part of the article was written by the defence correspondent. The only problem is that the Independent readers (I am one of them) were not told and found only your name on that article.

I know the meaning of “conservative”. I wonder why the Independent decided to use the “conservative” figures coming from the amateurish IBC instead of the conservative figures (but scientific) coming from serious studies published on scientific, peer review journals. Besides, writing 85,000 when the figure could be well over 1.2 million... Well, I leave at you any comment you may have on this but surely the word “conservative” sounds ridiculous in this context.

I didn’t write anything about your piece not being critical of the MoD. My email was a precise, rational, documented criticism about one single point.

Please, feel free to forward my emails to the Independent’s defence correspondent.

Thank you again for your time

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

REPLY FROM INDEPENDENT'S RICHARD GARNER

Dear Gabriele

You did call my integrity into account. I call that abusive.

I do agree weith you, though, that I would have preferred Kim Sengupta's piece to have had his byline on it.

Richard garner

***

MY REPLY TO INDEPENDENT RICHARD GARNER

Thank you Richard.

If I had known that the point in question was not written by you but by Kim Sengupta, I would have written (that very same email) to him. Maybe you should complaint with your Editors.

I wonder what Kim Sengupta has to say (if anything) on the point I make in my original e-mail.

Thank you for your replies. I do appreciate your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

***

email to Kim Sengupta, defence and diplomatic correspondent, the Independent

Dear Kim Sengupta,
defence and diplomatic correspondent, the Independent

I hope you’re well.

I had an interesting email exchange with your colleague Richard Garner. You may read all our exchange here

I have also posted it on Medialens message board

I wonder why you keep referring to the amateurish IBC’s figures instead of to the scientific data available:

1) The sudies conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad and published on the British medical journal The Lancet

2) The studies conducted by British ORB

September 2007 – More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered

January 2008 - Update on Iraqi Casualty Data

Your piece on the Independent is particularly dreadful, especially considering the title you chose: “What the MoD's guide says... and what it omits”

A more suitable title would be: “What the Independent says... and what it omits”

Thank you for your time

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini