BBC News Director Helen Boaden's reply RE: Paxman’s connection w/British American Project

Dear Mr Zamparini

As explained by Andrew Martin in his email of March 3rd, your complaint about Jeremy Paxman’s connection with the British American Project has been escalated to divisional level for a Stage 2 response.

If I may summarize your concerns, you believe that Mr Paxman’s association with the BAP gives rise to a conflict of interest and “casts serious concerns about his ability – as a BBC journalist – to remain objective and neutral on many important topics.” You cite in support of your view a section from the BBC’s Conflict of Interest guidelines:

Presenters and reporters primarily associated with the BBC.
Those known to the public primarily as presenters of, or reporters on, BBC news programmes or programmes about current affairs, must be seen to be impartial. It is important that no off-air activity, including writing, the giving of interviews or the making of speeches, leads to any doubt about their objectivity on-air. If such presenters or reporters publicly express personal views off-air on controversial issues, then their on-air role may be severely compromised. It is crucial that in both their BBC work and in non BBC activities such as writing, speaking or giving interviews, they do not state how they vote or express support for any political party express views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate advocate any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate exhort a change in high profile public policy.
If, in an exceptional case, such a presenter or reporter writes or speaks off-air in favour of one position on an issue of current public controversy, this could give rise to concerns about impartiality. The relevant Director or Head of Department should give very careful consideration as to whether there is an actual conflict of interest and whether they should declare their interest on-air or not present items or conduct interviews on the issue.

Permission must be sought from the relevant Director, Head of Department or their nominee before outside writing or speaking commitments are undertaken about current affairs or matters of current public controversy or debate.(See section 3 below).

In your email of February 2nd, you suggest that the fact that the British American Project is non-party political is not relevant in this context. But, in my view, it is entirely pertinent; amongst its members and associates, the BAP brings together people from a wide range of political viewpoints and professional backgrounds who meet in order to pursue a dialogue. I do not believe that Jeremy Paxman is a very active member of the organisation (indeed it came as a surprise to him that his picture was being used on their website) but, even if he were, it can only be helpful for presenters to be informed about all sorts of different perspectives.

It seems to me that the nub of your concern is the fact that the BAP “exists to help maintain and enrich the long-standing relationship between Britain and the United States” and you compare it with a notional pre-1989 Polish Russian Project which seeks to promote soviet communism. But such an analogy is false as the thrust of the BAP is about exploring the British-American relationship, “.. one which we believe is important, whether challenged or celebrated through time.” And membership of the BAP does not mean that interlocutors are therefore against their countries’ relationships with different countries.

In conclusion, I do not think there is any conflict of interest in the way you suggest and I hope that I have addressed your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News

***

I'm grateful to Helen Boaden for this reply. Just a few comments:

"I do not believe that Jeremy Paxman is a very active member of the organisation (indeed it came as a surprise to him that his picture was being used on their website) but, even if he were, it can only be helpful for presenters to be informed about all sorts of different perspectives."

This is rich. Maybe too rich. Why does Boaden feel she has to specify that Paxman is not "a very active member of the organisation"? The second part of the paragraph is hilarious: should then all BBC journalists be part of BAP "to be informed about all sorts of different perspectives"? Which "different perspective" I wonder. Besides, these BAP guys must be really naughty if they used Paxman's picture on their website's homepage to propagandise their network without asking Paxman first.

"It seems to me that the nub of your concern is the fact that the BAP “exists to help maintain and enrich the long-standing relationship between Britain and the United States” and you compare it with a notional pre-1989 Polish Russian Project which seeks to promote soviet communism. But such an analogy is false as the thrust of the BAP is about exploring the British-American relationship, “.. one which we believe is important, whether challenged or celebrated through time.” And membership of the BAP does not mean that interlocutors are therefore against their countries’ relationships with different countries."

In other words, "the analogy is false" because we are the good guys. I'm sure the Director of the Polish TV pre-1989 would agree with Helen Boaden.

BBC Editorial Guidelines reads:

"Presenters of News and Current Affairs programmes
In the case of those known to the public primarily as presenters of, or reporters on, BBC news programmes and programmes about current affairs, there is a greater possibility of conflict of interest. Care must be taken to ensure that they remain impartial when speaking publicly (see section 2.1 above) and do not promote any political party, campaigning organisation or lobby group which may jeopardise their status as an impartial broadcaster. The chairing of conferences may well be acceptable, but it is essential that the conference is not a promotional exercise or one-sided on an issue of public controversy. They should consult the relevant Head of Department about the suitability of public appearances and conference work. The onus is on the presenters and reporters to inform the relevant Head of Department about the range of public appearances which they undertake."

I wonder why the BBC has these rules if then they do not care to apply them. Just another case where the rule of law is good for you but not for us. This is the BBC, paid for by our money.

***

This was my e-mail to Andrew Martin, Divisional Advisor, BBC Complaints:

Dear Andrew Martin,
Divisional Advisor
BBC Complaints

Thank you very much for your reply.

I understand that BAP is non-party political but this has nothing to do with my complaint. Again, the BBC Editorial Guidelines reads:

"Presenters of News and Current Affairs programmes
In the case of those known to the public primarily as presenters of, or
reporters on, BBC news programmes and programmes about current affairs,
there is a greater possibility of conflict of interest. Care must be
taken to ensure that they remain impartial when speaking publicly (see
section 2.1 above) and do not promote any political party, campaigning
organisation or lobby group which may jeopardise their status as an
impartial broadcaster. The chairing of conferences may well be
acceptable, but it is essential that the conference is not a promotional
exercise or one-sided on an issue of public controversy. They should
consult the relevant Head of Department about the suitability of public
appearances and conference work. The onus is on the presenters and
reporters to inform the relevant Head of Department about the range of
public appearances which they undertake."

In your reply you mentioned that the BAP is non-party political but the BBC guidelines expressly mention - together with “political party” - “campaigning organisation or lobby group”.

Jeremy Paxman is a very well known and well respected BBC's journalist and the BBC is a public service paid for by public money.

This money comes from people who may or may not appreciate the British American Project, may or may not share its ideology and the role of some of its members have had in recent events (just one name, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects of the illegal invasion of Iraq).

Paxman's membership to such a project casts serious concerns about his ability - as a BBC's journalist - to remain objective and neutral on many important topics, especially when those topics may include the BAP and its affiliates and projects.

The fact that the BBC Editorial Policy Unit do not feel Jeremy's involvement represents a conflict of interest, far from explaining and reassuring, adds concerns on the role of the BBC in providing a fair, impartial, honest and non-ideological information, where all points of views are treated equally.

Your reply strongly confirms the view of those who see in the BBC an ideological institution and its journalism - in spite of the professionalism and honesty of BBC's journalists - permeated of that ideology.

In a secular, open society, why those people who do not share that ideology are called to support it with their money? Is it the role of a modern, secular State to provide an ideological information? That’s called indoctrination and has nothing to do with presenting the paying viewers with facts and opinions.

It seems that the conflict of interest is so grave that even the BBC Editorial Policy Unit cannot see it; maybe because even that Unit share that ideology? Imagine if one of the most famous Polish journalists working for the national broadcasting service in Poland in the '70s had joined a Polish Russian Project and given his face to propagandize that Project. Probably a Polish broadcasting service Editorial Policy Unit would not feel that journalist's involvement represented a conflict of interest... Then the Wall fell.

Thank you for your reply but I feel the BBC still has a grave conflict of interest problem to resolve.

Respectfully,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

***

See also Official complaint to the BBC about Paxman and the British-American Project

An exchange with Assistant Guardian Editor Michael White

Michael White - assistant editor of the Guardian and its political editor from 1990-2006 - replied to my piece When life doesn't count. The Iraq Body Count's genocide denial and the grave responsibility of the anti-war movement

From: michael.white@guardian.co.uk
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008
To: info@thecatsdream.com
Subject: Re: When life doesn't count. The Iraq Body Count's genocide denial and the grave responsibility of the anti-war movement

Thanks for your email about the casualty rate in Iraq. I read it with interest, a complex subject which arouses strong emotions as well as difficult technical arguments about data and methodology which few of us (certainly not me) can claim to understand.

One thing I do understand and would warn you against is making vehement and abusive comments about people of good will with whom you disagree. I know little about the IBC or the people who run it, but I do not think it wise - let alone decent - to impugn their motives which are probably not so different from your own. Abuse of the kind you utter points to a sectarian outlook which is damaging - especially to you.

best wishes

This is my reply:

Thanks Michael.

Are you the same Michael White - assistant editor of the Guardian and its political editor from 1990-2006 - who wrote:

A serious note of caution
I have two problems with the Lancet's headline-grabbing estimates of Iraqi casualties
By Michael White
October 12, 2006

In this piece you wrote:

“I have two problems. Firstly, the figures offered by the study range from 392,976 to 942,636, so the 655,000 estimate splits the difference. This is both strikingly imprecise (not necessarily avoidable), and also at variance with other estimates, both governmental and more disinterested. The Observer's Peter Beaumont, who explained the horrifying murder campaign against professional Iraqi women on Sunday, sets out the numbers in today's Guardian: 98,000 (US researchers), 128,000 (Iraqi NGOs).

Either way, that is appalling and the manner of the US-UK occupation, notably the abolition of internal security without adequate ground forces to sustain law and order against criminal and ''resistance'' forces, has much to answer for: one third, according to the Lancet. One goal of the invasion was to end the loss of Iraqi civilian life - 500,000 on some estimates - caused by the UN sanctions imposed to stop Saddam Hussein troubling his neighbours again.

My second problem arises from Lancet editor, Richard Horton's, commentary in today's Guardian. It transpires that he has views on Iraq, the invasion of 2003 and what will put things right: the withdrawal of US and other coalition forces. This is a leap of logic which seems quite brave. But it would allow a lot of people to sit back and wash their hands of what happens next. When you can't blame the Yanks it's less fun.”

Invasion was the least worst option
One way or another most of us got it wrong about Iraq
By Michael White
March 20, 2008

In this piece you wrote:

“It will not be enough to spare the paper attacks from people for whom the bad news cannot be bad enough. When I queried the Lancet/Johns Hopkins estimate of a likely 600,000 dead in 2006, as being improbably out of line with all other data, I got a kicking. Others still share my view. I stand by it.”

Yet in your e-mail to me you write:

“a complex subject which arouses strong emotions as well as difficult technical arguments about data and methodology which few of us (certainly not me) can claim to understand.”

If you don’t understand this complex subject, how could you write on the Guardian (assuming you are the same Michael White) against the Lancet study? If you don’t understand this complex subject, I wonder what your “I stand by it” really means.

The second part of your e-mail seems almost a threat; certainly the best way I have to answer to it is to invite good faith readers to read again what I wrote and draw their own conclusions. But it beggar belief that the word “decent” is used by people who have the audacity to write – five years and far more than one million slaughtered lives later – that “Invasion was the least worst option”.

This genocide could have never happened if so many so-called professional journalists and so-called “mainstream” media outlets had been honest and decent (yes, decent!) and had informed your readers instead of echoing the government’s lies and indoctrinating the public with propaganda.

No wonder you’re still trying to justify this genocide by denying it.

What a shame!

Gabriele Zamparini

***

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE:

From: michael.white@guardian.co.uk
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008
To: "The Cat's Dream"
Subject: Re: When life doesn't count. The Iraq Body Count's genocide denial and the grave responsibility of the anti-war movement

yes, of course, there is only one of me: and that's why I am keen that you
not fall out with yr friends, you are on the same side basically; and it is
silly to abuse people and impugn their motives just because you disagree
with their conclusions. best wishes

THIS IS MY REPLY:

Thanks Michael for your reply and for your time.

You're right. It would be silly to abuse people and impugn their motives just because I disagree with their opinions. But this is not what I have done. It's not even a question of friends or sides or political parties.

The US media watch FAIR wrote a couple of days ago:

"There is no more important question about the Iraq War than the question of how many Iraqis have died. It is impossible to truly evaluate the war or discuss where to go from here without knowing the human cost of the war, and that cost has overwhelmingly been borne by Iraqis."

In your email yesterday you wrote: "a complex subject which arouses strong emotions as well as difficult technical arguments about data and methodology which few of us (certainly not me) can claim to understand."

You are absolutely right Michael, this certainly is a difficult topic. For this very reason, do you think it's reasonable to write about such incredibly important and difficult issues when you admit yourself you lack the expertise? Of course journalists can't be expected to know everything, but shouldn't you be reaching out to experts in epidemiology to help you get these things right? Is there any chance you might write a second, more accurate piece after consulting with these experts?

The name Galileo should always remind us that science must be free and protected from political and ideological interferences. Only the light of reason can help us against the darkness that, far from being defeated, is always there to make fun of us. I include here below a few useful resources. I appeal to your reason and I'm sorry if with my email yesterday I hurt your feelings. I assure you that was not my intention.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

- Lancet study authors Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham have written an informative piece on Iraq mortality studies, available at the website for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School for Public Health: Answers to Questions About Iraq Mortality Surveys

- MIT's John Tirman, who commissioned the second of the two Lancet studies, has answered critics of those studies, including what looks like a media campaign of disinformation

- Regarding the WHO study estimate of 151,000 deaths, Les Roberts has noted that there is more in common with the Lancet results than first appears, while he also points to a likely under-reporting of violent deaths in the WHO study AND here

- Spagat's "50-page research paper" is a non-refereed, unpublished document that he uploaded to his own website. Serious flaws, including deceptive cherry-picking of data, have been identified by statistician Tim Lambert at his Deltoid blog

***

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE:

From: michael.white@guardian.co.uk
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008
To: "The Cat's Dream"
Subject: partisanship

thanks for the further note and the links which I am in the process of studying further. I have kept an eye on the controversy over the months and agree that it is important to establish what happened and why - though I sometimes wish that more attention was devoted to the terrible, avoidable and persistent loss of life in the Congo and elsewhere.

In this instance, my own stated scepticism rests on experience ofseeing sincere progressive people believing something because they wish to believe it. In the 30s it was that Stalin's purges were justified, just as well into the 70s we told each other that the Chinese CP had avoided the errors of the CPSU - no purges, mass murders etc. Sceptics were lumped in with rightwing propagandists and Simon Leys book, Chinese Shadows, was roundly abused.

It turned out not to be so, Sometimes we are better at condemning the west than at taking a cold hard look at its opponents. That's why I ask questions without claiming to have the answers myself....

regards

MY REPLY:

Thank you Michael for your reply and for giving this issue the due attention.

Did you know that Les Roberts, a world renowned epidemiologist and lead author of the Lancet’s on Iraq, worked also in Congo for the International Rescue Committee? From a Media Lens Alert in 2005:

...in 2000 Roberts began the first of three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in which he used methods akin to those of the Iraq study. Roberts' first survey estimated that an astonishing 1.7 million people had died in Congo over 22 months of armed conflict - on average 2,600 people were dying every day. The IRC's president, Reynold Levy, put the figures in perspective:

“It's as if the entire population of Houston was wiped off the face of the Earth in a matter of months.” (Hrvoje Hranjski and Victoria Brittain, ‘2,600 a day dying in Congolese war,’ The Guardian, June 10, 2000)

As Roberts says, the reaction could not have been more different:

"Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity." (Quoted, Lila Guterman, ‘Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored,’ The Chronicle Of Higher Education, January 27, 2005; http://chronicle.com/free/2005/01/2005012701n.htm)

Indeed, within a month of Roberts’ IRC report being published, the UN Security Council passed a resolution that all foreign armies must leave Congo, and later that year, the United Nations called for $140 million in aid to the country, more than doubling its previous annual request. Citing the study, the US State Department announced an additional $10 million for emergency programmes in Congo.

In his October 2001 speech to the Labour party conference, Tony Blair said the international community could resolve many of the world’s worst conflicts:

“It could, with our help, sort out the blight that is the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where three million people have died through war or famine in the last decade.” (‘Part one of the speech by prime minister, Tony Blair, at the Labour Party conference,’ The Guardian, October 2, 2001)

The three million figure was produced by Roberts’ study using essentially the same methodology employed in Iraq. And yet, in rejecting the Lancet report out of hand, Blair told parliament:

“Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is.” (David Hughes, ‘No inquiry into Iraq death toll, says Blair,’ Daily Mail, December 9, 2004

AND

“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)

I agree we should condemn mass violence and abuses of human rights every where and from wherever side they come. I’m horrified from what’s happening in Tibet where Chinese brutality needs to be condemned and the Tibetans helped in their non-violent efforts to resolve that conflict through dialogue and peaceful means, as repeatedly asked by the Dalai lama.

I believe our condemnation of violence must be even stronger when it’s our own governments to be responsible for huge crimes against humanity, as it’s in Iraq.

Thank you again Michael for being open to dialogue and for the time you’ll dedicate to this important issue.

I will CC this e-mail to Media Lens and Les Roberts.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

How big is the Animal Farm?

Kim Sengupta is the Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent of The Independent. On 14 March 2008 he authored the second part of an article which curiously had only the signature of his colleague Richard Garner, Education Editor at The Independent. On that article, Sengupta wrote:

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

You can read more about this here.

An ordinary example of how the state-corporate media keep denying the Iraq genocide and - by doing so - help the carnage to continue.

Nothing new, of course. The genocide denial business is the first priority of Washington and London. They cannot allow the public opinion in the US and UK (and the rest of the West) to know the extent of the horror they brought to Iraq. The word GENOCIDE still has a very strong appeal among the public and GENOCIDE is what Washington and London are responsible for.

If we had a serious anti-war movement, the main UK anti-war group would organise a boycott against all those media outlets that keep denying the Iraq genocide. The main UK anti-war group would campaign to inform the public opinion of the scale of the horror we brought to Iraq. Above all the main UK anti-war group would inform the UK public opinion of the propaganda campaign the major UK media outlets are carrying on against the UK people with the help of Iraq Body Count.

Instead Stop the War Coalition and Media Workers Against the War have invited Kim Sengupta, the Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent of The Independent, to a London rally called "HOW THE MEDIA SELLS WAR AND WHY".

There is something deeply wrong when the anti-war movement is giving an anti-war stage to genocide deniers. This is the same anti-war movement that kept silent over the Iraq Body Cont scandal, the source of that genocide denial Washington, London and their media use to carry on their agenda.

The question is: How big is the Animal Farm?

When life doesn’t count. The Iraq Body Count’s genocide denial and the grave responsibility of the anti-war movement

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." - George Orwell, Animal Farm

The state-corporate media in the West, including Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn’s Independent, keep using Iraq Body Count (IBC) to deny the Iraq genocide the governments of the United States and United Kingdom have been inflicting upon the Iraqi people.

It seems Stop the War Coalition UK welcomes IBC’s co-founder John Sloboda within its ranks but it keeps quiet on the IBC scandal. Are they silent because Sloboda is part of Stop the War Coalition? Are they silent because Stop the War don't want to address the state-corporate media problem? I would like to know, and I guess many others.

IBC - a bunch of amateurs with no scientific background - have been doing all they could to denigrate serious scientific studies published on peer reviewed journals. Through press releases, articles and interviews to the BBC, CNN and other state-corporate media all over the world, IBC gave the most precious help to the warmongers in Washington and London; genocide is what Washington and London are responsible for and their first propaganda priority is to deny this genocide. Iraq Body Count has been actively helping the warmongers and the state-corporate media in this genocide denial business.

The anti-war movement in the United States and in the United Kingdom has a very grave responsibility in helping Iraq Body Count to carry on this genocide denial.

ZNet stopped publishing my articles since I started to write about Iraq Body Count. Michael Albert wrote to one of his correspondents that I was “contemptable”. I wonder if he ever used this term to describe what his friends at IBC were doing. It took me dozens of e-mails to United for Peace and Justice, ZNet, Michael Albert, Phyllis Bennis, Antiwar.com and many, many others before they stopped using the IBC’s misleading data to focus instead on the serious scientific studies they would keep ignoring. Yet, Michael Albert’s ZNet still has IBC propaganda online.

In the United Kingdom, Stop the War Coalition, the most important anti-war group, has never been interested in this Iraq Body Count scandal. Every time this issue was brought to their attention, the usual reply from an old manual: IBC is not the enemy. What that's supposed to mean is unclear but it sounds well, isn’t it? Stop the War should know better: the real enemy here is the Propaganda; human beings are never enemies!

The celebrations for the fifth anniversary of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq are over but the genocide continues and so does the genocide denial coming from the warmongers and the state-corporate media. Iraq Body Count is the main source of this genocide denial. Why is the anti-war movement still silent on the Iraq Body Count scandal?

This anti-war movement has been a complete failure and most of its leadership is pathetic, at best. One can't help to think that this anti-war movement has been more a business or something to manage dissent than an instrument of change. Millions of people in the US and UK do believe in it and do want change but the leadership of this anti-war movement is the problem and makes me think of the end of George Orwell's Animal Farm.

How can Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockburn and colleagues remain silent?

The state-corporate media keep deceiving you. While celebrating five years of media failure with books, articles, comments, TV and radio shows and happy birthday cakes, the same media are hiding the Iraq genocide in the most dreadful way.

Here is today's Independent:

Iraq: Who won the war?
Not the 90,000 Iraqi civilians or the 4,200 US and UK troops killed since 2003. The big winners are the money men who have made billions. Raymond Whitaker and Stephen Foley report

The Independent
Sunday, 16 March 2008


(...) So, five years on, who can be said to have won the war? Certainly not Iraqi civilians, at least 90,000 of whom have died violently since 2003, at the most conservative estimate. Other studies have multiplied that figure by five or six.

How can Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn remain silent while their newspaper so shamefully participate to this genocide with lies and propaganda? How can all the professional, decent journalists at the Independent, the Guardian, the BBC and all over the media remain silent while their work is used to carry on this bloodbath?

Please, support a call for a media investigation over the issue of Iraq mortality estimates.

UPDATE - The same day, Patrick Cockburn signed another piece on the Independent. This is a comment Medialens' Editors posted on their message board:

Cockburn writes:

"The Iraqi government tries to give the impression that normality is returning. Iraqi journalists are told not to mention the continuing violence. When a bomb exploded in Karada district near my hotel, killing 70 people, the police beat and drove away a television cameraman trying to take pictures of the devastation. Civilian casualties have fallen from 65 Iraqis killed daily from November 2006 to August 2007 to 26 daily in February. But the fall in the death rate is partly because ethnic cleansing has already done its grim work and in much of Baghdad there are no mixed areas left."

Try working this out: the government is violently pressuring journalists to under-report the violence, and yet Cockburn writes confidently: "Civilian casualties have fallen from 65 Iraqis killed daily from November 2006 to August 2007 to 26 daily in February."

That's all he has to say of the impact of the invasion on civilians after 5 years. That's the beauty of our system - no beatings or physical pressure required.

Eds

e-mail to the Independent RE: A call for a media investigation over the issue of Iraq mortality estimates

Dear Kim Sengupta,
defence and diplomatic correspondent, the Independent

Dear Richard Garner,
education editor, the Independent

CC. Media Lens Editors

Dear Kim and Richard,

Following our e-mail exchange of yesterday, perhaps you could consider the issue of Iraq mortality estimates in more detail, maybe even investigate the attacks that have been made against serious scientific studies in the Lancet.

I have published more information, data and professional, informed comments on this issue on my blog. Please, be so kind to take a look

Thank you for all the time and the efforts you’ll dedicate to this subject.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

A call for a media investigation over the issue of Iraq mortality estimates

Following my e-mail exchange with the Independent on the so-called “human cost” of the Iraq war, a very curious website, Mediahell.org, [Please, see CORRECTION below] launched yet another hysterical crusade against concerned citizens who dared to reclaim the sacrosanct right to be honestly informed by the mainstream media and to speak out whenever this doesn’t happen.

I won’t comment on Mediahell.org peculiar “activism”. It’s always productive to listen to different points of view and to honestly try to understand the other’s reasons; it’s good to always challenge our own convictions: it helps us to not sit down but keep pushing on our limits to better know and understand the world around us and ourselves. Unfortunately for me, I have never found Mediahell.org challenging and the only thing I am left with whenever I happen to visit that website is a deep sense of sadness for their constant resort to bad faith, ad hominem attacks, personal slanders and other techniques used with the only purpose to confuse the readers and support indefensible, irrational positions for whatever reasons that may be. One good rebuttal of one of the many, many, many Mediahell.org crusades can be read here

I won’t comment on Mediahell.org hysteria then - life is really too short, besides I don’t believe in Hell – but it could be a good idea to give more resources to support the point I made in my exchange with the Independent:

1) Lancet study authors Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham have written an informative piece on Iraq mortality studies, available at the website for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School for Public Health.

2) MIT's John Tirman, who commissioned the second of the two Lancet studies, has answered critics of those studies, including what looks like a media campaign of disinformation

3) Regarding the WHO study estimate of 151,000 deaths, Les Roberts has noted that there is more in common with the Lancet results than first appears, while he also points to a likely under-reporting of violent deaths in the WHO study. [Also here]

4) Spagat's "50-page research paper" is a non-refereed, unpublished document that he uploaded to his own website (!!!) Serious flaws, including deceptive cherry-picking of data, have been identified by statistician Tim Lambert at his Deltoid blog.

For independent, brave, honest journalists who want to seriously report on what’s going on around the issue of Iraq mortality estimates, there is enough material to examine it in more detail, maybe even investigate the attacks that have been made against serious scientific studies in the Lancet.

Don't wait for the next celebration of media failure. As Martin Luther King, Jr said, “The time is always right to do what is right.”


UPDATE - CORRECTION: I agree with the criticism I received by the person who left the anonymous comment here below. I thought that post was from MediaHell's Editors. My mistake and I apologise to the MediaHell's Editors. I also would like to kindly invite MediaHell Editors to join me to call for a media investigation over this issue.

e-mail to Stop the War Coalition UK RE: Iraq Body Count

Dear Stop the War Coalition UK,

I hope all is well.

You may know that the UK+US governments and the mainstream media keep using Iraq Body Count [IBC] to deceive the public about the real “human cost” of the Iraq war (*).

Please, can you confirm if IBC’s co-founder John Sloboda is still a member of Stop the War Coalition UK?

Thank you

In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

(*) See for example:

- The Guardian and Iraq Body Count keep deceiving you

- What the Independent says... and what it omits

- The "human cost" of the Iraq War and IBC's co-founder John Sloboda's "gut feeling"

The Guardian and Iraq Body Count keep deceiving you

Dear Richard Norton-Taylor,
Guardian's security editor

In your latest piece on the Guardian, you write:

More than 89,300 civilians have been killed in Iraq since 2003, according to the latest tolls from the human rights group, Iraq Body Count (IBC). It is significantly less than the 650,000-plus deaths estimated in a study released in October 2006 by the Lancet medical journal. IBC says its data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures, to produce what it calls a "credible record of known deaths and incidents". The latest figures suggest the number of killings is falling, after reaching a high level for most of last year.

Please, may I ask you why you favored the amateurish IBC’s data over scientific studies published on peer reviewed journals? Also, why didn’t you report on the studies conducted by the serious British ORB?

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

Sincerely,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

***

Please, also read:

What the Independent says... and what it omits

The "human cost" of the Iraq War and IBC's co-founder John Sloboda's "gut feeling"

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

Open letter to Media Workers Against the War

Dear Media Workers Against the War friends,

Thank you for organizing the “Media After 5 Years in Iraq” rally on April 10

I read that among the speakers you invited independent journalist Dahr Jamail, The Guardian’s journalist Nick Davies and The Independent journalist Kim Sengupta.

I will certainly come to listen to my friend Dahr Jamail, a brave and really independent reporter whose work put to shame much of the mainstream media. However I was wondering why among the speakers there are not David Cromwell or David Edwards of Medialens.org who have been working for many years on this issue and could give an extremely interesting contribute to your rally.

Thank you for your time and for all your work

In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

Read also an e-mail I sent on February 28 to MEDIA WORKERS AGAINST THE WAR RE: Flat Earth News and Guardians of Power

The "human cost" of the Iraq War and IBC's co-founder John Sloboda's "gut feeling"

Dear friends,

REUTERS inform us, "The human cost is staggering -- anywhere between 90,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians killed, according to various estimates; nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead; while 4 million Iraqis are displaced." (...) "The latest tolls from the widely cited human rights group Iraq Body Count show up to 89,000 civilians have been killed since 2003. Research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups, however, puts the death toll at 1 million."

“Anywhere”? “Human rights group”? A group of amateurs (no scientists!) who have spent much of their time giving interviews to mainstream media to discredit the top scientific studies on this issue. On what basis? IBC's co-founder John Sloboda's "gut feeling"

Looking forward for the mainstream media to report on what astrologers and mediums have to tell us about the "human cost" of the war.

What is your “gut feeling” telling you?

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini