NON-NEWS NEWS

I find it interesting how a group can dump into the news media its propoganda in the form of a scientific-sounding "study" or "paper", which the media then uncritically regurgitates to the public as fact.  That happened yesterday on the front page of the Grand Rapids Press.

Under the headline "Report puts violent deaths in Iraq at 600,000", the Press recycled a short article from the Los Angeles Times that a "team of researchers" published an estimate that 601,027 Iraqis have died violent deaths since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.  Setting aside how the number 601,027 seems rather precise for an estimate, the article makes no mention of the methodology of these researchers.  Nor does it state the estimates of this figure from other sources.  Moreover, the article does not report the relationship of the researchers with anti-war organizations.

Finally, there is no attempt in the article to make this estimate comprehensible to the reader.  For example, 601,027 violent deaths since March 2003 means 470 Iraqis have been killed EVERY single day.  That is not a level of carnage that news media, even as lazy and sloppy as I think most in the business are, would have missed.  Yet the Press passes along the figure as front-page news because some professor says it's so.  This is not news and does not belong in the newspaper.

Comments

[tommy times]

I don't agree with all your criticisms.

"Nor does it state the estimates of this figure from other sources." The article reports, "...officials ... said it vastly overstated the fatalities. But the U.S military has not released figures of its own." The report also said the military has reported that daily averages of dead and wounded Iraqis has risen from 26 a day in 2004 to 120 a day in 2006. Interestingly, this five fold increase is roughly similar to the four fold increase in annual deaths per 1000 people reported by the Johns Hopkins study.

The article included the Bush administration's estimate of 30000 civilian casulties in 2005, and the original LA Times article included estimates of civilian casulties from Iraq Body Count and an LA Times report. Note the Hopkins study is an estimate of all deaths, including insurgents and armed forces, not just civilians.

The original LA Times article described the methodology, and included one apparently independent comment supporting the methodology and one apparently independent comment criticizing it.

I believe that the study reported a fairly wide range of possibilities for the number of deaths, from about 400 something thousand to 700 something thousand, and this was not reported in the LA Times report.

So: some of what you critcize as missing is in the Press edited version, some is in the LA Times report but not in the Press, and some is not even in the LA Times report. Of course, for the full scoop you need to go to the original source, the Lancet article.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Tommy.

Thanks for the information.

As you point out the G.R. Press article was slim on the facts, and the G.R. Press was the object of my criticism. While I am dubious of the study itself (as I understand it, it is based upon anecdotal evidence), that is secondary to the poor way (indeed, the very fact) that the Press reported it.

Regards, Bill

[tommy times]

(I just saw your reply while previewing this addition to my previous post.)

I had to go to a soccer game.

According to the Lancet article, the 95% confidence interval for the number of deaths due to violence was 426,369–793,663. Although most people do not know what a 95% C.I. is, the range would have given readers some feeling for the precision of the estimate.

Given the omissions in the reports, I would give the Press a D and the Time a B for the quality of the reports they printed.

Journals like the Lancet have a rigorous review process. This does not guarantee perfection in what is published, but it generally ensures that total garbage does not make it into print. Even if the report is flawed, it is certainly news. Also, the study is not anecdotal.

I recommend that everyone read the study at www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf. Some interesting items: Their survey included 1849 households with 12801 members. The number of post invasion deaths from violent causes reported by the members was 300. Overall number of deaths reported was 629. Surveyors asked for death certificates in 545 cases, and certificates were present in 501 cases. After the authors' previous report in 2004, they asked for an independent study of excess mortality in Iraq, but none has been done.

[Brandon]

I'm the furthest thing from an expert in statistics, so I lack the wherewithal to argue intelligently on either side of the debate. But I'm curious about the motivation behind why this story in particular was singled out for commentary on the LAW. On almost any given day there's at least one story in the GR Press that deserves all manner of righteous criticism, so why this one?

Your dismissal of the report's findings as little more than "propaganda" that was "dumped" into various media outlets by people or groups that have ties to anti-war organizations seems to indicate a subtle (or not?) contempt for anything that might illustrate the futility and gross immorality of this war (to say nothing of the incompetence with which it has been executed).

Assuming for a moment that your criticisms are fair and accurate -- and I'm not saying they aren't -- just how far off the mark IS 601,027, anyway? Are there half as many deaths in Iraq? A third? Even if the true figure is one-sixth of that estimate -- 100,000 people -- I find that to be a staggering and incomprehensible number of deaths in a war for which I have yet to see anyone provide a discernibly credible reason for our having started in the first place.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Brandon.

You asked why I criticized this Press article when so many of them deserve scrutiny. I could ask why you choose to comment on this particular post in L.A.W.

Obviously the issue of casualties in Iraq is important. We both recognize that. The carnage in that country is appalling, but the Press article did a very poor job of giving us any real facts about it.

It is because the number of casualties merits our notice, the Press deserves criticism for an article that hypes a figure without giving us any basis for understanding it.

Regards, Bill

[The Executive Director]

Thanks for giving us and our readers the link, Tommy.

Regards, Bill

[tyrone slothrop]

You say that 600,000 Iraqis did not die violent deaths since our invasion. You can provide evidence for this (?).

I say that 600,000 Iraqis did die violent deaths thanks to our invasion. I can present evidence.

Let's agree to disagree.