http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2778Media Advisory
Counting Iraqi Casualties
Why didn't the press ask?
12/16/05
Throughout the Iraq War, the mainstream media have shown little interest in documenting or quantifying the suffering of Iraqis. But a recent comment by George W. Bush provoked an unexpected round of discussion of the topic.
At the close of a public event on December 12, Bush took questions from the audience. And the very first question was unusually direct:
"I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis, I include civilians, military police, insurgents, translators."
Bush's response: "How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis."
Suddenly, major newspapers and broadcast outlets were engaged in an unexpected discussion about the human toll of the war for Iraqis. Reporters began to cite Iraq Body Count's tally of civilian deaths as a possible source for Bush's claim (USA Today, 12/14/05; CNN, 12/12/05).
Often overlooked was the fact that Iraq Body Count's research is limited to civilian deaths--not including insurgents or security forces, as asked by the questioner--and only those civilian deaths that were reported by the media. The resulting total, as the group acknowledges on its website, is therefore a low estimate: "It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."
A more scientific survey of total civilian deaths in Iraq that was published in the British medical journal The Lancet (10/29/04) suggested a much higher death toll of 100,000. But as FAIR pointed out in a March 21, 2005 Action Alert, media discussions of Iraqi casualties have tended to avoid or dismiss that higher estimate. The Lancet study was largely ignored by the mainstream press when it was released (This American Life, 10/28/05) and remains largely outside the realm of discussion a year later.
Some in the media seemed eager to congratulate Bush for even addressing the issue. On NPR's Morning Edition (12/13/05), Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said, "I give Mr. Bush credit for having given some information, and it shows that he's conscious of this very human toll of the war, so I think it was a good thing that he responded."
ABC reporter Claire Shipman (12/13/05) was also impressed, acknowledging that while "getting specific like that about extremely murky casualty figures can be a no-win political proposition," it could prove beneficial to Bush: "Now some have suggested it's a healthy sign that the president was so willing to get specific about the number of Iraqi dead, that it shows how closely he's following the cost of the war." Shipman went on to add: "So far, civilian casualties in Iraq don't at all approach those of the other big wars of the last century."
But the most interesting and perhaps obvious aspect of this incident has gone largely untouched: Why haven't reporters asked Bush this question yet? White House spokesman Scott McLellan has rarely had to answer questions about Iraqi deaths during his regular press briefings (a few exceptions have come from syndicated columnist Helen Thomas and progressive journalist Russell Mokhiber).
As media reports have suggested, the White House is not eager to talk about the deaths caused by its Iraq policy. But neither, it seems, is the press corps.
~~
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
