|
|
Forum
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
johnwhilley
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 692
Location: Glasgow
|
 Post subject: Exchange with Jon Snow re ORB Iraq death toll figures |
 |
|
Exchange with Jon Snow re ORB Iraq death toll figures
Dear Jon,
I wrote to you on Friday asking if Ch 4 News would be covering the just-released ORB findings of now over 1.2 million deaths in Iraq.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true
Your one word reply was: “Naturally!”
Could you please explain precisely what you meant by that reply, given that, to my knowledge, no such mention of this crucially damning figure has been made?
I find it, frankly, repugnant that Ch 4 News seem: (a) unaware of this key survey; and (b) apparently unwilling to accord this staggering loss of life due consideration.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes,
John Hilley
------------------------
John anyone who reports iraq is bound to be aware of every death toll assessment. alas no one has the slightest idea exactly how many people have died..we are all certain that a very greta many have. Obviously those of us who find the war most heinous want to pin the largest possible number on the people who did this. it is an un fulfilling excercise because by definition it is unprovable and therefore pointless. What we do try to do is to report the known deaths whenever they happen. Iraq Body count, the Lancet extrapolated survey, the Red crescent are all estimates that help to give us a sense of numbers, but we shall never know for sure. What we also do is to report the four million poeple (minimum) who have been displaced by the war. the one and a half million in Jordan and in Syria respectively are largely counted numbers and reliable.
Best wishes, jon Snow
-------------------
Hi Jon,
Thanks for getting back with that revealing reply. It helps indicate what’s “naturally” considered newsworthy at Channel 4 News.
| Quote: | | Iraq Body count, the Lancet extrapolated survey, the Red crescent are all estimates that help to give us a sense of numbers, but we shall never know for sure. |
So, how “sure” do you need to be? It doesn’t, or shouldn’t, take much journalistic nous to see the extremely limited methodology being used by IBC and the gross underestimate of violent deaths it keeps producing. In stark contrast, the Lancet and ORB studies together provide a very clear and authoritative indication of where the true death toll in Iraq now lies. It’s not rocket science.
Surely, your basic journalistic responsibility here is to explain the limited methodology used by IBC and the much more expansive epidemiological techniques employed by the Lancet/ORB. The caveat is crucial, otherwise it leads viewers to regard IBC’s absurd 77,000 “count” as a somehow credible “baseline” figure that can be used to “balance-out” the Lancet and ORB findings.
But, more immediately, are you saying that a well-respected organisation now reporting the deaths of over 1.2 million people should somehow be regarded as just another survey, not even worthy of a mention?
| Quote: | | Obviously those of us who find the war most heinous want to pin the largest possible number on the people who did this. it is an un fulfilling excercise because by definition it is unprovable and therefore pointless. |
Frankly, Jon, that’s a disgraceful evasion. Firstly, it is never “pointless” to report the deaths of human beings, particularly on this massive and shocking scale. Secondly, as these very complementary and well-respected studies have shown, such things are not “unprovable”. That is their very purpose: to prove through standard and widely- adopted procedures the extent of the killing.
You argue that we who most openly oppose the war simply opt for the highest figure. That would also suggest that ORB have some kind of loaded agenda here in disclosing this data. Have a look at the other work they do, across a range of clients, and tell me if you think this likely.
Let me also remind you of the recent secretive MoD instructions to government ministers not to criticise the Lancet report in public because, after careful analysis, they considered it legitimate.
It almost beggars belief that Channel 4 News can ignore this latest damning set of statistics. But, again, your coarse rationalisations here help illustrate what’s “naturally” viewed as significant and prioritised by the liberal news media.
Best wishes,
John |
|
Mon Sep 17, 2007 1:49 pm
 |
|
 |
johnwhilley
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 692
Location: Glasgow
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
A further exchange
John I'm afraid nothing you have added amounts to 'facts'..your own
figure may be a gross under estimate..or indeed it may be an over
estimate. Unlike you I have been to iraq..most recently six months
ago..it is absolutely impossible for any dispassionate observer to
carry out this sort of survey..that is a FACT...you seem to take the viewer
for an idiot..there is no one who does not think that an utterly
unacceptable number of people have died int this 'war of choice'..for
me thart's enough without jhaving to use guestimates, estimates,
bextrapolations and the like. The very fact that Iraq body count
actuallky check morgues, graveyards and the likes is one reason why
they are in such trouble..because even checking those does not give you an accurate figure...best, js
------------------
Thanks for those comments, Jon.
| Quote: | ..it is absolutely impossible for any dispassionate observer to
carry out this sort of survey..that is a FACT... |
What you’re, in effect, saying here is that the Lancet and ORB findings are essentially meaningless, and thus, unusable – or, more specifically, unreportable – because they don’t conform to your subjective interpretation of what is a “fact”.
It’s true, Jon, I haven’t, like you, been to Iraq. But why do you presume to think that the Lancet and ORB people are incapable of conducting a “dispassionate” survey?
As noted, the MoD itself has, on the quiet, authenticated the Lancet study – another key piece of government dissembling that most of the media failed to report. Do you think they see the Lancet and now ORB figures as factual? I’m pretty sure that they do, contrary to the version that’s reserved for the public – and repeated by most of the media.
| Quote: | | ...you seem to take the viewer for an idiot..there is no one who does not think that an utterly unacceptable number of people have died int this 'war of choice'..for me thart's enough without jhaving to use guestimates, estimates, bextrapolations and the like. |
On the contrary, Jon, I think many viewers are increasingly able to see not only such government evasion, but also this kind of liberal media prevarication.
Nonetheless, the non-reporting of these kind of key findings – as with the Lancet study – does, undoubtedly, serve to keep people in the dark. Most people, after all, go largely on what gets highlighted in the news. And if there’s no mention of the ORB’s findings, most of those people will remain simply oblivious to the true figure.
You are, in effect, saying here that there’s no need to report the deaths of over 1.2 million people, as the public already have a clear idea of this. Really? People are, indeed, capable of forming a rational view of the warmongering going on in their name. But the task of evaluating that lie becomes evermore difficult where the media refuse to even provide them with the evidence to make that evaluation. 77,000 is, indeed, an enormous number of people to be sacrificed. But to infer that there’s little effective difference between this, so-called “base figure” and 1.2 million deaths is the crudest form of copy journalism.
| Quote: | | The very fact that Iraq body count actuallky check morgues, graveyards and the likes is one reason why they are in such trouble..because even checking those does not give you an accurate figure... |
This is a rather puzzling statement. What kind of “trouble” are IBC in, precisely, and with whom? The more particular problem with IBC’s procedure is that it is simply a deeply unreliable count of violent deaths, as reported by, at least two, primarily Western, media sources. As the Media Lens Editors have noted, this actually causes the count to fall as reporters are unable/unwilling to operate in such dangerous circumstances.
Perhaps if you devoted an appropriate piece to the ORB study, alongside the problems noted here over the IBC count, you would, at least, be helping to inform the viewer rather than assume that they don’t really need to be told such things.
Best wishes,
John |
|
|
Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:40 pm
|
|
|
johnwhilley
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 692
Location: Glasgow
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
Last exchange
John it is completely impossible for a non sunni to travel in a shia area and visa versa..in the absence of our own freedom toi travel..u me the UN and everyone else you have to depend as the Lancet did on locals..but the moment a shia wants to inspect a sunni graveyard, he's in fear for his life tec etc etc..you know what I'm telling u. no these surveys are useful in building a picture but alas none of them is any more provable than the other. But you want to concentrate on the numbers..we shall never no the numbers..but the scale of the crime? Yes that is massive..and I suspect one day people who were involved in it will have to answer for it. Cant go on with this..no time best js
-------------------
Thanks Jon,
The logistical problems you note regarding sunni and shia areas illustrates very precisely why the Lancet and ORB studies are so valuable in serving to offer a more qualitative methodology and set of findings – and why the IBC count should now be disregarded by any serious media outlet.
One of the really dispiriting aspects of your mail is the inability to even acknowledge the standard scientific methods being used here, and, in the case of the Lancet study, now favourably peer-reviewed. The same authentications will, I’m sure, now be accorded to the ORB study, complementing and confirming, as it does, the Lancet’s 655,000 figure.
| Quote: | | But you want to concentrate on the numbers..we shall never no the numbers..but the scale of the crime? Yes that is massive..and I suspect one day people who were involved in it will have to answer for it. |
Like many others, I want to help highlight the scale of the crime, an obvious part of which is revealing the numbers involved. Every single death here counts. And one day, yes, those involved will have to answer for them. That’s an ongoing issue. For the moment, it matters enormously that the supposed guardians of power do their bit in getting the full extent of those crimes into the public domain. The failure of Channel 4 News to do so on this occasion can only be recorded as lamentable.
Best wishes,
John |
|
|
Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:29 pm
|
|
|
johnwhilley
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 692
Location: Glasgow
|
| Post subject: |
|
|
The above exchange ended, thus:
We aren't going to agree on this...i have no further time..best js
---------
No worries, Jon. Thanks for your time.
Best wishes,
John
---------
It’s always important, of course, to maintain the standard civilities in such exchanges. And Jon Snow is to be commended, to some extent, for partaking in them. However, this can’t disguise the way in which he is using such dialogue to, effectively, dismiss and ignore the concerns being raised. The point is well made by Ed in response to the Editors’ and my board posts on the matter:
Re: Exchange with Jon Snow re ORB ...
Posted by The Editors on September 17, 2007
More obfuscation from Snow:
"John anyone who reports iraq is bound to be aware of every death toll assessment."
Of course the trained professional journalists know all about this stuff - we needn't worry on that score! In fact, what is so obvious is that almost none of them grasp what the figures mean. Really basic incompetence on this issue is endemic across the mainstream media.
"alas no one has the slightest idea exactly how many people have died".
A case in point - a very foolish statement. As usual, Snow talks a good fight in responding to emailers. Unfortunately it stops there.
Eds
--------------
Posted by Ed on September 17, 2007
"As usual, Snow talks a good fight in responding to emailers. Unfortunately it stops there."
That is a good description of the MO of Jon Snow. I have noticed before that he will make a promising reply to an emailer only for that to be the end of the matter in any practical sense. The best example of this was with the resignation of Rumsfeld a year ago. After being emailed about Rumsfeld's crimes he stated:
"...obviously the issue of Rumsfeld's criminality is a major issue and will eb exploreds.."
Well, that has not happened on Channel 4 news, their last lengthy report on Rumsfeld being the one produced at the time when Jonathan Rugman gave us the sickening "old warrior" routine.
I have since emailed Snow at least 6 times reminding him of his statement but have received no replies. Snow wants to shut people up quickly so he will say anything to acheive that. I'm just glad it doesn't work.
-------------
Posted by John Hilley on September 17, 2007
Yes, Ed, well observed.
There's a bit of a pattern here. On this occasion it was Snow's "naturally" response to my enquiry re covering the ORB story which, in one word, appeared to indicate an intent to do so. But, as with the Rumsfeld issue, no such report was made - suggesting that there had been no intention to mention it in the first place.
I suppose Snow likes to think of himself as being 'open' on such matters; 'in touch' with the viewers. And, compared with, say, Rusbridger at the Guardian, he is, in his willingness to correspond. But, his truer colours soon emerge when seriously pressed to actually cover such stories.
Regards,
John
---------
Posted by Ed on September 17, 2007
"But, as with the Rumsfeld issue, no such report was made - suggesting that there had been no intention to mention it in the first place."
Hi John.
And if I remember correctly, Snow's excuse at the time (I know you have it all documented in the forum if I'm off base here), was that any investigation into Rumsfeld would be lengthy and time consuming hence they could not address it straight away etc...didn't stop them from having an immediate and lengthy "Rugman Special" apologia for the war criminal though did it?Funny that To be honest, I think Snow's "rebel" and "independent" persona that he cultivates and thrives on makes him a particularly "dangerous" journalist. Much more so than the mundane Esler and Paxo types. |
|
|
Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
printer friendly 
