Iraq Body Count

[informationist]

This thread was started off as the eds putting in responses from John Simpson and ended up being a debate primarily between Informationist and Joshd + Bobj (IBC)..finishing with the idea of founding the group Mortality Monitor...I have included this exchange and put the messages in the order they appear on the message board, i.e. not always chronologically, you will have to look at the times and dates to work out a time line etc (one post from joshd was unfortunately deleted, there is reference made to it in various posts)

so all this is now archived for future reference

cheers

irving formation. 16/06/06 (informationist)

.......................................................................................................

Re: email to BBC's Simpson RE: last ML's alert

Posted by joshd on June 14, 2006, 7:14 pm, in reply to "email to BBC's Simpson RE: last ML's alert"
User logged in as: joshd

--Previous Message--

: it seems that your accusations ... were not
: supported by facts nor evidence.

...

: According to Les Roberts (Center for
: International Emergency Disaster and Refugee
: Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
: Public Health, one of the world’s top
: epidemiologists and lead author of the
: Lancet report) there might be as many as
: 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi
: Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les
: Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006 -
: http://www.alternet.org/story/31508/ )



......................................................................................................

good to hear from you man...

Posted by gabriele on June 14, 2006, 7:29 pm, in reply to "Re: email to BBC's Simpson RE: last ML's alert"
User logged in as: gabriele

... so maybe you can answer the questions I have been posting on here many times

Hi joshd,
Sorry if you have already posted on this topic...

IBC states: "This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks)" http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php

Question 1) How can IBC be "independent" if its co-founder is also Executive Director of Oxford Research Group?

Question 2) If IBC is independent as it claims, why it states: "The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks)." ? Why doesn't IBC use the word "resistance" and prefers the words "insurgent and terrorist"?

Question 3) Have you read the Oxford Research Group's "Iraqi Liberation? Towards an Integrated Strategy" ? Any comments?

Thank you for your time.

All the best,
Gabriele

........................................................................................................

Re: good to hear from you man...

Posted by joshd on June 14, 2006, 7:47 pm, in reply to "good to hear from you man... "
User logged in as: joshd

No thanks.

You haven't read or responded to the substantive points made in our response here:
[www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial/defended] which refute claims you had been feverishly circulating to discredit us. What would have been in order was for you to write "honest and openly self-critical letters" to each of the parties you had been disinforming.

Instead, all you do is whine about supposedly being "insulted" by being quoted circulating the nonsense, and having your errors pointed out. And then you just continue circulating the same nonsense that is "not supported by facts nor evidence", while accusing others of not sticking to claims supported by facts and evidence, no less.

You don't seem to pay attention to anything we say when we do respond. You just go on believing anything at all that you like believing no matter what the facts and pay no attention to our responses. Given this, can you provide me any good reason why I should answer your new "questions" now? I can't find one.

........................................................................................................

your choice, but...

Posted by gabriele on June 14, 2006, 7:58 pm, in reply to "Re: good to hear from you man... "
User logged in as: gabriele

...in my emails I reported what Les Robert wrote. Do you honestly consider that "nonsense"?

You can keep creating smokescreens but people are not stupid, you know! As one of your former presidents said, "you may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all of the people all the time".

Best wishes,
Gabriele

......................................................................................................

Re: your choice, but...

Posted by joshd on June 14, 2006, 8:06 pm, in reply to "your choice, but... "
User logged in as: joshd

--Previous Message--
: ...in my emails I reported what Les Robert
: wrote. Do you honestly consider that
: "nonsense"?

Yes, what he wrote is nonsense. And if you were interested in our responses to anything, you would have read our piece, and know exactly why it's nonsense.

But as I said, you don't seem interested in our responses to anything, or whether anything is "supported by facts or evidence".

......................................................................................................

that's great!

You write: "Yes, what he wrote is nonsense. And if you were interested in our responses to anything, you would have read our piece, and know exactly why it's nonsense."

I would just like to remind the readers:

1) Who is Les Roberts?

Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of a report published on the medical journal The Lancet;

2) Who is joshd?

JOSHUA DOUGHERTY (Assistant researcher for Iraq Body Count) is a guitarist, private instructor and a graduate student in music at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Please, don't take it personal, but if you don't mind, I still feel more safe with science.

Best,
Gabriele

......................................................................................................

"Nonsense"

Posted by Bob J on June 14, 2006, 9:47 pm, in reply to "that's great! "
User logged in as: robsho

Gabriele, that's not an argument. Unless you think that a "world's top epidemiologist" is, by definition, incapable of writing nonsense. Or unless you think that an assistant researcher is, by definition, incapable of pointing out nonsense.

IBC have documented clearly why the specific claim you referred to might be considered nonsense. Why don't you address what they say?

Link: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial/defended/

.......................................................................................................

Re: "Nonsense"

Posted by joshd on June 14, 2006, 10:06 pm
User logged in as: joshd

Not to mention too Bob, that the specific claim he keeps circulating (or at least the speculation from which it was derived, the "factor of five or ten" nonsense) has already been retracted by Roberts (though several other errors remain in the analysis uncorrected).

Gabriele wouldn't know this either, because he's sticking with "science" - ie: whatever inaccurate or untested speculations might be made by selectively chosen "experts" who might utter things Gabriele wants to hear.

......................................................................................................

Re: that's great!

Posted by joshd on June 14, 2006, 10:00 pm, in reply to "that's great! "
User logged in as: joshd

Thanks for proving my point.

You aren't sticking with "science". You're sticking with whatever utterances have the ring of "truthiness" to you, and in order to defend this ignorant stance you're appealing to fallacious ad-hominem authority as an excuse for ignoring the facts.

As I said, given this, there is no good reason to respond to you and your "questions".

....................................................................................................

Re: that's great!

Posted by joshd on June 15, 2006, 6:07 am, in reply to "that's great! "
User logged in as: joshd

It should be noted too that after posting this silly response, Gabriele has run off to publish a selectively truncated version of our exchange:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m23962&l=i&size=1&hd=0

What is most striking about the truncation is that it takes out the part that was the basis of my entry into the discussion, and the basis of all my comments that follow about Roberts and the "nonsense".

It's just deleted, so that nobody can know what I was talking about. Furthermore it begins by falsely attributing a quotation to me:

"JOSHUA DOUGHERTY: it seems that your accusations ... were not supported by facts nor evidence."

But those were Gabriele's words, not mine. They are just left quoted in my response, like the important part he made sure to snip out.

As for the rest, and aside from these distortions, my points remain accurate and unaddressed, only getting the ad-hominem evasion below.

........................................................................................................

Re: that's great!

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 8:12 am, in reply to "Re: that's great! "
User logged in as: informationistV2

interesting josh, have a look at what a mess you made of my post before you mount the moral high ground on this issue. (you just cut it up, focused on a typo, and ducked the points I made in summing up) (more a case of ommisson than addition)

no matter, you will see i have found a route around your organisations marketing of its research. (if you want something done properly, do it yourself)

........................................................................................................

Not quite

Posted by Bob J on June 15, 2006, 8:53 am, in reply to "Re: that's great! "
User logged in as: robsho

Gabriele has quoted Josh completely out of context in his uruknet piece - there's no reference to what Josh was referring to.

This isn't comparable at all to Josh's answer to your posts below. What "mess" did he make out of your post other than dividing it up into separate chunks for clarity of reply (a very common practice)?

........................................................................................................

Re: Not quite

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 9:12 am, in reply to "Not quite"
User logged in as: informationistV2

read it again bob, look how he ends his post, cutting off my point at the end, compare it to my original (ending it by picking up on my typo as is if it proves his point and gives him an "exit strategy", he does not include the rest, crucially avoiding commenting on his revealing admission that people had offered to help IBC but the IBC "had no reason to trust them", this was my main summing up, he ommitted it and walked away as if he had won the argument)

his tone was also facecious and dismissive, indicative of the IBC`s lack of accountability and generally patronising attitude toward those who try to help improve their product and produce consent amongst those against the iraq war.

do you work for the ibc bob? you seem more reasonable, perhaps i could deal with you instead of joshd?

(please forgive any spelling mistakes or typos

.........................................................................................................

Re: Not quite

Posted by joshd on June 15, 2006, 10:52 am, in reply to "Re: Not quite"
User logged in as: joshd

IOW Bob, I didn't respond to his "crucial" point at the end. (I chose not to because I thought that it did not merit a response.)

I guess I forgot that it was mandatory to respond to everything someone writes in a message board posting. But that's ok, Jeff's being "creative" now from my inspiration. He's going to stop writing disinormation tracts on studies of war deaths and start making fake versions of other people's work.

Mensa should be informed of these developments immediately.

..........................................................................................................

Re: Not quite

Posted by joshd on June 15, 2006, 10:58 am, in reply to "Not quite"
User logged in as: joshd

Not to worry Bob. The Editors have apparently deleted my posting. Now we can only trade fables about my supposed crimes therein. It's probably only a matter of time before they delete me from the board. I'm winning too many arguments I guess.

........................................................................................................

Re: Not quite

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 12:24 pm, in reply to "Re: Not quite"
User logged in as: informationistV2

what on earth are you talking about now josh???

do yourself a favour, calm down, and get some sleep.

........................................................................................................

Jeff Pfleuger

Posted by Bob J on June 15, 2006, 1:11 pm, in reply to "Re: Not quite"
User logged in as: robsho

Jeff (I assume you're Jeff Pfleuger) - you began posting in this thread with a series of smears, clearly intended to provoke:

"IBC are in bed with the media"

"your tacky IBC counter (do you do pop ups too?, casino ads?)"

"scared of losing your funding?/job?"

"you are in bed with the media" (repeated for good measure?)

Ironically, these weren't deleted, but another post was. Well, you can't always have consistency in the moderation of boards such as these. Can you?

.........................................................................................................

Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 1:44 pm, in reply to "Jeff Pfleuger"
User logged in as: informationistV2

who the hell is jeff pfleuger!!!!

i wondered what josh was talking about, i thought it was a private language of some sort (or he was talking to himself and needed to get some sleep etc)

no im not "jeff" whoever that is(?? you and josh are getting more and more bizarre)

i was not in favour of having josh`s post deleted, i thought it was revealing re his attitude etc (i dont represent media lens, i just post here and in general support their work, for what its worth im sorry his post got deleted, it was not my wish)

re your attempt to damn me with my own words, you have quoted me out of context...(all the other words i wrote along with those you quoted are there for a reason, thats why i wrote them,(durr!!!) edit me if you want to change the meaning, change the order of the words if you like, knock yourself out)

re the in bed with the media comment, it should read like this..(if i must edit myself, id rather people just read my first post complete, thats what i meant, no more, no less)

i want to know why you have not taken the media to task or put your research in proper context, as i said at the top, you are in bed with the media, tell me otherwise, i have an open mind on the subject

whats wrong with that?, am i lying? am i "smearing " someone? (sorry if i am, i dont think i am though, i said i had an open mind and asked joshd to respond, whats the problem? how is what you are doing any different? accusing me of smearing someone?? infact your post is more personal, or it attempts to be)

taken in proper context how on earth does my post qualify as something to be deleted? (your post seems more like a "smear" than mine in my opinion, although im not going to make such an accusation as i think its far too strong a word to be used here, however im not asking for it to be deleted, its quotes pulled from a complete text, and taken out of context but thats fine, its there for all to see, its up to you if you want to conduct an argument on those grounds, keep going if you like, im sorry you feel compelled to build a case against me and/or the editors, ive made my case and believe it to be a strong one, if you want to accuse me of being someone i am not and take quotes out of context to try and build some case against me thats up to you, it doesnt change what i said, or what im going to do)

sorry you feel the way you do, and im sorry you have chosen this particular means of expressing it.

........................................................................................................

Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 2:06 pm, in reply to "Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)"
User logged in as: informationistV2

ok i just googled this jeff guy and found he has something to do with dahr jamail

ive not read any of his stuff on his site yet but it seems quite a compliment at first glance. (i wish i could go mountain climbing and work with jamail, and i wish i was as good looking as him lol!)



email jeff if you like and ask him if he is "informationist" (hopefully he isnt bonkers and will give you the right answer, by the look of the pic on his site hopefully he is up a mountain right now to completely disprove your foolish assumption)

please dont assume so much, you make a mockery of your arguments and waste my time. (ive got mountains to climb and world famous journos to work with remember???)

if you continue trying to claim im him i will email him myself and ask him to clear this matter up. (i`ll also ask him if he needs anyone to carry his bags while his on his expeditions)

......................................................................................................

LOL (nm) - gabriele June 15, 2006, 2:43 pm

.......................................................................................................

LMAO...

Posted by Bob J on June 15, 2006, 3:11 pm, in reply to "Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)"
User logged in as: robsho

Some people have it all: male-model good looks, opportunity to climb mountains, and the deep resolve to crusade for the greater good, even when it involves the unrewarding but necessary task of endlessly criticising IBC all over the web.

........................................................................................................

Re: LMAO...

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 3:17 pm, in reply to "LMAO..."
User logged in as: informationistV2

sorry whats that i hear bob?

i didnt quite catch it

even when it involves the unrewarding and unnecessary task of endlessly criticising medialens all over the web.

was that it?

......................................................................................................

Smears "in context"

Posted by Bob J on June 15, 2006, 2:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)"
User logged in as: robsho

I know what's it's like to be on the receiving end of a case of mistaken identity, so apologies if that's the case.

Your above post sounds as if your protesting a bit too much, given what you've been dishing out. And I don't accept that putting those quotes in context makes them any less serious as smears. For example your first comment in this thread was:

dont attempt to deflect from the main issue here.... IBC are in bed with the media, you allow them to use your figures as if they are the only "accurate" ones available.

That's clearly a serious smear. And it's not mitigated by your comment (much lower down in your post): "tell me otherwise, i have an open mind on the subject".

Not only is it a serious smear, but you frame it as "the main issue" which Josh shouldn't "deflect from".

The smear: "scared of losing your funding?/job?" is also unmitigated by your context. It's another addition to the mountains of such remarks that have been attacking IBC members for five months.

Yet when Josh responds with remarks which are not smears, but which contain one rude word (already pre-censored by the board's software), his post is deleted.

........................................................................................................

Re: Smears "in context"... bobs world

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 3:04 pm, in reply to "Smears "
User logged in as: informationistV2

serious smear!

this is really too much "bob"

i am accusing josh or the ibc of criminal behaviour? that in my opinion is a "serious smear".

can you not see that each time you try and accuse me of something you end up being more guilty of it yourself? (sorry is that a smear bob?)

if what i wrote was such a serious smear why did joshd not say so?, does he need you to defend him? is he not intelligent enough to realise he is being "smeared" (i would have thought his sensitivity to this issue would be greater than yours seeing as it is his organsation being "smeared" supposedly, "seriously" i might add)

i could say how dare you accuse me of smearing someone, how dare you smear me etc (but i wont because its a bit pathetic imo, i dont think im being smeared, i think im wasting my time talking to a pedant with a penchant for hyperbole who is desperately trying to find fault with something i have said so he can walk away and not feel like the loser)

yes i made a provocative statement, i put forward my view in no uncertain terms, because i feel strongly about this issue, people are dying as we speak and i dont think enough people in the west are getting the right info on the subject, is my behaviour immoral in your opinion? is using provacative language in a war illegal or out of order bob?, what the hell do you think you are doing?, do you really think you are not being provocative!!!!!!!!, accusing me of "serious smears"????????????? (DURRRRR!!)

i think all of the ibc`s actions so far put forward a strong case for them of being in "bed with the media" (i should say the establishment media i suppose, they are not in bed with dahr jamail and his mate jeff obviously, that would be a strange night)

i stand behind what i said.

it should be easy to disprove if its a serious "smear", dont you think? ("smear" suggests its wrong or innaccurate)

re my comment about them being scared of losing their funding etc, what else am i supposed to think? help me out here?, whats preventing IBC from putting their work in context? ive still not recived a satisfactory answer on this. (my speculation was also based upon my knowledge of the origin of their funds)

do you think medialens have also "seriously smeared" IBC, how?

im not surprised joshd hasnt tried to smear me, seriously or otherwise, i havent given him any reason to. (or opportunity, i see you are having a good go though, like a nascent golfer whacking chunks out of the ground and missing the ball)or maybe he isnt as foolish as you?

(sorry bob, is calling you foolish a smear?, is it serious? am i allowed to make any critisicm or negative judgements here?)

this is just ineffectual nit picking (is that ok?, can i say that bob? do you get to set the terms of this debate?, you wish!!)

"serious smear", good grief.

(yeah bob, im the bad guy and josh is really nice, and because im the "bad guy" it invalidates my argument against the IBC, keep dreaming)

(sorry to suggest you are dreaming, i hope its not a smear, is it ok?, is it ok for you to accuse me of serious smears?, how do these rules work exactly, please explain, and provide reasons as to why i or anyone else should subscribe to them)

.......................................................................................................

Media-complicity world

Posted by Bob J on June 15, 2006, 3:42 pm, in reply to "Re: Smears "
User logged in as: robsho

Let's put this in context. When Josh once suggested that the banning policy for this message board was biased, he was accused by the ML editors of a "serious smear".

To accuse someone of being "in bed with" apologists for war crime (eg "the media") is perhaps a tad more serious.

........................................................................................................

Re: Media-complicity in bobs world

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 4:36 pm, in reply to "Media-complicity world"
User logged in as: informationistV2

do you believe the media are apologists for war crimes bob?

dont you believe in the IBC and their research? (which comes from the media?)what is your posistion on the media?

if i am right that you do not think the media are complicit in war crimes etc etc my saying that the ibc are in bed with the media shouldnt be problem should to you should it?, its like saying two perfectly ok groups are mates with one another? (as per your beliefs?, fill me in please)

so whats the problem?

(re the media lens thing, i cant comment, im not medialens, you had better ask the editors about that.)

or perhaps you are claiming to know what i think on this issue?? (pretty clever of you i must say as i dont think ive posted anything on the topic specifically, show me the post if so)

i dont think the media are complicit in war crimes on masse in a culpable sense. (that would be silly)

i think the media system itself ends up providing support for the powerful (its one of its jobs, its a structuralist argument)

by saying IBC are in bed with them im saying that they are scared to stand up to the system for some reason, like many journalists are scared to stand up to the system (normally for fear of losing their income, understandably)

i would not put IBC in the dock for this, or journalists, im looking ways to re-establish a balance of power/knowledge between the media and the population. (power/knowledge....foucault)

or ideally bypass the media completely or make the delivery of information as open source as possible, hence my chosen name here, information is primary to democracy, its not something to profit from, that poisons the well ("mediation" should be not required ideally, its a hang over of an older age)

so im not saying there are any war crimes going on re the IBC and the media (although i cant say that for sure, maybe some individuals are knowing agents of war, its possible, but not en masse, you cant blame every journo and every IBC worker for war crimes, that would be ridculous, and anyway i favour an amnesty of power, not incarceration),

im saying most are probably unwitting agents of a rotten system that needs changing (and that the IBC have dug their heels in for some reason, i am forced to speculate on why this is unfortunately, due to an information vacuum, ive done what i can to get answers but havent found any so im going to re-market their research instead)

so not that serious an accusation at all really, im basically saying wake up, smell the coffee, have some courage and stand up to power, i appreciate the IBC research as i have said many times but dislike what i consider to be its disrespectful marketing, and i also appreciate the limited efforts made by john simpson and his kind etc, its just not enough to make a big difference. (the senators are good men, but the senate is a beast, do you understand this saying?)

so where is my smear?

you have chosen to define my position for me (thinking i believe the media are apologists for war crimes, i never said that, its far too general and simplistic, you are assuming things yet again), you got it wrong, "smearing" me in the process (if we must use that word, although i rather not thanks, id rather just say that you have the wrong end of the stick and should calm down with your accusations and stop clutching at straws, its getting ridculous)

read this bob...it might help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

........................................................................................................

Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)

Posted by joshd on June 15, 2006, 7:23 pm, in reply to "Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)"
User logged in as: joshd

--Previous Message--
: who the hell is jeff pfleuger!!!!
:
: i wondered what josh was talking about, i
: thought it was a private language of some
: sort (or he was talking to himself and
: needed to get some sleep etc)

If you're not jeff pfleuger you two share a brain. He's also obsessed with our "marketing" and so forth (though the whining about the semantics of the phrase "body count" is kinda new, though I seem to recall some far right wingers whining about it early on).

Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. I have no reason to believe the claims of an anonymous writer on a message board, no matter what pompous lectures the anonymous writer might deliver to me about trust.

In any case, I have found your "arguments" arrogant, irrational and highly opinionated. And you demand I and IBC must cater to you and your opinions and whims. I won't be complying with your orders and I won't be considering your anonymous blusterings any further either.

You claim to be disappointed in me, well the feeling is quite a bit more than mutual mr. anonymous.

........................................................................................................

Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)

Posted by dereklane on June 15, 2006, 8:46 pm, in reply to "Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)"
User logged in as: dereklane

Josh, I really must take issue with this phrase:
"though the whining about the semantics of the phrase "body count" is kinda new, though I seem to recall some far right wingers whining about it early on"

There is nothing 'far-right wing' or indeed, any 'wing' about having some respect for real people's real lives and real deaths.

I would not want a family member's death described as no more than a body count. I can see where he is coming from on that, as I am sure many people could. I also realise that your use of 'body count' may have had something to do with the indifference of the US military to deaths caused by them (as in , 'we don't do bodycounts'), but I don't see that as a reason to dismiss disapproval with the name as something crazy or irrelevant.

I hope you see what I mean here.

cheers,

Derek

........................................................................................................

Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)

Posted by joshd on June 15, 2006, 9:02 pm, in reply to "Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)"
User logged in as: joshd

My point derek, was that this hasn't really been a claim of this dispute until now. And the only time I can recall people complaining about the phrase "Body Count" as being somehow rude or improper was from right wing critics early on in the project.

.....................................................................................................

Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)

Posted by dereklane on June 15, 2006, 9:27 pm, in reply to "Re: Jeff Pfleuger (who???)"
User logged in as: dereklane

Hi Josh,

No it isn't part of the dispute, but it is a valid point.

I don't personally take issue with people for being left or right wing; I see a little confusion in general that one is supposed to be 'good' and one 'bad' but in reality, they both have their flaws (and good points) (like Hiroshima - left wing, Iraq sanctions - left wing, Afghanistan war (80s and noughties) - right wing, Iraq II - right wing).

My problem was with the tone you took, as though these things +weren't+ important simply because of where they came from. We should never shoot the messenger before hearing the message (now there's a different take on an old saying...)

Respect for the dead (or for the living who have lost loved ones, more particularly), is paramount, both to stop further wars and to properly personify the casualties of the current wars.

Its not the central issue with IBC (in fact, I mostly think of it just like that: 'eye bee sea'), but it is nevertheless a valid point to bring up.
As I said, I realise the name probably came through that famous quote, and there is no denying the fact it sticks in your head, but then many crass phrases do. (I hope I can say that without causing further offense, since the quote that I believe made the sitename was not yours, but the general's).

cheers,

Derek

........................................................................................................

Re: your choice, but...

Posted by Sue J on June 14, 2006, 11:32 pm, in reply to "Re: your choice, but... "
User logged in as: Sue J

If what Les Roberts wrote is nonsense, how did it get past the peer review system of one of the most highly respected medical journals, The Lancet?

.........................................................................................................

NOT from the Lancet study

Posted by Bob J on June 15, 2006, 12:24 am, in reply to "Re: your choice, but... "
User logged in as: robsho

Sue, we're talking about something that wasn't from the Lancet study. The 300,000 figure was derived from a speculative comment made by Les Roberts in an AlterNet piece, February 4, 2006. http://www.alternet.org/story/31508/

See IBC's document for further details.

Link: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial/defended/

........................................................................................................

Re: NOT from the Lancet study

Posted by joshd on June 15, 2006, 4:17 am, in reply to "NOT from the Lancet study"
User logged in as: joshd

For more on this see: http://iraqbodycount.net/editorial/defended/3.1.php, where the stuff about the table is all explained.

The Alternet version of Roberts' piece (which is probably the one most people saw, and will see) remains uncorrected, but the (partially) corrected pdf version is here (page 30):
http://odihpn.org/documents/networkpaper052.pdf

IBC's per-day rate is corrected from 17 to 32. This is the only correction to the table they made. The other problems with it that we have since pointed out in our piece, such as the comparison over different time-frames, the one or two fabricated estimates in the table..etc. etc., remain as before.

The accompanying analysis to the table has also been re-written in the corrected pdf. The "factor of five or ten" claim is gone (which is where the "300,000" came from, see: http://iraqbodycount.net/editorial/defended/app.3.8.a.php).

Also gone is the false claim that IBC is "the lowest estimate" of all the studies (btw..Roberts calls IBC's count an "estimate" throughout. I wonder if anyone wrote him angry letters about that).

However, new errors are introduced in the revised analysis too, such as:

"[the Lancet] estimate of violent deaths was at least four times higher [than IBC's "estimate"]."

In fact, the Lancet violent death estimate was three times higher than IBC, not four, as should be self-evident from looking at the (partially) corrected table just below.

And this does not account for the fact either that IBC is a civilian count, while Lancet was not a civilian estimate. So IBC should be some degree lower, even if *all* civilian deaths that occurred had been reported and recorded by IBC.

This civilian/combatant issue among the studies is another inconsistency the table ignores generally, btw. see: http://iraqbodycount.net/editorial/defended/3.7.php

Of course, I'm just a geetarist. Maybe I shouldn't be talking about "science" like that table.

........................................................................................................

Re: NOT from the Lancet study

Posted by Donald on June 15, 2006, 8:40 pm, in reply to "Re: NOT from the Lancet study"
User logged in as: Donald

I read the IBC defense when it came out and agreed with some of the points. And Les Roberts in some of his public statements (not the ones in the Lancet paper itself) deserves some serious criticism for various mistakes he's made. Deriving a death toll from the NEJM report, in particular, is ridiculous. Common sense alone tells you that. (You'd call this my sense of truthiness if I were disagreeing with you.) I'm a little annoyed with Roberts, frankly. He had an important point to make and he partly ruined it with exaggerated claims.

But the IBC report, unfortunately, reads more like a document written by people who are very angry and eager to get back at their critics, rather than a calm look at the criticisms, good and bad. (Yes, there are plenty of bad criticisms.) And that two year analysis I read last summer--well, that's what got me angry with IBC. It read like an extended exercise in self-praise, disguised as praise for the Iraqi journalists who "told the world" what was going on. I was expecting a serious discussion of how difficult it is to find out what's happening in Iraq, the sort of thing I've read in the mainstream press, and how it might very well bias the reporting of who is doing the killing. You must have noticed stories where the US military claims to have killed large numbers of insurgents while only a tiny number of civilians died. I saw one in the NYT a couple of days ago--I think the number was 36 (or something like that) insurgents and two children died. The NYT specifically said all the info came from the military. I know my Vietnam War history well enough to be extremely suspicious when I read stories like that. And then John Burns came right out and said it in the NYT a couple weeks back---the Army and even more often the Marines commonly use artillery and air strikes to kill insurgents, with inevitable civilian casualties.

I wasn't expecting you guys to pull the true number of US-inflicted civilian casualties out of the air, but I was genuinely surprised and then annoyed that the stress was on how good a job the press does in covering the war, thanks to Iraqi stringers. Again, I've seen stories in the mainstream press itself which cast doubt on their own ability to count deaths--you guys seem to have more faith in them than they do.

........................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by informationist on June 14, 2006, 8:21 pm, in reply to "your choice, but... "
User logged in as: informationistV2

dont attempt to deflect from the main issue here....

IBC are in bed with the media, you allow them to use your figures as if they are the only "accurate" ones available.

you have not done anywhere near enough to put your research in context, either on your tacky IBC counter (do you do pop ups too?, casino ads?) or on your site in general.

have the ibc EVER complained to any media outlet about misleading the public? (its misleading to say the IBC figure is the most accurate, or the best available, its a massively contentious issue, , the ibc say themselves that its an undercount, but they do so very quietly, in the margins, why?, scared of losing your funding?/job?)

until you take action many people around the world will not consider you/IBC to be "anti-war" in any way. (if you reply to this i dont want to see any mention of figures, numbers or methodologies, or any attempts to rubbish someone elses study/research...i want to know why you have not taken the media to task or put your research in proper context, as i said at the top, you are in bed with the media, tell me otherwise, i have an open mind on the subject)

(dont say that you "dont have the time", there would be many here who would have been pleased to work with you for FREE as liason with the media, writing complaints and the like)

.........................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by joshd on June 14, 2006, 9:57 pm, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: joshd

--Previous Message--
: dont attempt to deflect from the main issue
: here....
:
: IBC are in bed with the media, you allow
: them to use your figures as if they are the
: only "accurate" ones available.
:
: you have not done anywhere near enough to
: put your research in context, either on your
: tacky IBC counter (do you do pop ups too?,
: casino ads?) or on your site in general.

That's your opinion, not fact.

: have the ibc EVER complained to any media
: outlet about misleading the public?

Yes.

: (its misleading to say the IBC figure is the
: most accurate, or the best available, its a
: massively contentious issue,

It may be contentious, but that does not make it "misleading".

: the ibc say themselves that its an undercount,

So does Les Roberts about the Lancet. Such interpretations are "contentious" though.

: but they do so very quietly, in the margins,

We've done so over and over again in our FAQ and in various press releases and publications. You feel this is the most important thing about our study, but there are many other important things about it, also relegated to the so-called "margins".

: why?, scared of losing your funding?/job?)

I wouldn't call it a job since I don't get payed.

: until you take action many people around the
: world will not consider you/IBC to be
: "anti-war" in any way.

It is certainly not my job to cater to such irrational people.

: (if you
: reply to this i dont want to see any mention

I don't care what you want to see in my reply. I'm going to reply the way I think appropriate. You "want to see" me repeat whatever it is you believe. Too bad.

: of figures, numbers or methodologies, or any
: attempts to rubbish someone elses
: study/research...i want to know why you have
: not taken the media to task or put your
: research in proper context,

We have put our research in proper context. The goal of our project is not to "take the media to task". That's the job ML claims to do, and is if anything a very much secondary concern for us.

: as i said at the
: top, you are in bed with the media, tell me
: otherwise, i have an open mind on the
: subject)

I'd say that's a "contentious" issue.

: (dont say that you "dont have the
: time", there would be many here who
: would have been pleased to work with you for
: FREE as liason with the media, writing
: complaints and the like)

We have no reason to trust the people who've made such offers.

........................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by informationist on June 14, 2006, 11:15 pm, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: informationistV2

ok, thanks for the response...

i`ll try and take each point as you have replied (my text appears a italic, your responses in bold italic*, my new reponses in unformatted text)

*NOTE: (in archiving this thread i have changed josh`s text to plain bold for ease of formatiing)

--Previous Message--
: --Previous Message--
: dont attempt to deflect from the main issue
: here....
:
: IBC are in bed with the media, you allow
: them to use your figures as if they are the
: only "accurate" ones available.
:
: you have not done anywhere near enough to
: put your research in context, either on your
: tacky IBC counter (do you do pop ups too?,
: casino ads?) or on your site in general.
:
: That's your opinion, not fact.

it is indeed my opinion, and I believe the opinion of many others, opinions matter if you hadnt noticed. (or why are you putting forward mortality figures?, for the factual record? just for the sake of it? or to influence OPINION?, it is my assertion that you are failing in this regard, opinion is divided, the IBC has failed to get the support of the anti-war movement, it has created division, this is the continuing failure of your organisation, hence this debate)

: have the ibc EVER complained to any media
: outlet about misleading the public?
:
:Yes.

please supply examples of this

: (its misleading to say the IBC figure is the
: most accurate, or the best available, its a
: massively contentious issue,
:
It may be contentious, but that does not
: make it "misleading".

yes it does, imagine i am a reporter, reporting on a contentious issue, Expert A says XYZ is true... Expert B says XYG is true, if i, the hypothetical reporter puts forward a story which mentions Expert A`s opinion and not B`s, and does not mention the fact that this issue is mired in controversy I would be putting forward a misleading story by omitting information.... It is imcumbent upon Expert A and B to complain to me (the hypothetical journalist) and put the story straight, not doing so is to advocate the faulty story.(and to invite critisicm)

: the ibc say themselves that its an
: undercount,
:
: So does Les Roberts about the Lancet. Such
: interpretations are "contentious"
: though.

yes, its all contentious, precisely why as i mentioned above that is the responsibilty of all parties to acknowledge this controversy, and to make sure the media do too.

: but they do so very quietly, in the margins,
:
: We've done so over and over again in our FAQ
: and in various press releases and
: publications. You feel this is the most
: important thing about our study, but there
: are many other important things about it,
: also relegated to the so-called
: "margins".

not good enough if public opinion is important to you, its a FACT that you have not done enough in terms of contextualisng your research, why do think we are arguing about it???!! do you think i am doing this for fun!!, I care about public opinion re the iraq war, i feel it is my duty as a citizen to help inform other citizens about what is going on, thats why i am not happy with the IBC, and why others are complaining too

why did the IBC spend so much of its time making rebuttals and moaning about being disliked by the anti-war crowd if it had done enough to put its research in context? (the debate would not have happened!)

do you think i and others care about this for the sake of it????!!, this is IBC`s failure, something they have been given ample opportunity to correct, they have not done so, and you as their reprentative are still failing to do so, on the record.

I for one think the research the IBC have done is valid, and useful, I applaud you and your colleagues for doing it, what i cant stand is that you have only done half the job, i.e. you have not done enough to make it clear to those who use your website and ticker etc that you research is a conservative count and that other studies exist which deserve equal exposure (an FAQ is not good enough, if it were we would not be having this argument)

: why?, scared of losing your funding?/job?)
:
: I wouldn't call it a job since I don't get
: payed.

ok i rephrase the question, who are IBC funded by?
on what grounds is the funding provided?

: until you take action many people around the
: world will not consider you/IBC to be
: "anti-war" in any way.
:
: It is certainly not my job to cater to such
: irrational people.

i didnt think it was your job at all josh?, you dont get paid do you? are you being irrational?, do you think before you speak?, do you really think you are upto the job of defending the IBC or are you doing more harm than good?

it is your "job" or duty to cater to such irrational people, because they exist, that is if public opinion about the war matters to the IBC (are you intending to cultivate an audience of you own design?, this is marketing btw, i.e. you are not interesting in reaching everyone, just people you consider to be "rational", in your subjective opinion, your argument is an elitist one, tell me otherwise)

: (if you
: reply to this i dont want to see any mention
:
:I don't care what you want to see in my
: reply. I'm going to reply the way I think
: appropriate. You "want to see" me
: repeat whatever it is you believe. Too bad.

no josh, i dont want you to repeat what i believe, that comment is just shoddy rhetoric, i want to answer my questions, not muddy the water with more attacks on the research of others, you can of course choose to answer how you wish, go ahead, its on the record.

: of figures, numbers or methodologies, or any
: attempts to rubbish someone elses
: study/research...i want to know why you have
: not taken the media to task or put your
: research in proper context,

: We have put our research in proper context.
: The goal of our project is not to "take
: the media to task". That's the job ML
: claims to do, and is if anything a very much
: secondary concern for us.

what is the goal of your project josh?, to create division amongst those against the iraq war?, to give the establishment press an undercounted mortality figure to obscure the rest?? you are doing a good job if so (regardless of your bleating to the contrary). I agree that taking the media to task is a secondary concern for IBC, one it has failed to do. (hence this whole argument,FFS!!)

: as i said at the
: top, you are in bed with the media, tell me
: otherwise, i have an open mind on the
: subject)
:
: I'd say that's a "contentious"
: issue.

you are correct, thats why i am asking you to clarify your posistion, as the IBC have not done it at source.

: (dont say that you "dont have the
: time", there would be many here who
: would have been pleased to work with you for
: FREE as liason with the media, writing
: complaints and the like)
:
: We have no reason to trust the people who've
: made such offers.

nice...."WE" the IBC/Oxford Research Group, are an entity separate from the anti-war hoi polloi, we dont trust people who offer their help or ask us to be more transparent and accountable, we just pig-headedly carry on as we wish, and then claim to be victims when people complain about how our research has been used.

your last comment really puts the BBC sloboda/fuller piece in context, people offer to help you and get involved, and you turn round and say no because you dont "trust them", not good josh, not good at all.

if you dont offer your trust people will not trust you. (and you should care about that, as this is all a matter of opinion, and opinion counts, or is your research an intellectual exercise??)

........................................................................................................


note:.. in the following message informationist is responding to the joshd`s post which was deleted.

.........................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 4:09 am, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: informationistV2

not good enough joshd, my opinion. (i note you have used my typing error as a cheesily neat ending to your response, the line should read..."i want you to answer my questions")

i note you havent answered how you expect to create trust when you are so suspicious of those whom should be allies, this is very divisive. (how does one become part of the Body Count group?, how do you gain their trust?, is there an initiation ceremony?, some background checks? do they have to know Ice T personally?)

you are the producer of a product, it is up to you to market that product effectively and to produce consensus around it, you have failed, fact. (it is not up to the market to "get it" on their own, thats your job, whether you recieve payment for it or not)

and another thing, if i were consulting "Iraq Body Count" on their marketing I would suggest a name change.

Its very disrepectful to refer to the dead as "bodies", if someone invades the UK and starts killing people i will be very angry if you start up a "Britain Body Count" campaign, i would not like to be referred to as a "body" if i die violently, nor would i like it if my mother or father, brother or sister, son or daughter were referred to as such , its horribly sensationalist and disrespectful, below i have included a collection of other uses for the term "body count", have a look at the company you are keeping and the genesis of your brand...(its not only disrespectful, its cliche and cheesy, and indicative of the dehumanisation of third world people by the first world)

please tell me, how does "iraq body count" not look like a cheesy 80s film or tacky horror novel in such company? (and how does this reflect upon your apparently lofty claims of seeking peace and a more humane world?, IBC`s marketing is a disgrace imo, you insult those whom you claim to "count", like beans presumably, or funding dollars from dodgy groups like the Ford Foundation)

(again, if the UK gets invaded, I dare you to start a "Britain Body Count" campaign, see how long you last, actually seeing as this is the second iraq war, shouldnt it be "Iraq Body Count 2"?, perhaps with a tag line, "this time there are even more BODIES", like i said, if the UK gets invaded, dont even think about taking it upon yourself to enlarge the franchise)





















........................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 7:48 am, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: informationistV2

ok joshd, i think i have done what i can to get you to change your mind and alter the presentation of your research, it hasnt worked. (its hard to make someone understand something when their job depends on them not understanding it)

i am annoyed by your horrible cut and paste, cut and shut response to my post (quoting me out of context and summing it up by focusing on one of my many typos)

you have pushed me into being more creative, thanks...

so how about this, someone start a rival group to the IBC, use their data but re-market it in a more sensitive and accurate manner, create a website and replacement counter for other websites to use. (send out mass emails and present the argument for why this counter is much better, and more respectful of the iraqi people, not calling their deceased loved ones "bodies" and then marketing it all like it were a tacky action film, i.e. it would be done with compassion)

this site and counter would include all of the things that people who are critical of the IBC think is currently lacking. (it could be designed more by consensus, by the anti-war community)

it would use IBC data, piggy backing as it were. (i dont think there is anything wrong with the IBC data, when put in context, its the organisation and marketing i dont like, and im concerned their money doesnt come from a good place)

below is my first draft (bear in mind i am not a graphic designer) (the Warning please click this link element, would link through to page mentioning the history, how it uses IBC data, how the data is compiled and what other studies are currently available, and how the establishment media have used the figure to downplay the real levels of mortality in iraq etc etc, i.e. it would tell the whole story)

what do people think to this?, use IBC data but bypass their tasteless marketing department?

i think the name "iraq mortality monitor" is much better than anything which uses the term "body count", doing a chomsky and reversing the situation if the UK were attacked i would support my new wording to record and display current levels of mortality, i.e. "Britian Mortality Monitor", much more respectful (i would hate a "body count" by contrast)

anyway, comments are welcome, i pass the ball back to the community (thanks for inspiring me joshd)



.........................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by The Editors on June 15, 2006, 10:57 am, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: Editor

That looks pretty good Informationist. I still think the Min/Max is instantly misleading to the casual viewer - many people read 'Max' as the highest possible number of deaths (ie, the actual total, not just reported deaths). Might be better to have something like: Range Of Deaths Reported:

Between 17300 and 19679.

Eds

......................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 11:11 am, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: informationistV2

thanks for your comment eds

as i said its a first draft, the idea being that the counter is designed by a community, open source if you like, an attempt to achieve consensus (not like IBC, who say they have no reason to trust people who want to help them)

i agree about "range of deaths" being clearer, i`ll make an adjustment and put it forward again (2nd draft) basically i was just copying the IBC counter as a place to start (obviously getting rid of the horrible "body count" reference, and adding the big warning sign, also i wanted to dispense with pictures of bombs and planes etc, and i didnt want to put a shocking picture of a dead iraqi either, i think that family in the foreground says much more, agree?)

thanks again, more suggestions are welcome, keep them coming, this is open to everyone to contribute. (also im not a graphic designer so if someone wants to tidy it up please go ahead, if you want to add it to my specially created flickr account please email your picture to me at ... mortality monitor @ yahoo. co. uk and i will upload it there)

(NOTE: remove spaces for correct email address, they are included as anti-spam mechanism

......................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by dereklane on June 15, 2006, 11:30 am, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: dereklane

I was going to do something similiar a few months earlier. There is a 'terms of conditions' type of thing on their counter that says if you wish to edit the form, design etc of the counter, you must first gain their permission to do so.

Since technically, a redesign using their data but not their method of display may consitute 'using' their counters (strictly speaking the 'data' is freely available through the press anyway, so I am not sure of the legal ramifications). Given the fact I had written to them previously asking them to change the counters and had received no response, I decided it wasn't worth writing again to ask to produce and use a more accurate version of the same thing. Whenever I see such things as terms and conditions which don't say 'use how you like but don't blame us' (the central premise behind a lot of opensource software), I tend to shy away from it.

Derek

........................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam (legal angle)

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 12:15 pm, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: informationistV2

thanks derek, i was also considering the legal angle on this, i reckon it would be ok but i`ll speak to some solicitor friends and see what they think (there should be a way round it)

if it comes to a legal battle then the issue gets raised for public scrutiny, i.e. people would be talking about what is the best way to present the IBC data, that would be good anyway.

im not sure about all this, as i said i will seek informal legal advice. (id rather the ibc just changed their marketing, or said it was ok to present it under a different name, that is if it is illegal, we shall see)

its a shame it has come to this.

.......................................................................................................

[informationist]

continued.....

..........................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by joshd on June 15, 2006, 11:34 am, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: joshd

--Previous Message--
: thanks for your comment eds
:
: as i said its a first draft, the idea being
: that the counter is designed by a community,
: open source if you like, an attempt to
: achieve consensus (not like IBC, who say
: they have no reason to trust people who want
: to help them)

People "say" a lot of things, but we don't know those people from a hole in the wall, except in as far as we've seen them participating in a misinformed campaign to discredit us. And we don't know if those people share our views about various things surrounding this issue, and, given the circumstances, we could probably assume they don't. So if you're so concerned with me not addressing your "point" about "trust", that should be more than sufficient.

But what's really rich is the astounding hypocrisy and total lack of self awareness you exhibit here. Aren't you the one who's been running around trying to imply that we're frauds who are lying about our backgrounds and receiving covert funding and so forth? And you talk about how we should have "trust" of you and your buddies on this board?!?!

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry, as they say.

........................................................................................................

Re: josh d/more IBC spam

Posted by informationist on June 15, 2006, 12:05 pm, in reply to "Re: josh d/more IBC spam"
User logged in as: informationistV2

But what's really rich is the astounding hypocrisy and total lack of self awareness you exhibit here. Aren't you the one who's been running around trying to imply that we're frauds who are lying about our backgrounds and receiving covert funding and so forth? And you talk about how we should have "trust" of you and your buddies on this board?!?!

what?

who are you talking to joshd?

i have not said at any stage that you have lied about your background (who has?), i have not said that you are a fraud, i have not said that you recieve covert funding (i said that i think you are funded by the ford foundation, whom i think are a bit dodgy, thats my opinion, given their history etc, read the wiki article on them, ive not said its covert in any way at all, im not even saying they are definately bad, im very skeptical about them basically)

if you are talking to me you are wrong on every point, do you think this sort of nonsense makes you more trustable? (im not saying you deliberately making a false case, im more inclined to believe you are inept in this regard)

really you are doing yourself and IBC no favours at all here, does john sloboda approve of what you are doing here? has he read any of this? if i were him i would be concerned about your behaviour, its my opinion you are a very poor spokesman indeed.

i appreciate your research, thankyou, and am not going to get into an argument about its validity vs other studies etc, im going to push ahead with re-marketing/re-branding it. (because i think your marketing is counter productive)

im sorry we have fallen out over all this, its unfortunate, perhaps you would like to contribute some ideas to the Iraq Mortality Monitor campaign? (the name is a working title at the moment, what do you think?)

.......................................................................................................

# Lots of good work there Info, cheers (nm) - Ed June 15, 2006, 2:31 pm

........................................................................................................

Re: glad its of use Ed, thanks for support, its been a marathon! (nm) - informationist June 15, 2006, 5:58 pm

[Stian]

Thanks to Informationist for assembling these posts. The forum is the right place for lengthy discussions like these.

That said, the disussion is far from an enjoyable - or even interesting read.
The tone, the allegations, the blame-placing, the personal attacks and suchlike is not exactly productive and only make an already heated debate worse.

The responsibility for letting these debates degrade this much should be placed on the Media Lens community and not the IBC people.

Remember, Media Lens, and us email writers, are the ones provoking people with massive criticism. In doing this, we cannot expect the targets of our criticism to not get offended and respond in harsh ways. On the contrary, this is to be expected and respected, and it should be in our interest to meet harsh responses with patience, kindness and understanding.

In my view, in the confrontation with IBC, we have failed to do this and have instead contributed to make this devolve into a confrontation instead of a dialogue. Just the fact that I can describe it as "a confrontation" is a sign that we have done something wrong.

I have carefully read IBCs defence against the criticism they have received and they seem to make several valid points. It seems clear to me that in this case our dear Editors, some of our community members and even Les Roberts himself have made mistakes - in addition to coming on a bit too harsh from the start.

None of us are perfect in all we do and it is only reasonable that mistakes would be made now and again. Admitting mistakes and offering apologies is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of integrity, sincerety and honesty.
Media Lens is usually extremely solid and thorough in their alerts, but in this case I believe they should have approached the whole thing a bit differently, and that admissions should be made.

Don't get me wrong! The main point of the criticism against IBC still holds - that their numbers are unreliable because they rely on unreliable sources (mostly western media), and that these unreliable numbers are being misused by both people in power and the mass media.

I hope we can aspire to greater standards than these discussions with IBC have demonstrated. I believe that would be to the benefit of all.

Stian

[informationist]

im going to post properly on this subject soon, but just as a quick note, i archived the discourse between me and ibc + some others to put on the record the idea of a new group which could promote and market mortalitly figures in a compasionate way (working title "mortality monitor")

i did not intend for it to be used as the start of a general discussion (i posted it well before donalds request for an IBC discussion thread) sorry for any confusion, I would ask for a fresh thread to be made if possible? (and for this one to left on record here?)

does anyone agree?, or would they rather carry on in this thread?, im happy to do what the community wants, im just pointing this out.

cheers.

[David C]

Thanks informationist - please feel free to begin a dedicated thread for your IMM proposal.

best wishes,
The Eds

[Stian]

I agree, Informationist.

Stian

[informationist]

ok will do, thanks. (ive already written a proposal but its currently aimed towards the IBC to some extent, id quite like to make it more general in the hope the "overhaul" of the IBC site that josh was talking about in an MB thread will help address some of my/our concerns re their marketing and general communication)

i HATE having to challenge people and fire shots across the bow, but sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. (unfortunately) sorry if i have offended anyone.

[Bern]

My first crack at the new IBC discussion, so I hope Informationist, you get to see this.
Your idea for an alternative transparent Iraq Mortality Count is excellent - judging by your draft of a logo. I don't know what the nuts and bolts of such an enterprise are myself, but keep elaborating the idea. Maybe a distinct thread would be best.

Bern

[dereklane]

Hi Informationist,

I don't know the extent of your tech skills regarding building a counter etc, but if you need help let me know.

The example I suggested on the MB a few months ago added 'from media sources only' into the body of the counter, just so it clear at a glance what the definition of 'reported' is. I also toyed with 'from english speaking media sources only' but this is not strictly true, even if the majority of the non-english speaking sources emanate from western english speaking companies.

cheers,

Derek

[informationist]

cheers derek/bern all

re my tech skills, not too good, however i know some great programmers, in c++, java etc etc who will work for free, i`ll be consulting them soon and will be adding this stuff to further drafts of the proposal, so if you have some knowledge in this area to contribute that would be great, the more the merrier, im just starting the ball rolling on this,

re graphic design im punting it out to a great designer to have a look at (im going to suggest he designs a few different types, so different websites can choose which design they prefer etc, and obviously everyone else has to be happy with them too, there is no reason to limit the number of designs really, as long as they dont create discord or complaints etc it should be fine, yes?)

my proposal (when re-edited to reduce the IBC focus) will be quite general, there should be web counters available for all armed conflicts eventually, and the Mortality Monitor should be a general resource featuring research from anyone who has done any (as long as its credible, that will have to be constantly checked by experts and those concerned etc, and every study should contain notes, a bit like wiki perhaps, where there is dispute let it be known etc etc)

sound good so far? (i wish i could devote more time to it but ive got various projects on right now, another proposal to write, i should have something more substantial done by the beginning of next week at the latest)

[joe emersberger]

JOSH D wrote the follwoing on the MB on June 18. He makes some points that I think are important and should be responded to. I hope Josh and others join in.

************************************************************
Josh D wrote "Anyone who cares at all about the truth of this topic will look over our website before just believing that we have hit the one "true" figure, and that's it. And once they do they'll discover all of IBC's limitations exactly as all of you have done."

True but it could be made much easier for people to learn of those limitations at negligible cost to IBC

Josh wrote "Was there any time in the past, even the first time you heard of IBC, when you just concluded ours was the one true figure and there couldn't be more? The assumptions about the urgency of mistaken mentions in the press are just extremely shaky ones."

A significant segment of the public in your country continued to believe that there were WMD in Iraq ( and direct involvement with Saddam in 9/11) long after those lies were refuted. The public in your country continues to believe that the number of Vietnamese killed by their governmnet was only about 100,000. The corporate media's propaganda works Josh. Anything IBC , or anyone else can do to counter it is valuable.


Josh wrote "The other aspect that people keep bringing up is Bush or Blair or whoever only ever owning up to our figure being plausible. And they usually do so while adding in falsehoods like bush did, in using us for a question asking about a total for civilians/combatants/soliders/insurgents..etc.

But I do not think any damage resulted from this. I actually think, for IBC's part, damage has been mitigated. I believe that because of us, Bush admitted a higher figure than he ever would have otherwise. He would have just cited Iraqi Ministry of Health figures or other lower figures, like partial counts from AP or something. The only reason he (or I guess his handlers) decided to admit to that figure rather than a lower one is because we have been so careful and so conservative in our analysis that he couldn't even pretend to maintain a shred of plausible deniability quoting less. Anyone who gives a damn about how many Iraqis are dying knows that our figures are solid and well supported, and there's pretty much no way it's lower than us.

IBC is a small part of why Bush would admit to 30,000. The occupation is a catastrophe - even from the standpoint of people who cheerlead for the empire. It has cost too much money and stretched their forces too thin for the story to be buried - even by the propaganda system. That's due to the incredible incompetence of the Bush admin, and the determination of the resistance in Iraq. The country should have been thoroughly pacified, its oil revenues paying the full cost of the occupation, long before any mortality studies could have been done. It didn't work out that way so the Bush admin looks for damage control. IBC has become part of the warmongers damage control operation. I don't belive that was IBC's intention.

Josh wrote "Do you think if IBC wasn't around he'd admit to a higher figure? Like he would then just say the Lancet was right or something? I don't think so. I think just the opposite. He would just have more excuse to go lower."

But the editors have not argued that IBC should shut down. I certainly don't think you should. You should acknowledge the political bias of institutions that supply your raw data. You should quit being complacent about the consequences of misinformation that results from misuse of your count. Could things be worse if IBC wasn't around? Yes, but how does that relieve you of the responsibilty to do better when you could easily do so? Do you doubt that the millions who took to the streets to oppose this war saved lives? Is that grounds for congratulating oursleves that the slaughter would have been worse without us? Shouldn't we look at why we aren't doing better?

[joshd]

[quote="joe emersberger"]JOSH D wrote the follwoing on the MB on June 18. He makes some points that I think are important and should be responded to. I hope Josh and others join in.

************************************************************
Josh D wrote "Anyone who cares at all about the truth of this topic will look over our website before just believing that we have hit the one "true" figure, and that's it. And once they do they'll discover all of IBC's limitations exactly as all of you have done."

True but it could be made much easier for people to learn of those limitations at negligible cost to IBC

Josh wrote "Was there any time in the past, even the first time you heard of IBC, when you just concluded ours was the one true figure and there couldn't be more? The assumptions about the urgency of mistaken mentions in the press are just extremely shaky ones."

A significant segment of the public in your country continued to believe that there were WMD in Iraq ( and direct involvement with Saddam in 9/11) long after those lies were refuted. The public in your country continues to believe that the number of Vietnamese killed by their governmnet was only about 100,000. The corporate media's propaganda works Josh. Anything IBC , or anyone else can do to counter it is valuable.


Josh wrote "The other aspect that people keep bringing up is Bush or Blair or whoever only ever owning up to our figure being plausible. And they usually do so while adding in falsehoods like bush did, in using us for a question asking about a total for civilians/combatants/soliders/insurgents..etc.

But I do not think any damage resulted from this. I actually think, for IBC's part, damage has been mitigated. I believe that because of us, Bush admitted a higher figure than he ever would have otherwise. He would have just cited Iraqi Ministry of Health figures or other lower figures, like partial counts from AP or something. The only reason he (or I guess his handlers) decided to admit to that figure rather than a lower one is because we have been so careful and so conservative in our analysis that he couldn't even pretend to maintain a shred of plausible deniability quoting less. Anyone who gives a damn about how many Iraqis are dying knows that our figures are solid and well supported, and there's pretty much no way it's lower than us.

IBC is a small part of why Bush would admit to 30,000. The occupation is a catastrophe - even from the standpoint of people who cheerlead for the empire. It has cost too much money and stretched their forces too thin for the story to be buried - even by the propaganda system. That's due to the incredible incompetence of the Bush admin, and the determination of the resistance in Iraq. The country should have been thoroughly pacified, its oil revenues paying the full cost of the occupation, long before any mortality studies could have been done. It didn't work out that way so the Bush admin looks for damage control. IBC has become part of the warmongers damage control operation. I don't belive that was IBC's intention. [/quote]

I don't accept your assertion that that's what IBC has become. As I said, I believe that, if anything, it hindered their "damage control operation", by making them have to admit to more than they would have otherwise, for example. You don't dispute my point above, you just say there were other things too.

This is of course along with all the other important data and information IBC provides.

[informationist]

ok, ive done the introduction to my revised Mortality Monitor proposal, i`ll be carrying on with it as soon as ive made some progress on another proposal ive got to do, nothing so worthy im afraid. (it pays the rent)

so hopefully i`ll be posting the first draft later this week. I thought i might get it done by tomorrow but writing the revised intro has suggested some other things which need including so i`ll keep on it. (id also like to check it by a more experienced consultant to improve the quality of the copy and to get a some general feedback/opinion before "publishing" it, so that might take a day to get it read and sent back and to make adjustments etc)

im keeping out of this debate till ive got all this done, im hoping it will put more options on the table and not cause any offence. (is this possible???!!, hopefully yes)

[joe emersberger]

I said "But the editors have not argued that IBC should shut down."

Josh said "Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pfleuger have. So has Steven Soldz. And so have many in the MLMB community. The Editors have endorsed the Jamail and Soldz articles, and the MLMB community has circulated them. "

The eds have not endorsed calls for you guys to shut down - commenting on or quoting parts of assays from others who may have is not the same thing. They've made clear suggestions to IBC in their alerts. Shutting down wasn't one of them.

Josh said

"Our project is about compiling information on Iraqi deaths. You have not demonstrated a damaging effect of this "bias" on our data. When you tried, we refuted it, namely, in Section 4 of our paper. And critiquing the media is ML's chosen task. Ours is different. "

The Eds haven't asked you to become a media watch dog - or even divert significant resources towards challeging the media. They've asked you to become much more explicit in recognizing the limitations of your work; to not be complacent about how it is being used by prop war pundits and politicians.

The Lancet study has shown the the US may be causing 84% of the deaths from violence. You point out in section 4 that it could be a lower percentage, about as low as IBC maintains, but where does IBC access the uncertainty in its percentage? There are ample reasons for uncertainty. If you believe your count may be too low by a factor of two why is it unreasonable to suspect that your percenatge (of US caused) deaths may also be too low.

The fact that the corporate media led the charge to war; the fact that it is a part of the corporate systrem that requires war. Do you deny this? That alone should make you extremely sceptical of the qualtiy of your data. Then there is the way the Lancet paper was recieved (as the Eds have documented in the "Burying the Lancet alerts"). Then there are massascres like Haditha, or the use of WP in Falluja that should have been reproted long before they were.


I said "You should quit being complacent about the consequences of misinformation that results from misuse of your count. "

Josh replied "What consequences? And what is the chain of events that leads to these consequences?

IBC is cited as an estimate in the press > ? > ? > ? > ? > ? > consequences

Fill in the blanks. And be specific. I think most of these supposed consequences are imagined. "

I've given examples above related to Iraq and Vietnem that demonstrate - not only that the corporate media has a pro war bias (I can't believe I have to argue this with a progressive) but also that it produces the kind of ignorance required to make wars possible. Isn't that a serious consequence? You didn't comment on those examples.

The latest poll I could find directly related to what US citizens believed about Iraqi deaths (from October 28,2004) is here

http://64.233.161.104/u/pipa?q=cache:lh0QuOp0lAUJ:www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqPresElect_Oct04/IraqPresElect_Oct04_rpt.pdf+iraq+deaths&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8

It says "Americans continue to underestimate the number of Iraqi civilian casualties, but they are revising their estimates upward. In August the average estimate was 2,000; in the current poll it is up to 3,000. This is still well below the estimates of experts, which during the fielding period were in the range of 13,000 to15,000 deaths."

We shouldn't be surprised by these results. Unfortnately I haven't found more recent polls about this, but when we see a major news outlets like CNN reporting days ago that

"....estimates of Iraqi dead range from nearly 40,000 to more than 100,000."

it doesn't seem at all likely that US citizens are much better informed today.

See http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/iraq.poll/index.html

I said "Could things be worse if IBC wasn't around? Yes, but how does that relieve you of the responsibilty to do better when you could easily do so? "

Josh replied "So we provide somethign positive on the whole, we agree, but we could do more. Sadly, I don't think some are willing to admit this. Reflect on the fact of how so many people here have been so harshly, sometimes viciously and personally, attacking people who are providing something positive on the whole. "

[b] I comment on this reluctantlly because debateing "tone" and "civilty" has sucked up too much time, but I can't recall many ML participants decending to the level that Sloboda did in his BBC interview.

Referring to ML "They are a pressure group that use aggressive and emotionally destructive tactics..... their motives were never pure from the very start. they sent us this innocent-sounding letter already knowing their intention was to destroy us....... Their behaviour is far worse than most of our right-wing or pro-war critics..... This is also the mindset that draws angry young men towards terrorism....
.... the tactics they are using are very similar to the tactics that have been very well honed by the far right in America. Bombarding with hostile emails, a character assassination - these techniques have been honed to perfection since the McCarthy times in the 50s."

Referring to the media [that played a major role in making the war possible] "It's a symbiotic relationship we have with the media - we take the information from you, collate it and organise it in a well-organised fashion for you to use. That is the relationship that these people can't stand. They're trying to make that relationship go sour, and we won't tolerate that......What cannot be weathered is that the mainstream media should stop using our figures because it's just too much hassle. .....
We have to put into the hands of responsible media the definitive rebuttal to our critics so that when they use our figures they can say - 'your criticisms are unfounded for the following reasons'.
And that's what we've now done."

Recall that Sloboda was talking to the BBC,.

Consider that "A study of British broadcasters carried out by Cardiff University concluded that the BBC had the most pro-war agenda of the lot. In a summary of his report, Professor
Justin Lewis revealed that the BBC relied on government and military sources to a far greater degree than did other broadcasters
In an article for The Guardian, David Miller cited the findings of a second study, carried out by the Media Tenor group, which looked at broadcasters in five countries.
According to Miller, it found that the BBC provided the least space to dissenting views of all the media outlets surveyed, with just two percent of airtime given over to
anti-war opinion" [TNS: The Hutton Diversion and the BBC's Mythical Anti-War Bias : by A.J. Doherty : http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=156]

And to these studies you could add plenty of ML alterts.

You don't see reasons, again aside from the Lancet study, to be very suspicious about data provided by institutions like these?

I said "Do you doubt that the millions who took to the streets to oppose this war saved lives? Is that grounds for congratulating oursleves that the slaughter would have been worse without us?"

Josh replied " No, it's saying that those people should not be attacked as aiding war criminals because they didn't go to, or organize more demonstrations than they did, which of course they could have easily done. "


Not nearly as easily as IBC can 1) make changes to the presentation of its data
2) acknowledge the obvious about the corporate media


I said "Shouldn't we look at why we aren't doing better? "

Josh said "Sure, but when there is disagreement on tactics and what would really be better, that should be civil and different groups and individuals should be able to make different choices about these things, even when you think it's the wrong choice."

Civility is important, but so is public dabate. Progressives instututions make horrible choices because they aren't held accountable. I could go on about the horrible things progressive groups have done (despite doing positive things as well) but I wnn't. I'll just say that the we need to get much better at self criticism - and fast.

[joshd]

[joshd]

[joe emersberger]

I wish you'd respond to a question that I asked (rather clumbsily) above

"The fact that the corporate media led the charge to war; the fact that it is a part of the corporate systrem that requires war. Do you deny this? "

If you do deny it then there little point in continuing. Its a truism as far as I'm concerned - extremely well supported by looking at what the media is, what it puts out and its impact on public opinion.

I cited a PIPA poll but you missed the point about it. Most US citizens - a year and a half into the occupation - believed that about 3000 Iraqis had been killed.

Your response to this was

[toastkid]

Josh,

You say

"Why would we take it to someone if we're convinced of our case? There's no need. If someone raises an *ARGUMENT* about why we should not be convinced - namely, why the ILCS study should not be relied upon, they can give one."

I think all good researchers accept that their scientific model is imperfect and continually look to improve it.

By contrast what you are saying is our model is good enough, we need an argument before we change.

I don't think that it is a good approach to scientific research. Especially when the study you are using to validate your argument is two years old and unlikely still to be a good description of reality due to the massive deterioration on the ground in Iraq.

I ask you not to seek further argument here.
Why not look how your data might be best used to provide an accurate death estimation without assumption based on asingle study?
Multiple comparisons would be great.

Alternatively why not write up to ten letters to major news outlets and explain to them how your data does not provide a total count of deaths in Iraq and should not be used as such?

Thanks

dan

[joshd]

[quote="toastkid"]Josh,

You say

"Why would we take it to someone if we're convinced of our case? There's no need. If someone raises an *ARGUMENT* about why we should not be convinced - namely, why the ILCS study should not be relied upon, they can give one."

I think all good researchers accept that their scientific model is imperfect and continually look to improve it.

By contrast what you are saying is our model is good enough, we need an argument before we change.
[/quote]

"our model" is just arithmetic dan. If you're suggesting a model should change, it's the well established model of household survey studies.

This is all just hocus pocus. And my responses about it are being deleted or prevented entirely by closure of threads, because the Eds can't refute what I'm saying in them.

[toastkid]

I am not confused. I realise that it is a simple mathematical calculation. But the data you put in to the calculation may be wrong.

The proportion of deaths for 2005-2006 which IBC records may be a large underestimate.

Mr Sloboda has been quoted during that period that the count may be capturing as many as 50% of deaths.

If he used the past tense it might be reasonable but it is a weak assumption now based on a two year old study.

[joshd]

[quote="toastkid"]I am not confused. I realise that it is a simple mathematical calculation. But the data you put in to the calculation may be wrong.

The proportion of deaths for 2005-2006 which IBC records may be a large underestimate.

Mr Sloboda has been quoted during that period that the count may be capturing as many as 50% of deaths.

If he used the past tense it might be reasonable but it is a weak assumption now based on a two year old study.[/quote]

Fine, then we can draw no conclusions from the Lancet about IBC.

[toastkid]

[joshd]

[toastkid]

[joshd]