|
|
|
Subject:
Civilian Casualties?
PowerPointRanger
9/17/2005 12:21:24 PM
|
I was skimming one of those anti-war sites that estimates civilian casualties. I looked at their methodology and noticed some major flaws: They used multiple media reports as sources and confirmation, adding the numbers to a cumulative total. I noted these flaws:
1) Assumes the media reports are correct. (Remember the early estimates of Katrina-related deaths going into the 1000's?) News reports can be based on estimates, exaggerations, and hype.
2) Assumes civilians are civilians. With an enemy that routinely uses civilian attire (a war crime) it is possible that casualties reported as civilians may in fact be combatants. Also, the enemy recruits soldiers from the very young (reports as young as 12), so combatants might also be reported as children.
3) Assumes all casualties are caused by the US. These often blame enemy attacks against civilians to the US, even when there was no US involvement.
4) Assumes all violent deaths are war-related. Some deaths could be the result of criminal activity or a tribal feud.
5) Media often parrot one another. A report used as confirmation might be just a repeat of the orignial report rather than independant confirmation. So if Al Jazeera report a fictional civilian death and AP repeats it, it would count.
6) treated all media as equally credible. treated the likes of Al Jazeera as credible, when it is well known as little more than a propaganda organ for the enemy.
7) casualties may go unreported.
These highly-flawed estimates were picked up by most media and used as authitative.
Makes me wonder what the truth would be. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
