Editors at the Washington Post (reg. req.) are clueless about why circulation is down. Did they come up with a plan to eradicate or at least control their leftist bias? No. That would be too easy. Instead, they settled on these:
1) Dumb it down:
In an effort to win new readers, Downie said Post reporters will be required to write shorter stories. The paper’s design and copy editors will be given more authority to make room for more photographs and graphics.
Great. Liberal bias with big pictures and small stories.
2) More skin-color diversity:
Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. met with hundreds of newsroom staffers yesterday to outline management’s latest attempts to combat declining circulation. However, the more intense discussion at the meeting involved diversity at the newspaper, as several minority staff members lamented that a white man recently was chosen over a woman and a black man as the paper’s new managing editor. [My emphasis
If Philip Bennett is more qualified, shouldn't he get the job? Are the blacks and women asserting he isn't? If so, it's a different story, but we all know that's not what's bothering them. Bennett is a white male. Whether he's the most qualified or not, his very presence (and skin color) makes him suspect.
In response to the whining, Downie was forced to give facts but couldn't resist seasoning them with politically correct mumbo jumbo: "[O]f the paper’s 30 to 40 top editors, ‘white males are in the minority.’ But he [Downie] said the paper needs to hire more minorities and to improve its coverage of the area’s increasingly diverse population.”
Can you guess which is fact and which is politically correct mumbo jumbo?
{ 57 comments }
If circulation keeps declining look for pop ups like they have in books for children.
Do you know what the Washington Post considers diversity?
White liberal
Black liberal
Male liberal
Female liberal
Heterosexual liberal
Homosexual liberal
Any other classification as long as they are liberal
Lord have mercy on all of us. This is so ridiculiculous (that’s right) that even I can’t get myself to make a smarty pants remark……….but I did just write shorter story, for a change.
Hire me!! I’m black!! I think.
Agreed.
I gave up on the Washington comPost a long, long time ago.
Maybe NOW my mom will finally cancel her subscription (since we only look for the Home Depot and Lowe’s sale inserts on the weekends).
It never ceases to amaze me at the complete inability of the liberals to think that maybe – just maybe – they are out of touch. No, that couldn’t be it. The problem is that the readers are too stupid (or have ADD) to read long stories with big words. That is the media elite mindset – if we don’t like what they are saying, we are just dumb. Why this whole country is filled with stupid people (Michael Mooron). 59,000,000 + Americans just got it wrong!
Was it Pogo that said, “We have found the problem and it is dem”?
Well anyone with stock in WaPo better bail out. If we’re lucky, she’ll go under and there’ll be that many more to add to the unemployment rolls for a change. Bwahahaha
BTW, whatever happended to Spitzer’s grand investigation into the Print MSM’s coverup and fraud, i.e. inflated circulation #s to boost ad revenues? I guess crime only applies to capitalists, not liberal ventures.
Newspapers across the country have dumbed down the stories in their papers. For some time, the standard writing style was an 11th grade educational level. When I was in college, newspapers started dumbing it down to the 10th and 8th grade level.
Newsflash!
Paper reading is going down at the same time that the amount of reading done by the public is also decreasing. It’s not about liberal vs. conservative, it’s about the shortening attention span of the U.S. population.
In general, the Black media does a better job of covering issues in the Black community than does the “mainstream” media.
Useless info time:
Men’s magazines have, in general, shorter articles. When the articles are longer, it’s best that the article is all together. Men are less likely to follow the article if it jumps from page to page.
Women, on the other hand, are willing to jump from page to page. That’s why the women’s magazines have longer articles spread all over the place.
Just like those mini WaPos that you can find at one of the metro stations? Dumb, and dumb.
We need preferential treatment of conservatives in the newspapers now!
No more hiring of liberals until further notice (until the newsroom is balanced….
We’ll have 50/50 stories. 50% saying that Abu Graib is just as bad and just “under new management” (as Ted Kennedy says). And 50% reporting the truth/facts that there were a set of dorks doing stupid things with Iraqi prisoners and they got court martialed.
Oh yeah, dumbing down…
Hello! Can someone say USA Today?
The Washington Post ticked me off this week, but not for the reasons mentioned on this website.
They got rid of one of my favorite cartoonists, Ted Rall. Don’t whip me too hard, I’m about to make an agreeing point.
La Shawn’s comment re: hiring the most qualified individual is DEAD-ON. Affirmative action remains a subject over which I hold great reservations as a liberal.
I am in agreement with the idea that African-Americans have been victims of institutional slavery over the past 400 years. It certainly continues to this day in the form of segregated neighborhoods, real estate market manipulation and the “old” generation still reeling from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I think there is a principle La Shawn has touched on. Unfortunately, it’s one of great divide. Bennett deserves the job because he is more qualified, bar none. End of discussion.
My problem with the conservative definition of affirmative action–and George Bush’s problem in particular–is that they seem to only define it as “quotas.” Sure, we all hate the idea of quotas. But, that isn’t merely what affirmative action is about.
Ok, I’m rambling. I think you all probably get my point, as ill-structured as it was.
Mike. I sent the Washington Post a congratulatory email today to thank them for firing Ted Rall.
Here is the text:
Thank you for making the right decision with respect to Ted Rall. He doesn’t have a right to post garbage or filth or racist cartoons on your dime. His right to free speech can be financed completely by himself…
—————-
My 1st question is – How could you be upset with the WaPo for doing the right thing – getting rid of someone who is pushing racist garbage.
My 2nd question is – Have you seen Condaleeza Rice’s resume? It’s posted on the White House’s website and LaShawn linked to it. I have seen too many liberals on ABC, CBS, NBC and the WaPo say that she is unqualified. It’s terrible.
In my opinion, the conservative blacks that hate “diversity” so much are the very ones benefitting from diversity policies, or their own unique opinions as expressed within an all-white world.
Baklava,
I don’t think Condi is unqualified. My problem with Bush appointing her S.o.S. is that Bush continues to appoint those in his inner circles to higher positions of power.
As much as I disagree with him, Pat Buchanan has been making a heck of a lot of sense lately. He said that when Bush appoints so many in his inner circle, they may be reluctant to dissent. I agree fiercely with this opinion.
Condi may be qualified, but I don’t see her as being the type that would openly raise her voice if Bush says something stupid or questionable.
Buchanan’s point was that Bush needs to look for independent voices outside of his inner circle so that subservience doesn’t set in.
Regarding Rall, I agree with his right to say what he wants. Sure, the Washington Post has every right to get rid of him, but it does no one ANY good. My response to the Post would have been to seek out a cartoonist who is just as well experienced in the art of polemic as Rall is…except he or she would be of the conservative persuasion.
I agree with Michelle Malkin on the Rall issue, although we’re at separate ends of the argument. Malkin says the Post should keep printing Rall to show America how crazy we liberals are. Point taken. I think the Post should keep printing Rall because it’s un-American to censor someone simply because their political manifesto is considered too extreme.
One interesting point is that while newspaper reading is down substantially, especially among the far-left papers like the Wash Post, it seems that conservative books, like Ann Coulter, John Podhoretz etc., always seem to go to the top of the best-seller lists. Also, the proliferation of blogs like this tell me that people aren’t at all tired of reading, they are just tired of reading the same old liberal crud that they see shoved down their throats everyday. The Wash Post and other liberal rags have to keep shortening their articles, because they know damn well they have nothing to say.
Duhhh, HEY! If they dumb it down, then one-toothed, gun-totin’, Church-a-goin’, “gay rights” tramplin’, Bush-votin’ idiots like me could read it!
Condi is greatly qualified. I’m not convinced Kerry’s wide-range of disagreeing advisors (more economy, no, more Iraq, no, more health care, no, more Vietnam, no, LESS Vietnam) makes for better policy.
It seems likely that for a lot of tough policy that needs to occur, getting everybody in the government going the same way, Bush’s way, is more likely to produce good outcomes.
In a newspaper, however, the advantages and disadvantages of Bush’s policies, or an alternative, should be more fully explored. The diversity that papers need is more Republicans who attend Church regularly. Unlikely.
Mike M:
You bring up thoughtful, valid points, but I differ with you somewhat. Would you openly raise your voice if your boss “…says something stupid or questionable…”? Where I come from, whether you agree with your boss or not, openly raising your voice is a CLM…Career Limiting Move, and not just with your current boss, but other potential ones. (In her case, with the electorate.) In Condi’s case, I believe she would tactfully and appropriately confront with the President in private, if necessary. That’s the advantage of being a confidante.
Also, firing someone is not censorship. Rall is free to publish his vile, disgusting garbage in any form he chooses. WaPo made a business decision; there’s a big difference.
I like your idea of having a cartoonist “on the other side of the coin” as an option, rather than firing Rall, but it would have to be much less rancid for me enjoy/appreciate it.
Tom
I once attended an institution whose diversity is described above by ratso ferrari. After I left, it occurred to me that there is only so much “diversity” many people are comfortable with. Having gone to great lengths to include all the diversity mentioned by ratso, it might have been more of a strain than they could bear to include political and theological diversity also. I doubt that they ever would have considered this though. A liberal position was considered to be the only “true” position and a mature life journey for a conservative was to be willing to adopt a liberal stance in time.
Mike, Tom,
Ted Rall, a syndicated cartoonist, isn’t fired when a paper drops his ‘work’. ANd it certainly isn’t censorship. The WaPo realized that Rall’s angry, racist work wasn’t brining any consumers in, and was definitely chasing some away. Biz logic, while rare at the WaPo, does come out once in a while.
I am sure that independent weeklys, college papers, The Village Voice and others will continue to print/enable Rall until he is either comitted or dies.
Tom:
There was strife between Bush’s “higher-ups” in the lead-up to war. I think this was pretty well known. I believe also Colin Powell had some problems with going to the UN and persuading the audience that the little vile of sugar he held in his hand is what Saddam was actively pursuing )of course, without the sugar). My problem is that there was definitely dissent in the administration, but the President didn’t listen to it.
As Pat Buchanan said, more independence from the President’s inner-circle would have been a wiser choice.
As for Rall, I will still hold by my original. Sure, WaPo can do whatever they want. But silencing him shouldn’t be one of the solutions.
I love how conservatives generally accept this idea that big business in all its righteousness can simply censor whoever they want “because they can.” It’s an acceptable and valid response, but it neither furthers our democracy nor does it keep open that “marketplace of ideas.”
And, to those who hate Rall’s extreme views: consider the other side. If Ann Coulter was a cartoonist, she would have the left up in arms. Coulter and Rall are essentially the same brand of polemic, simply on opposity sides of the coin.
Ann calls liberals treasonous. Ted calls Bush treasonous. Now that’s what I call fair and balanced.
Mike M.:
I won’t quibble over your views about the “inner circle” of the administration. You have valid points, as I said before, and I think I successfully made mine.
However, about “censorship”; I have to reiterate that Rall is free to publish his racist cartoons anywhere he wants (since he is syndicated, thanks for the clarification, SCSIwuzzy!). The Washington Post is not (and cannot) preventing him from doing so elsewhere. They can silence him no more than they can silence you or me. I guarantee there are plenty of other outlets for him, so don’t get too depressed. His kind of opinion is not tolerated in 99.9% of the workforce, by the way. I certainly would be fired for making them, and for just cause. Why would any employer want to be associated with that?
It’s very disturbing that Rall’s racist, vile garbage are excused by the left simply because he’s a liberal. I don’t recall Ann Coulter, et al., resorting to racism to make her points, otherwise she’d be out of business.
Tom
Tom-
You are right about Ann Coulter. I have read all of her books so far and her columns when I can find them. She never uses racist remarks, but she consistently skewers liberal thinking.
Tom,
I guess we can agree to disagree civilly.
As a Rall fan, I would hardly call what he did racist. He was simply referring to how HE perceives conservatives to treat minorites. Whether or not he is correct, I think it’s wrong to call him a racist.
Robert Byrd is a racist.
Strom Thurmond was a racist.
Simply because they denounced their past behavior doesn’t discount the fact that both are/were racists.
My father has been in AA for 15 years, but he still says he’s an alcoholic. In fact, that’s one of the principles of AA. Even if you haven’t had a drink in 50 years, you’re still an alcoholic.
As for Coulter, it would be unfair for you to say she isn’t on the same level as Rall. Her invective is often just as outrageous and grandiose as his. I love Coulter and Rall. Their passion for their own brand of extreme politics is both insightful and entertaining.
One last thing, and then I’m done, to everyone’s relief. The mere act of Sadaam firing on US and UN warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone was justification enough to invade Iraq, but there were plenty of others, not the least of which Iraq violated every UN resolution up until that time since 1991. The WMD case can’t be proven yet, and it was a part of the entire argument for the invasion of Iraq. Liberals, along with Conservatives in the House and Senate, overwhelmingly voted twice to support the President in this endeavor. This excludes the bogus argument John Kerry was trying to sell that these votes authorized negotiational “leverage only.”
Also, does anyone think Johnny Hart (B.C.) was unfairly treated for being pulled from many newspapers a couple of years back? Perhaps, but he’s still doing quite well with his comic strip.
(Rick, love your blog!)
‘Nuff said. GO BUCKS, BEAT MICHIGAN!!!
‘ The mere act of Sadaam firing on US and UN warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone was justification enough to invade Iraq,’
Its justification for a proportionate response. You think the response of invasion is proportionate?
Any attempt to stop “declining circulation” will fail because it’s a nationwide trend. People just aren’t getting their information from the paper anymore.
A resounding yes. It’s amazing how short memories are: after 10 years of breaking UN Resolutions, not cooperating with weapons inspectors, intelligence from the entire world reporting they had WMDs (including the “slam dunk” decree by our own CIA), hostile activity towards the US and UN, connections to Al-Quaeda, there is no question that’s an appropriate response.
actus – What exactly do you mean by “proportionate response”? Someone should shoot at a couple of their airplanes?
I presume you mean that we should not have invaded until after they had invaded us. By that same logic we should have built up enough strength after Pearl Harbor to pull off a secret attack on one of Japan’s naval centers.
So you would never kill anyone until after they had killed you? Uh, isn’t that too little, too late?
“It’s justification for a proportionate response. You think the response of invasion is proportionate.”
Actus, I agree with you. I have to wonder if the response of invasion in Iraq is proportionate given what we know now.
Too many innocent people are dying in Iraq. A recent report, in the medical journal, The Lancet, estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the beginning of the U.S.-led invasion. Half of them are women and children. Almost all were killed by coalition air strikes.
Take a minute to think about the enormity of this human cost. Think of it as September 11, 30 times over. Though it wildly exceeds all previous figures, The Lancet estimate is credible, and perhaps even conservative, according to independent statisticians who analysed the data and found the reports methodologically sound.
So why do we not think of these deaths as tragic in the same way we do those of September 11? For the Iraqis, we hold no multi-faith services, no commemorative anniversary functions and we give no human face to them. Perhaps some innocent lives are more sacrosanct than others.
Of course, there is a crucial difference between the civilian deaths caused by terrorism, and those caused by the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Coalition forces did not target the innocent as terrorists do. This is true, we should not lose sight of this. But we should also not abuse it to dehumanise those we have killed, and evade the responsibility we rightfully bear. We speak of Iraqi civilians, even 100,000 of them, not as victims, but as collateral demage. We did not murder them as terrorists murder their victims, because their was no intention to kill them. However, It is simply not good enough to hide our guilt in this way. Our actions were always destined to claim thousands of civilian lives. This was not merely probable; it was certain. We recognised that certainly and pressed on anyway. The fact that killing innocents was not the aim, but rather a guaranteed byproduct of our action, does not absolve us.
Australian lawyers call this reckless murder, and once stripped of euphemism, that is what collateral damage is. We own the responsibility for the forseen, likely consequances of our actions. Confronted with The Lancet’s grotesque estimate, Defence Minister Robert Hill back on the standard defence that Iraqis would be better off without saddam Hussein. This is the arguement that killing is justified where it is necessary in defence of another.
However, on the basis of The Lancet estimate, it is ridiculous to suggest that justification applies here. It took Saddam several decades to kill 300,000 people. We have managed a third of that in just 18 months. But whatever the death toll, if removing Saddam was really the goal, can we honestly say all this deadly “shock and awe” was necessary to achieve it?
Sergeant Scott, a soldier in Iraq, clearly did not think so when he told Britian’s Daily Telegraph: “You could have sent two men in to kill Saddam. Why did we have to kill so many people?” He was speaking less than a month after the invasion began. I cannot imagine what he would say now.
This does not mean there is moral equivalence between al-Qaeda-style terrorism and our civilian killings in Iraq. But does there have to be? Because our actions do not meet the depravity of terrorism does not justify them. Since when have terrorists provided the moral standard against which we judge ourselves? Are we really reduced to arguing that we are not as bad as them?
Our concern, as people whose governments are waging war in our name, should be for the legitimacy of our actions. When it comes to our actions in Iraq, that legitimacy has been fatally eroded. We have now run out of excuses.
So now we should listen to Sergeants who clearly know what’s up and all the ins/outs. Please. By the way, Sgt in which force?
It’s like the Russian General said shortly after the USSR crumbled, ‘How can we compete against the US Officer Corps, when they all have business degrees?’ While it’s not true that they all have business degrees, the point was that as a force, our folks are highly educated in any number of disciplines unrelated to war-making.
Even the “dumbest” US Senior NCO has more education than most Russian Officers. Certainly more than the MSM, no thanks to the public school system.
Furthermore, the Lancet is not without controversy. Conservative estimates back in September of Iraqi civillians killed by direct US actions rahge from 2,500 to 5,000. Death to fighters range as high as 25,000 by coalition forces. That’s a far cry from 100,000.
The problem with culling death counts from Iraqi hospitals etc is that without uniforms, everyone is counted a ‘civillian’. Nevertheless, a total death count of 100,000 dead is not unreasonable when those killed by insurgents are counted as well.
With regards to Saddam’s reign, far more than 300,000 have died under his thumb. Lowball estimates are as high as 2 million. Bottomline, only time will tell how many have actually died once Iraq is under control.
In the meantime, when it’s war, the point is always to kill more of them faster than they can kill you and let God sort them out. If all we cared about was wiping them out with 0 loss to our side, we’s have dropped a couple of Hiroshimas on them.
The fact that we take casulities in order to minimize collateral damage speaks much to our institutional respect for innocent life.
Gary,
I just read something about that estimate you referred to. I can’t locate it right now, but that particular study gave a margin of error of 94,000. In other words, the estimate was between 6,000 and 194,000. They just picked the 100,000 number because that was the average. A study with that big a margin of error is useless. According to what I read, the methods used anecdotal evidence almost exclusively – basically, they interviewed people in different neighborhoods to find out how many people had died. No attempt was made to separate true civilians from insurgents dressed as civilians.
Then, your quote from this “Sergeant Scott” shows he does not understand politics and/or tyrannical governments at all. To change the regime in Iraq (a policy that had been decided upon during the last couple of years of the Clinton Administration), the entire government and military had to be removed from power, or else no substantial changes would have resulted.
Survey after survey have shown that the majority of Iraqis are glad we are there, yet Libs and the MSM continue to try to convince everyone that we went there for oil, that sanctions would have eventually solved the problem, that we are taking horrendous losses (Still less than an average week in WWII, and less than an average month in Viet Nam), that the Abu Ghraib incidents were more horrible than the things that went on there when Hussein ran the place (despite the fact that several people who were there during Hussein’s rule have vehemently denied this), and that there are no other countries supporting us in this conflict.
Yes, civilians are dying in Iraq from coalition attacks. That is regrettable, but unavoidable, if we are to open this country up to self-government free of the horrors they have lived under for the last 30 years (and yes, partially funded by the U.S., to our regret). We use hyper-accurate weapons costing many times the amount of simple bombs, which could be used just as effectively, though with vastly more collateral damage, in order to minimize the killing of civilians. Our soldiers are helping to not only liberate the citizenry, but also organize clean-up and repair operations, organize youth activities, train the new police and military groups, and many other things, and none of this gets recognized in the MSM. It’s pathetic.
WayneB,
You said, “study gave a margin area of 94,000. In other words, the estimate was between 6,000 and 194,000. They just picked the 100,000 number because that was the average.”
Wayne, statistically, the 95% confidence interval is 8,000 to 194,000 extra deaths, outside of Falluja. But the distribution is a normal curve, which means that most of the probability is near the 98,000 figure, which the Lancet study uses as its “conservative estimate.” It could be less, it could be more. One reason to expect that figure might be higher is that there is no representation for the entire al Anbar governate (which includes Falluja, Ramadi) in that estimate, and it is believed that a significant portion of the violence in the post-war is in that region. Najaf also wasn’t included, and it has seen significant U.S. bombings.
Some more clarification. The study doesn’t estimate 98,000 were “slaughtered” or violently killed, but that around 98,000 more Iraqis died (for various reasons) outside Fallija than would be expected given pre-war rates. Only about 1/2 of this increase in death rate can be attributed to violence, according to the sample. The rest is various health reasons. This indicates that lack of medical attention post-invasion might bave been just as significant a problem for Iraqis as the violence.
I also want to say, this isn’t about individual soldiers doing bad things. I happen to think they are doing the best they can under the circumstances that they are put in by this administration. We know the soldiers are over-extended at this point and tired. The soldiers should get all the credit for the progress in the areas you pointed out: clean up and repair operations, organize youth activities, training new police and military groups, etc.. What appears to be the problem was the approach to occupation in Iraq. I am just not certain the President knew what he was doing when he sent us off to war. A good example was when the founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, said he told President George Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, “we’re not going to have any casualties.”
Maybe someone can answer this for me. Why do the Republicans manage to politicize any frank discussion of the war. This means that if I were to say, “a study concluded an extra 100,000 deaths have occurred in Iraq since the invasion” people would hear that as a political attack on the President, rather than as a simple statement of fact.
Censorship, of a sort, is occurring in America. It’s happening in people’s minds rather than in the media–people refuse to hear what’s happening, and its being done in the name of “fairness” believe it or not. It’s not “fair” to the President to say such a mean thing about his policies. Let’s hear what he says about it….Oh, the President says everything’s fine. It’s revolting. Everything is not fine.
This is exactly the type of story, by the way, that I suspect will get no coverage in the American press. The U.S. media doesn’t like talking about civilian casualities in U.S. waged wars — it makes us look bad. U.S. troop casualties are ok, but not civilian deaths.
Gary,
Repubs are hardly the only ones that bring politics into the discusssion of the war. I know plenty of Dems who launch into a series of talking points as soon as Fajullah or Iraq are mentioned. Start with Iraq, then the Kyoto treaty, and until a few weeks ago, “He was SELECTED, not ELECTED!!!!” (now it’s once the vote fraud comes to light, he’ll be impeaced). Why some on the right see a statement as an attack on Bush? Because many of the studies and press reports are just that. You quote Robertson like it’s gospel that Bush said that, but ignore (or didn’t know) that the White House has denied the statement was said.
The Lancet study was authored by people with a political agenda. Do a google search. You’ll also find plenty of folks that know statistics that can punch huge holes in their model. But you take it as fact. And if others question it, they are either defending Bush or have their head in the sand.
The whole point of the study, and the timing of the release, was to help get Bush out of office. Sounds like a political attack.
As for censorship… I’ve seen far more people on the left shouting down or even attacking people for disagreeing with their views in the last few years than on the right. If you think that since some on the right don’t agree with you, and don’t want to hear you continue expanding on notions they’ve already rejected is censorship, then you need a dictionary.
And if you think the press isn’t commenting on Bush’s policies, or criticizing them or disagreeing with them, I don’t know what to tell you.
BTW, given the amount of press was given to a Marine shooting a wounded terrorist who had just been shooting out the window of a mosque, how does this fit into your model?
How much press will be given to the French troops firing into the croud in Ivory Coast?
Speaking of civilian casulaties. where are all the big reports on the mass graves in Iraq? The ones from Saddam’s era? We know they are there, but I don’t see Rather, Jennings or Brokaw ever leading the news with it.
SCSIWUZZY Do you remember that it was Robertson who was very angry that the Bush administration did not support the government of Charles Taylor in Liberia? Apparently Robertson had a deal with Taylor’s government about investments to support Robertson’s ministry that might not be honored by a new government in Liberia. It is beyond belief that President Bush said what Robertson remembers. I suspect that Robertson misheard or misremembered.
I take everything Pat Robertson says with a grain of salt. In a sense, I feel he has done a Jesse Jackson to the right.
No matter what he or Jesse or any other big time preacher man says, the Berean Principle applies — take what they say and compare it to the Scriptures. Pat does not always pass the BP test.
SCSIwuzzy comments, “speaking of civilian casualties. Where are all the big reports on all the mass graves in Iraq? we know they are there, but we don’t see Rather, Jennings, Brokaw ever leading the news with it.”
I can’t disagree with you there. I only saw one report on mass graves in Iraq and that was prior or just after the war had started. However, Seldom reported, if ever, was the continuing atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein throughout his time in power. You are right. Even I notice sometimes the media has a anti-war stance.
While everyone, including the news organizations, have their own bias, it is neither professioanl nor honest to concentrate almost exclusively on one side of an issue, particularly one so important as a war. To do so presents an inaccurate and dishonest view of what is actually happening, and this does not allow viewers to form informed and valid opinions. If you are like me, you believe that the freedom of the press carries with it an obligation to be accurate, fair, balanced, and honest.
I ain’t much of a statistician, but I find the 100,000 estimate really hard to believe.
According to Gary Vollin, (1) 50,000 of those would have perished for health-related reasons and (2) the other 50,000 for military-related reasons.
Wouldn’t (1) have to mean that the coalition has been systematically and indiscriminately bombing population centers on a really massive scale? And wouldn’t (2) mean that medical care is now non-existent in Iraq?
If this is true, how come Lancet was the first to find out about it? Wouldn’t it be hard to cover up so well?
Or am I missing something? Like I said, I ain’t much of a statistician.
Adrian
Gary—sorry for misspelling your last name. I added an extra “l” by mistake. I guess I’m not much of a speller, either.
Adrian
Adrian,
You should ask the government how many Iraqi civilians have been killed. I bet you won’t get an answer to your question. The government has never kept track of civilian deaths, nor have they ever attempted. Would you consider this a form of cover up?
Don’t be so quick to dismiss the report. You ask some good questions. If you haven’t already, I suggest you write the President and demand he answer your questions.
I don’t think it is so unrealistic to have such high numbers in a war given the bombing, plus invading, plus terrorist activities from the gentlemen Bush invited to “bring it on” over there, plus fighting against insurgents with civilians caught in the crossfire, plus lack of water, power and food for weeks after the invasion, plus lack of proper medical care, plus scared U.S. troops firing at anything that moves.
I think it is hard to dismiss the estimated 100,000 civilian deaths so quickly given what we know now. I know that 8,000 slaughtered innocents is easier to stomach. Wait – no it isn’t. It’s still a travesty!
Write the President and demand an answer? Why? What precedent is there for it? As in past wars, the dead will be tallied when it’s over. Or would you also demand the enemy give an accounting while the war is in progress?
When we trust our leader to take us to war, we’re also trusting that our institutions of war will do their best under pre-established guidelines. Yes mistakes will be made, but such is the fog of war. Once we’re comitted, we have to stick it out to the end. To waver over body counts, especially over the enemy & collateral damage only compounds the danger to us. “Don’t tread on us”.
The notion that 100,000 died as a result of our actions is hard to swallow. But we’ll see in a few years. In the meantime, soldier on.
Dear Gary,
A cover-up is a deliberate attempt to hide some embarrassing fact. I’m not sure that “not keeping track” fits that definition. Perhaps it’s not physically possible.
I’m still not convinced about the 100,000 figure. 100,000 seems disproportionately big—unless the coalition has been systematically killing innocent civilians or being careless on a scale too massive not to have been noticed from day one.
Yes, even 8,000 dead are too many. But 8,000 is better than 100,000 in this respect: it suggests that the coalition forces haven’t been systematically killing innocents or being careless on a massive scale.
It seems to me that one can have good grounds for thinking that the invasion of Iraq was immoral without having to find any extra immorality in the prosecution of the war. If one is going to mount a case against the Iraq invasion, one ought to do it soberly and without exaggeration.
I agree, of course, that, even supposing it was right to invade Iraq in the first place, the systematic deliberate slaughter of civilians or widespread unnecessary recklessness with their lives would be sufficient to make the prosecution of the war immoral. But I’m just not sure that that’s really what’s going on here.
Adrian
A follow-up question: is there anyone out there versed in these things who could calculate roughly the likely number of unintended civilian casualties factoring in all the relevant factors? Unfortunately, I wouldn’t know how to set up the equation, but I can’t shake the feeling that 100,000 is just too high—I mean killing 100,000 people is like dropping an a-bomb on Hiroshima: is it possible to wreak that much damage given the kind of military operations performed, the population of the country, etc., etc. Can some one help me out here?
Adrian
I’m having a hard time believing the supposedly factual statement, “of the 30 to 40 top editors, white males are in the minority”…
is it 30, or is it 40? If there are 17 white men, then that is a majority of 30 but a minority of 40, ya know? Unless he is claiming that he has fewer than 15 white male “top editors”… in which case, why not just state the number? The rather desperate attempt at ambiguity suggests not only that he isn’t confident his estimate will turn out to be true, but that he really hasn’t even THOUGHT about it! But he can’t admit to not having thought about it, because after all, diversity is the MOST IMPORTANT attribute of an editorial staff… not experience, not credentials, not qualifications…
AAAAAAAAUUUUUGGHHH!!!
What’s wrong with the Lancet study: (thanx to the Chicago Boyz and others)
1)A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004.
WHat is a cluster sample? You split an area into smaller clusters. This way you can sample one or more clusters, and make assumptions on the larger whole.
“Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters…”
That means that 18 others did not report violent deaths.
“Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja”
2)”33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002.”
Self reporting is the least reliable type, espescialy in less than free cultures. An attempt was made to match information gathered to death certificates, but the study doesn’t say how many were verified. I wonder why that was…
The study recorded 142 post-invasion deaths total. 73 from violence. Of that # 52 were in Falluja. So… 21 deaths happened in the other 14 clusters. That averages 1.5 deaths per cluster. With this method of gathering samples it only takes one or two fake reports to majorly blur study.
Then the authors admit:
“We suspect that a random sample of 33 Iraqi locations is likely to encounter one or a couple of particularly devastated areas. Nonetheless, since 52 of 73 (71%) violent deaths and 53 of 142 (37%) deaths during the conflict occurred in one cluster, it is possible that by extraordinary chance, the survey mortality estimate has been skewed upward. ”
Stop the presses! The violence is Iraq (or any way) isn’t spread out evenly? And that also means that statistical extrapolation is absolutely USELESS for this kind of analysis.
Then the authors admit this regarding children…
“Removing half the increase in infant deaths and the Falluja data still produces a 37% increase in estimated mortality.”
Odd, that put their numbers at twice the high end of most other studies.
3) The lead author is an opponent of the war and submitted the study to the Lancet on condition that it be published before the election.
Now, they study itself claims: “We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.”
Those numbers in the paren? That means they are 95% certain that the actual number falls between those two extremes. The exit polls had a better CI spread than that!
Gary,
When a study uses poor methodology, which was my point about anecdotal evidence through interviews, the results are suspect even before they are analyzed. So just because a “study” is generated by some group does not mean that it is worth repeating. Many factors can influence the results, and building a good statistical universe is essential to minimizing these influences. While I have not reviewed the study myself, others who are familiar with statistical processes have, and have found the methodology wanting, therefore it really should not be used in an argument about consequences.
You said:
“Why do the Republicans manage to politicize any frank discussion of the war. This means that if I were to say, “a study concluded an extra 100,000 deaths have occurred in Iraq since the invasion” people would hear that as a political attack on the President, rather than as a simple statement of fact.
However, you also said, in the original post that I responded to:
“Actus, I agree with you. I have to wonder if the response of invasion in Iraq is proportionate given what we know now.”, and then proceeded to lay out this study as an argument against it. You likened it to multiple 9/11s. You pointed out that Australian lawyers “call this reckless murder”. This looks, whether it was intended this way or not, to be an attack, not a “frank discussion”.
However, I frankly did not take it as a political attack on Pres. Bush specifically, but I did feel it was an unjust assessment of the policies there, because the analysis of whether it was a just cause was too simplistic, with too narrow a scope and not near enough depth. Of course, that’s hard to do here, especially when it’s not our blog.
WayneB, SCSIwuzzy, Adrian,
I appreciate all your feedback. I do listen and try to have an open mind about the war. I actually am learning from all of you. I do agree that the Lancet Report is probably flawed and biased. I now think the 100,000 is on the high end as well. I still think we would all be very surprised, perhaps even shocked, if we new the exact number of innocent Iraqi casualties. I am predicting the number is still high. In my heart, I will always believe the government continues to disrespect the Iraqi civilians that have been innocently slaughtered by the U.S.-led invasion. “The Pentagon said on Monday that it has no plans to determine how many Iraqi civilians may have been killed or injured or suffered property damage as a result of U.S. military operations in Iraq. Historically, the Petnagon hasn’t attempted to count civilian casualties and loses resulting from U.S. military action.” (Gulf News)
What Gulf news and Gary fail to mention, however, is that unlike prior wars, the current method of warfare is to avoid civilian casualties. The missions undertaken now are designed to minimize civilian contact. While any civilian or friendly fire deaths are regrettable, if the government had no respect for the Iraqi people, they would be carpet bombing Fajulah, not going door to door with our soldiers on the ground in harms way. Daisy cutters and nasty fuel-air bombs would be the order of the day, not smart munitions and UAV probes.
For people with a lack of respect, they sure are being careful, and spending alot of money, to avoid killing non-targets…
Gary,
Wuzzy is right, not only about the Lancet study, but also about the attempt to minimize civilian casualties.
Here’s another way of putting the last point: “hardliners” are probably grumbling right now because the new style of warfare practised in Iraq is too, shall we say, “politically correct”!
That’s why, Gary, your use of the word “slaughter” in your last post is, well, loaded. “Slaughter” implies deliberate killing, i.e., murder. And that’s just not what is happening. And it’s what would have to be happening—and on a huge scale that couldn’t fail to be noticed—if the 100,000 figure were true.
Look, no one wants innocent civilians to die. Even 1 is too many. But there’s a big moral difference between innocent civilians—and not 100,000!—being killed by accident and innocent civilians being killed on purpose (and as a matter of policy to boot). You may be opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but your opposition will carry little moral weight if you can’t acknowledge a huge moral difference like this.
Good debaters know how to give credit where credit is due.
Adrian
Adrian, thanks. Some nights, sitting alone by the computer screen, I feel like a master debator
A point I forgot to make last night (it was late, I was high on an Eagles victory), the 33 clusters in the Lancet study did not cover all of Iraq. They were the 33 areas they looked at, and were based on similar demographics (# of households, mostly).
And I forgot to make the point, that a study like this, esp when using the numbers from Fajulah, is bound to give an impossible result.
Imagine if you did a similar study in the US that used Washington DC or Baltimore to estimate the number of murders. Even if you toss in other clusters with 0-1 per capita murders, the overall picture of America would make Iraq look like a resort.
Wait, maybe that’s where Moore, Penn et al got the idea that Iraq was a paradise…
Wuzzy:
Thanks.
I’ve heard an unbelievable number of bad arguments from the anti-war crowd/crowds. Often the arguments presuppose a set of criteria or presuppositions that are just wrong, e.g., that war is always immoral. The 100,000 figure represents another kind of bad argument via vilification. I just hope that the public is discerning enough to know that. But, as P.T. Barnum said. . . .
A.
You are welcome Adrian.
Like I said, most of the details are from others, but I remember enough statistics to know which arguements jive with reality better.
Just proves what a bunch of idiots run many of these big city news papers i mean CONSERVATIVES ARE FROM MARS LIBERALS ARE FROM A PLANET WAY OUTSIDE OUR GALAXY and that many many many lightyears away
I don’t know why their circulation is down but I think it’s something simple like… IT’s FREE, on the internet! Sure, maybe you might want to take the Sunday paper for the inserts, ads, coupons, but other than that why would you not just go online? I haven’t subscibed to a paper in several years.
I noticed that online ad revenues are up, so it’s going to be a big deal. Washington Post has more registered internet readers than hard copy subscibers.
On another note, the London Times went back online for free. I think it finally dawned on them that they were killing themselves by stopping traffic to potentially millions of readers. It’s a good UK online paper. Link at Drudge.
I forgot to add that Washington Post is a good paper IMHO. They have a liberal bent but it’s only slight. After all, 90% of DC voters picked Kerry. They have been a very good source on the Iraq war. They have an excellent editorial page and good collection of columnists. Did I mention that it’s free!
Comments on this entry are closed.