Friday, August 04, 2006
Counting the dead
Power Line examines the precision with which various wire services count civilian casualties in Lebanon, noting particularly the refusal of Reuters to report subsequent downward revisions. There is something gruesome in this, in that it really doesn't matter whether 28 innocent people died at Qana, as the Red Cross now reports, or "up to" 54, as Reuters continues to insist. That's still a lot of dead civilians, and the tragedy is not really diminished by the difference between those two numbers (begging the question who from among Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah and their various clients is culpable for those dead).
However, the Power Line inquiry, gruesome as it may be, is also necessary. That a wire service continues to exaggerate civilian casualties from Israeli ordnance suggests that it will probably mislead readers about other matters that reflect poorly on Israel. If the news coverage is systematically misleading, it is akin to propaganda and in some regards more dangerous. It is influencing the course of the war by increasing the political pressure on the United States and the United Kingdom to support the demands of other powers that Israel cease firing unilaterally. If that happens, this war will end with the perception that in Hezbollah the Arabs finally have an army that can defeat the IDF. If Arabs and other Muslims hold that belief after the shooting stops, Israel's deterrent will lose its credibility. Hezbollah will be emboldened to attack Israel again, and next time it will not be alone.
4 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Fri Aug 04, 10:03:00 PM:
Most important in that Powerline post is the phrase "up to X dead." Up to. Not, X and possibly more, not, at least X, but up to X. Think on it. There is no real limit to what they could make up for X. If fifteen people, they can say that "up to thirty people died" and wouldn't be lying. Using the phrase "up to" allows them to artificially inflate the perception of casaulties in the minds of a reader, while still hewing somewhat to the truth. It is both brilliant and terrible to behold.
By 
, at
Fri Aug 04, 10:42:00 PM:
Who determines that a dead body was that of a combatant or civilian? Such classifications may be more a result of the biases of those making/receiving the reports than an accurate determination of the truth of the matter.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Fri Aug 04, 11:45:00 PM:
Up to 90% of journalists are frigging lunatics. Same logic, right?
By , at
Tue Aug 08, 02:03:00 AM:
Have you noticed the American losses in the Iraz conflict are alway written 'at least X soldiers have been killed...'.
But when I see counts for Canadians killed in Afganistan, or UN Peace Keeping casualties anywhere, etc. the report just gives a number, usually with 'this year' or 'since xxxxx'.
The clear implication is that the American figures are probably higher and the military is lies about it. Isn't it curious that virtually every report uses the same words?
