Iraq
Body Count: “A Very
Misleading Exercise”
By Media Lens
05 October,2007
Media Lens
The
mainstream media are continuing to use figures provided by the website
Iraq Body Count (IBC) to sell the public a number for total post-invasion
deaths of Iraqis that is perhaps 5-10% of the true death toll.
As we recently reported,
only a handful of media outlets covered a new ORB poll revealing that
1.2 million Iraqis had been murdered since the 2003 invasion. BBC Online
provided a rare example:
“A UK-based polling
agency, Opinion Research Business (ORB), said it had extrapolated the
figure by asking a random sample of 1,461 Iraqi adults how many people
living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather
than from natural causes.
“The results lend weight
to a 2006 survey of Iraqi households published by the Lancet, which
suggested that about 655,000 Iraqi deaths were ‘a consequence
of the war’.
“However, these estimates
are both far higher than the running total of reported civilian deaths
maintained by the campaign group Iraq Body Count which puts the figure
at between 71,000 and 78,000.” (BBC
Online, ‘US contractors in Iraq shootout,’
September 17, 2007)
BBC’s Newsnight programme
used IBC’s figures in the same way:
“More than a million
Iraqis have been killed since the invasion in 2003, according to the
British polling company ORB. The study’s likely to fuel controversy
over the true, human cost of the war. It’s significantly up on
the previous highest estimate of 650,000 deaths published by the Lancet
last October… The independent Iraqi [sic] Body Count group puts
the current total at closer to 75,000.” (Newsnight, BBC2, September
14, 2007)
These reports again raise
serious issues about what IBC’s figures actually mean, how they
are being used and misused to cast doubt on higher numbers, and about
what IBC is doing to promote or reduce the confusion. (See our 2006
Media Alerts archive for previous analysis, beginning here.)
Just “Care
And Literacy” — No Extrapolations Required
In its latest press release,
‘The State of Knowledge on Civilian Casualties in Iraq,’
IBC explains ‘What IBC Does’:
“Provides an irrefutable
baseline figure”
Similarly in 2006, IBC
wrote: “We are providing a conservative cautious
minimum.”
These both describe laudable
objectives involving little more than accurate data collection. IBC
co-founder John Sloboda made the point in a BBC interview in response
to criticism that he and his colleagues were “amateurs”
in the field of mortality studies:
“Our position is, and
always has been, that reading press reports, which is what this job
is, requires nothing other than care and literacy. The whole point about
it is that it doesn’t require statistical analysis or extrapolations.”
And yet in their latest press
release (September 3, 2007), under the title, ’How plausible is
600,000 violent Iraqi deaths?’, IBC devote five pages to wide-ranging
criticism of the 2006 Lancet study which estimated 655,000 excess deaths
in Iraq.
IBC’s conclusion:
“Our own view is that
the current death toll +could+ be around twice the numbers recorded
by IBC and the various official sources in Iraq. We do not think it
could possibly be 10 times higher.”
In similar vein, the Toronto
Star quoted IBC co-founder John Sloboda as saying:
“The death toll could
be twice our number, but it could not possibly be 10 times higher.”
(Haroon Siddiqui, ‘How
many civilians have died?’ Toronto Star, September
20, 2007)
This last comment was reported
less than a week after the publication of ORB’s poll revealing
1.2 million Iraqi deaths.
Two questions arise: Why
is it important for IBC — providing an “irrefutable baseline”
based on data collection — to challenge the methodology and conclusions
of epidemiological studies published in the Lancet which go far beyond
data collection and which do not in any way challenge their baseline
as a “cautious minimum”?
Secondly, while IBC’s
self-described task does indeed require only “care and literacy”,
does not the task of challenging peer-reviewed science published by
some of the world’s leading epidemiologists require very much
more? Does it not, in fact “require statistical analysis or extrapolations,”
and much else besides?
In a 2006 addition to their
website, IBC
wowed visitors with scientific jargon:
“Our data is very rich,
because it provides a large subset of what is happening.
“It has high spatiotemporal
specificity. Post-event interviews are always hampered by the fact that
people tend to move on, and may not remain in the area or even in the
country. Our data is recorded as close to the time and place of death
as possible, and so has ‘forensic’ elements.”
It seems that IBC have used
their credibility as data collectors to ‘cross sell’ their
credibility as commentators on peer-reviewed epidemiology to the media
community. But this second task is unrelated to their task as data collectors,
and is an area in which, to our knowledge, none of the co-authors of
their press releases have any research record or publication history
in any relevant scientific discipline.
In a 2006 BBC interview,
John Sloboda said of the 2004 Lancet study:
“Some critics of the
Lancet study have said it’s like a drunk throwing a dart at a
dartboard. It’s going to go somewhere, but who knows if that number
is the bulls eye.
“Unfortunately many
many people have decided to accept that that 98,000 figure is the truth
- or the best approximation to the truth that we have.”
Sloboda was here endorsing
a claim based on a failure to comprehend even the basic meaning of the
Lancet study’s range of figures — the “drunk throwing
a dart at a dartboard” analogy was and is absurd. No qualified
epidemiologist would countenance making such a comment.
Unsurprisingly, most journalists
reporting on international affairs appear unable to distinguish between
the task of “reading press reports” on the one hand, and
engaging in “statistical analysis or extrapolations”, on
the other. Reporters naturally assume that, given its “high spatiotemporal
specificity”, IBC’s credibility is on a par with the world’s
leading experts in the field published in the world’s leading
scientific journals and subject to an exacting system of peer review.
Certainly IBC do nothing
to discourage, and everything to encourage, such a view. Wouldn’t
it be more reasonable for IBC to point out in commenting on the Lancet
studies to highly influential media that they are in fact +not+ especially
qualified to comment on the science of epidemiology?
The Problem Of Relying
On The Journalistic Record
IBC also move far beyond
data collection in this latest addition to the site:
“Those who suggest
that the IBC data-base is likely to contain only a tiny minority of
actual deaths generally argue three things. First, they say that IBC
only records deaths in areas where Western journalists are present;
second they propose that there have been at least seven credible studies
which suggest up to ten times as many deaths as we have recorded; and
third they assert that an alternate media world exists containing a
professional Arab-language press which continually reports far more
deaths than the sources we monitor in English.
“We have dealt with
the first two claims in detail on the public record and will be happy
to answer questions about them in the discussion. IBC
in Context (Feb 2006)”
IBC omit to mention the most
obvious and telling criticism: that the credibility of their database
as an approximate guide to levels of violence in Iraq — i.e.,
“The death toll could be twice our number, but it could not possibly
be 10 times higher” — is undermined by the fact that conditions
in Iraq are so lethal that journalists are unable to discover many violent
deaths of civilians.
Consider that a study of
deaths in Guatemala from 1960 to 1996 by Patrick Ball et al at the University
of California, Berkeley (1999) found that numbers of murders reported
by the media in fact decreased as violence increased. Ball described
the “problem of relying on the journalistic record” in evaluating
numbers killed:
“When the level of
violence increased dramatically in the late 1970s and early 1980s, numbers
of reported violations in the press stayed very low. In 1981, one of
the worst years of state violence, the numbers fall towards zero. The
press reported almost none of the rural violence.” (Patrick Ball,
Paul Kobrak, and Herbert F. Spirer, ‘State
Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996: A Quantitative Reflection’,
1999)
Ball added:
“Throughout the 1980
to 1983 period newspapers documented only a fraction of the killings
and disappearances committed by the State. The maximum monthly value
on the graph [see link above] is only 60 for a period when monthly extra-judicial
murders regularly totaled in the thousands.”
Ball explained that “the
press stopped reporting the violence beginning in September 1980. Perhaps
not coincidentally, the database lists seven murders of journalists
in July and August of that year”.
The significance is indicated
in a Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) report (September 7, 2007), which
described how the number of journalists and media workers killed in
Iraq since the start of the 2003 invasion had reached 200. According
to RSF, 73 per cent of journalists killed had been directly targeted,
a figure which was “much higher than in previous wars”.
RSF also reported that more journalists had been taken hostage in Iraq
than anywhere else in the world. A total of 84 journalists and media
workers had been kidnapped in the previous four years.
Lancet study co-authors Les
Roberts and Gilbert Burnham wrote recently:
“A study of 13 war
affected countries presented at a recent Harvard conference found over
80% of violent deaths in conflicts go unreported by the press and governments.”
(Roberts and Burnham, ‘Ignorance
of Iraqi death toll no longer an option‘)
We contacted the author of
the study, Ziad Obermeyer, for details. Demonstrating a level of scientific
caution that is absent from some of IBC’s bold pronouncements,
Obermeyer responded that because his manuscript was progressing through
the peer review process he could not provide anything for “formal
citation”. He added:
“It is safe to say,
however, that our estimates of violent war deaths, based on nationally
representative surveys, are substantially higher than those commonly
cited for most of the 13 countries we study.” (Email to Media
Lens, September 24, 2007)
Roberts and Burnham continued:
“City officials in
the Iraqi city of Najaf were recently quoted on Middle East Online stating
that 40,000 unidentified bodies have been buried in that city since
the start of the conflict. When speaking to the Rotarians in a speech
covered on C-SPAN on September 5th, H.E. Samir Sumaida’ie, the
Iraqi Ambassador to the US, stated that there were 500,000 new widows
in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton Commission similarly found that the Pentagon
under-counted violent incidents by a factor of 10.” (Roberts and
Burnham op. cit)
IBC’s methodology was
devised by Marc Herold, a professor of economics at the University of
New Hampshire. Herold has tracked deaths in Afghanistan since the US-led
invasion of 2001. It was Herold’s Afghan Victim Memorial Project
that inspired John Sloboda to set up IBC. Herold’s “most
conservative estimate” of Afghan civilian deaths resulting from
American/NATO operations is between 5,700 and 6,500. But, he cautions,
this is “probably a vast underestimate”. (Haroon Siddiqui,
‘Counting
the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan,’ Toronto
Star, September 23, 2007)
There is no reason to believe
that the application of the same methodology in Iraq is generating very
different results. But IBC has never, to our knowledge, accepted that
their own count is “probably a vast underestimate” of the
total death toll.
In the past, IBC’s
response to the suggestion that violence prevents journalists from capturing
many deaths has been, in effect, ‘Prove it!’ Well, the bureau
chief of one of three Western media agencies providing a third of IBC’s
data from Iraq sent this email to a colleague last year (the latter
asked us to preserve the sender’s anonymity):
“iraq body count is
i think a very misleading exercise. We know they must have been undercounting
for at least the first two years because we know that we did not report
anything like all the deaths we were aware of… we are also well
aware that we are not aware of many deaths on any given day.”
(Email sent October 25, 2006)
Despite IBC’s claims,
nowhere in their discussion do they deal with the problem that journalistic
reporting of violent deaths can decrease as violence increases, particularly
when that includes violence against journalists, as is very much the
case in Iraq.
More to the point, as data
collectors, IBC are not in a position to comment authoritatively on
the impact of violence on the capacity of journalists to report accurately
from Iraq. As data collectors, they have no more insight, no deeper
understanding, than anyone else.
The reasonable response to
the question of political impacts on their database is not for IBC to
authoritatively suggest that they “have dealt with” the
problem of lack of journalistic coverage — to conclusively declare:
“The death toll could be twice our number, but it could not possibly
be 10 times higher” — but to openly acknowledge that their
task is limited to the monitoring of media reports.
For leading mainstream journalists,
and for IBC themselves, to present IBC as an informed and credible source
on political realities on the ground in Iraq is highly inappropriate.
A good example of this distortion
was provided on September 7 by Michael Gordon of the New York Times.
Gordon offered positive spin on the ‘progress’ of the ’surge’:
“The most comprehensive
and up-to-date military statistics show that American forces have made
some headway toward a crucial goal of protecting the Iraqi population.”
(Gordon, ‘Assessing the “Surge” - Hints of Progress,
and Questions, in Iraq Data,’ New York Times, September 8, 2007)
In assessing evidence for
this humanitarian “headway”, Gordon turned to IBC:
“Iraq Body Count, a
British-based nongovernmental group that monitors civilian deaths, notes
that the number of civilians who were killed by shootings, executions
and bombs has declined from January through July.”
He quoted IBC:
“’Levels of violence
reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006… Only
in comparison to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an
improvement.’”
The last caveat was unimportant,
the word supporters of the occupation were looking for was “improvement”.
But there is a problem with
IBC’s evidence and with Gordon’s analysis of its significance.
In fact, IBC have not at all found that “the number of civilians
who were killed by shootings, executions and bombs has declined”.
The website has found fewer +reports+ of deaths of civilians killed
by shootings, executions and bombs in “information gathering and
publishing agencies, principally the commercial news media who provide
web access to their reports”.
While a significant proportion
of the deaths recorded or corroborated by IBC come from “cumulative
totals reported by official Iraqi sources, in particular the Medico-Legal
Institutes (morgues) and, for corroboration purposes, the Ministry of
Health”, IBC describes the commercial news media as their “main
sources”. (Ibid)
And Les Roberts has commented:
“Media and government
reports catch only the tip of the iceberg.” (Siddiqui,
op. cit.)
For IBC to emphasise that
“the first half of 2007 [could] be regarded as an improvement”
on the basis of their data collection is therefore misleading. Indeed
the whole basis of IBC’s comment was misleading:
“Levels of violence
reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006.”
In fact, levels of media
+reporting+ of civilian deaths was at an all-time high in the last six
months of 2006 — that is not the same thing. As a consequence,
and as the material cited above from Patrick Ball and RSF makes clear,
IBC are in a position to comment +only+ on numbers of media reports
of deaths, not on the inferred significance of those numbers for political
realities on the ground.
The Failure To Challenge
Media Distortions
What is so disappointing
is that while IBC are willing to stray radically beyond merely “reading
press reports” with “care and literacy” to challenge
scientific studies that do not in any way challenge their “irrefutable
baseline figure”, they are apparently not willing to challenge
media reports that in effect do challenge that figure. The New York
Times report above was a good example. Another appeared in the Financial
Times on September 10:
“The war has already
cost the lives of 3,760 US troops, and wounded 28,000 more. Iraq Body
Count, a group that monitors Iraqi deaths, estimates that 70,000 Iraqis
have been killed. It says there has been a ‘modest improvement’
in security compared with the bloody second half of 2006….”
(Demetri Sevastopulo, ‘Echoes of Westmoreland and Vietnam,’
Financial Times, September 10, 2007)
But IBC is +not+ “a
group that monitors Iraqi deaths”; it is a group that monitors
media reports of Iraqi deaths. And IBC does not monitor “Iraqi
deaths”; it monitors media reports of Iraqi +civilian+ deaths
as a result of violence. IBC does not monitor reports of war-related
deaths due to disease, lack of food, water and medicine, and so on.
IBC also does not collect reports of Iraqi military deaths.
Because IBC’s “irrefutable
baseline” figure refers only to violent deaths of civilians reported
by the media, the Financial Times in effect challenged that baseline
by asserting that 70,000 Iraqis — i.e., civilians and military
— had died. Readers might well have construed that some of these
“Iraqi deaths” must have been military deaths, for example,
and therefore will have come away from the article believing that many
less than 70,000 civilians had died from violence.
The Financial Times could
hardly be a more prestigious, influential and high-profile media outlet.
And this kind of distortion has been repeated innumerable times, globally,
since 2003. Notice, again, the complete inappropriateness of quoting
IBC as an authoritative source reporting “a ‘modest improvement’
in security” on the basis of its data collection. As the Guatemala
study above indicates, the drop in media reporting could be interpreted
as indicating a +worsening+ of security, not least for journalists,
leading to a drop in reporting of violent deaths.
Whereas IBC have responded
vigorously, indeed tirelessly, in responding to the 2004 and 2006 Lancet
studies (and to our criticism), to our knowledge they have all but ignored
these actual challenges to their baseline figure — a figure which
seeks to establish a “cautious minimum” for violent deaths
of Iraqi civilians +alone+, not for “Iraqi casualties” in
toto, as the Financial Times report suggests.
Indeed, far from exposing
these abuses of their work, under ‘Press
and media uses of IBC,’ IBC provide not a single
word of criticism of media use of their work. Instead, one of the examples
they choose to highlight is an Independent article from July 2005. The
first sentence of the article reads:
“Almost 25,000 Iraqi
civilians have been killed during the two years of war and insurgency
that began with the US-led invasion in March 2003. More than a third
have died as a result of action by allied forces.” (Terry Kirby
and Elizabeth Davies, ‘Iraq
conflict claims 34 civilian lives each day as “anarchy”
beckons,’ The Independent, July 20, 2005)
It is striking that IBC link
to a high-profile media report that so badly misrepresents its figures.
As so often, this opening sentence gave the impression that IBC are
recording the total number of civilian deaths, rather than merely recording
deaths from violence as reported by the media. The extreme gravity of
this distortion in downplaying the true extent of Iraqi casualties to
the British public is clear enough, given, for example, Patrick Ball’s
work.
Elsewhere, IBC write:
“A large number of
press and media reports have cited our figures, discussed and assessed
our work. Nearly all mentions have been in the context of drawing attention
to the human cost of the war.” (John Sloboda, February 17, 2006)
Again, this is not mere data
collection; it is political analysis of media performance. Having ourselves
studied media reporting on Iraq closely over the last four years, we
arrive at a very different conclusion: media reports have often cited
IBC’s figures in the context of +burying+ the human cost of war.
As numerous studies over
many decades have shown, it is quite simply the structural role of the
corporate media to defend established power by minimising, as far as
possible, public perception of the costs to civilians of US-UK state
violence. This role has not suddenly changed in regard to Iraq. On the
contrary, media performance on Iraq has been a text book example of
a corporate propaganda system acting to protect allied elite interests.
Finally, the danger of moving
beyond data collection is emphasised in this comment on IBC’s
website in response to media reports of the “surge”:
“Despite any efforts
put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still the most
deadly first six months for civilians of any year since the invasion.”
(’The
Baghdad “surge” and civilian casualties‘)
This was also highly politicised
analysis. IBC’s framing of the issue exactly matches that found
in the pro-war Observer:
“Despite the surge,
violence remains roughly at the same levels.” (‘Iraq benchmarks,’
The Observer, September 2, 2007)
Imagine what Western journalists
would have made of a Soviet organisation observing that a particular
period of time had been “the most deadly” for civilians
in Afghanistan in the 1980s “despite” a massive surge in
Soviet military activity.
And yet this is currently
the standard line in mainstream reporting, part of a wider attempt to
present the occupation as a well-intentioned effort to achieve peace
and democracy, rather than conquest and control.
To their credit, IBC have
made an improvement to their website. Their “counter”, which
previously recorded “Minimum” and “Maximum”
deaths in Iraq, has been changed. Viewed alongside the name Iraq Body
Count, visitors were likely to assume that the “Maximum”
category referred to the maximum possible number of civilian deaths
in Iraq — the full body count — rather than the maximum
number of deaths recorded in media reports. The
counter now reads:
“Documented civilian
deaths from violence 74,432 – 81,120”
IBC comment:
“The change to a simple
unlabeled range is intended to help avoid misinterpretation or misrepresentation
of these numbers as (for example) the ‘maximum possible’
death toll, or IBC’s ‘estimate’ of it.”
This is a welcome change.
However, the very name of the website remains misleading. IBC is, in
truth, an Iraq Reported Body Count — nothing more.
Media Lens
is a UK-based media watchdog group headed by David Edwards and David
Cromwell. The first Media Lens book, Guardians of Power: The Myth Of
The Liberal Media, is now available (Pluto Books, London, 2006).
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.