MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
January 25, 2006
On the rare occasions when the issue of civilian casualties is discussed in the mainstream media three words are invariably mentioned: Iraq Body Count (IBC).
IBC describes itself as a project which maintains “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”. (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm)
IBC is often described as an “anti-war” website - the home page shows an ominous photograph of a Stealth bomber dropping a stick of bombs. The words above the picture were spoken by General Tommy Franks: “We don’t do body counts”. Below, we find US General Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops: “Change the channel.”
This does indeed suggest an intense critical focus on suffering caused by British and US forces.
IBC is important, not least because it is often cited as a source in high-profile British and American media. Writing in the Independent, Washington editor Rupert Cornwell observed that IBC is “regarded as the most authoritative independent source on Iraqi casualties”. (Rupert Cornwell, ‘Debate rages over number of civilians killed in conflict,’ The Independent, August 17, 2005)
The IBC website reports:
“It has been a heartening feature of the IBC project that press interest in our work has been wide-ranging and sustained. TV and radio broadcasters have included ABC (USA) News, CNN International, the BBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, National Public Radio (USA), Pacifica, and many regional and community stations.” (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/coverage.php)
The list of media mentions recorded at the site continues for some 30 pages.
IBC is also important because its figures for civilian deaths in Iraq have been used by the British and American governments, and by the media, to attack or dismiss higher estimates in other studies. An editorial in the Washington Times, for example, noted that the October 2004 Lancet report estimated 100,000 excess civilian deaths, adding:
“At the time, the British research group Iraq Body Count had placed the number of confirmed deaths reported in the media at around 15,000 - probably a low estimate, but not by a factor of six.” (Leader, ‘The Lancet’s Politics,’ Washington Times, June 23, 2005)
Political editor John Rentoul wrote in the Independent on Sunday: “even Iraq Body Count, an anti-war campaign, puts the total attributable to coalition forces at under 10,000, rather than the figure with an extra zero that is the common misconception of anti-war propaganda”. (Rentoul, ‘Islam, blood and grievance,' The Independent on Sunday, July 24, 2005)
In October, 2004, the Guardian reported the British government’s response to the Lancet report:
“The foreign secretary, Jack Straw... said the figure was very high, and that the website Iraq Body Count, relying on western press reports, had put the death toll at 16,000.” (Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor, ‘No 10 challenges civilian death toll,’ The Guardian, October 30, 2004)
Certain To Be An Underestimate - The Self-Correcting Media
IBC is clear that there are inherent problems with its methodology. In response to the Lancet study, IBC pointed out:
"We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording." (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/archive.phpPR10 November 7, 2004)
But this humility is not consistently expressed. IBC’s website also makes quite grand claims: “if journalism is the first draft of history, then this dossier may claim to be an early historical analysis of the