A crime within a crime within a crime:

Dear Mr Good

Like many I rely on RTE for news, and was dissapointed that RTE news did not highlight or subsequently use the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health figures on Iraqi dead published in the Lancet last October. Given the general scientific acceptance of the methods used in this study, high interest in the war, and general use of such studies in many other contexts as highlighted in Mr Mannings article in mediabite.org, it is worrying to me that RTE has not quoted them authoritatively at the time and in any subsequent reference to this war.

It looks to me, and I will be glad to be proven wrong, as if RTE has made a decision both to underreport these figures and to 'prefer' less accurate but lower figures. Certainly relying on John Simpson to interpret them for Irish listeners is not the same thing as reporting them fully, directly and accurately without bias. Would you consider changing the way the figures for war dead are reported, and using these lancet figures in future broadcasts?

Yours Sincerely

Tony Collins

Dear Mr Collins,

Thank you for your email about war casualty figures from Iraq.

There is no easy answer to this issue. We have discussed it at our editorial meetings and I have been in correspondence with Mr Manning about the debate. He does agree with our response and I suspect you will not either.

There are no accurate or official figures for the number of civilians killed in Iraq because of the situation there. What is clear is that the number is very high and I don't think anyone watching our output could be unaware of this. But it is impossible to get exact figures. In general our policy is not to report on figures of this kind as a fact but credit them to the organisations who supply them. We try to explain that these figures are claims rather than proven facts. The Lancet figures are an extrapolation from a sample rather than an actual body count.

I understand your frustration. I have no doubt that the actual figure is higher than many of the estimates that have been quoted. I would like to assure you that RTE has not made a decision to under-report the number of people killed in Iraq. We do not seek to broadcast only lower or less accurate figures of those killed in Iraq. We are open to receive reports from all organisations regarding reports of the number of people killed in Iraq.

This is a complicated issue and we will keep it under review. Overall we have tried to report on the situation in Iraq as fairly and comprehensively as conditions allow. In particular Richard Downes, who has visited the region many times over recent years, has in my view done some excellent reports - often under very difficult and dangerous conditions. At the moment it is our view that it is not safe to send anyone to Baghdad. We did (reluctantly) send Richard in an "embedded" capacity with US and British troops. He was able to bring back material that would otherwise have been impossible to get, but journalistically it is not an ideal way to operate. Again we will be keeping the situation under review.

Thank you for taking the time to write to us.

Yours Sincerely,

Michael Good

Managing Editor

RTE News

Dear Mr Good

Thank you for replying to me. As you anticipated, I am not convinced by your answer - two points in particular occur to me.

Firstly there was never a doubt that any figures will be an extrapolation and not an actual body count - the point is that the method used in the study in question is widely accepted as accurate, and that RTE often (as David Manning quotes in his article) uses similar studies in other contexts. So why not use these?

Secondly - why the RTE silence on this issue at all? As you say, Richard Downes himself (in his excellent book on Iraq) is frustrated by the absence of factual information available on Iraq - a topic of relevance to so many. So why not make a point of quoting this study, attributing it to its source as you do, rather than burying it?

As before, thank you for taking the trouble to reply to me.

Yours

Tony Collins

Dear Michael Good, RTE News Editor

I have read your correspondence with Tony Collins posted on MediaBite Message Board about the number of Iraqi killed since the US-led invasion of their country http://members.boardhost.com/mediabite/msg/1169646494.html

Quite rightly you write: "This is a complicated issue and we will keep it under review."

On October 21, 2006 an international group of twenty-seven academics in the fields of the medical sciences have published a piece in the Melbourne Age.

They wrote:


LAST week, the medical journal The Lancet published the findings of an important study of deaths in Iraq. President George Bush and Prime Minister Howard were quick to dismiss its methods as discredited and its findings as not credible or believable. We beg to differ: the study was undertaken by respected researchers assisted by one of the world's foremost biostatisticians. Its methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously.

Professor Gilbert Burnham and colleagues from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and Al Mustansiriya University School of Medicine in Baghdad measured deaths in Iraq between January 2002 and July 2006. They surveyed 12,801 individuals in 1849 households in 47 representative clusters across the country.

Their study is important in providing the only up-to-date, independent, and comprehensive scientific study of mortality after the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. The study found that mortality had risen alarmingly since March 2003 and continues to rise. The number of conflict-related excess deaths, above and beyond those that would normally occur, was estimated at 655,000. While precision about such figures is difficult, we can be confident that the excess deaths were above 390,000, and may in fact be as high as 940,000. The vast majority (92 per cent) of the excess deaths were due to direct violence. (�)

Conducting such a rigorous study within the constraints of the security situation in Iraq is dangerous and difficult, and deserves commendation. We have not heard any legitimate reason to dismiss its findings. It is noteworthy that the same methodology has been used in recent mortality surveys in Darfur and Democratic Republic of Congo, but there has been no criticism of these surveys.

The study by Burnham and his colleagues provides the best estimate of mortality to date in Iraq that we have, or indeed are ever likely to have.

We urge open and constructive debate, rather than ill-informed criticism of the methods or results of sound science. All of us should consider the implications of the dire and deteriorating health situation in Iraq. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-iraq-deaths-study-was-valid-and-correct/2006/10/20/1160851135985.html?page=fullpage#


Please, will you use the science available in this matter and the scientific opinion of professional experts in your news coverage? Your audience deserves no less.

Thank you for your time and please I would be interested in your point of view.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

Dear Mr. Good,

We have read your response to a MediaBite reader regarding our MediaShot 'A crime within a crime within a crime'. Thank you for taking the time to address this issue. We very much appreciate it.

However, from our point of view, and those of others, we can ask only that you apply the same journalistic consideration, supported by scientific counsel, to the Lancet figures for Iraq as you applied to those published by the IRC for Congo. Which is to say that you were clearly confident about relying on identical methodology to that used in the Lancet's study in Iraq, and by the same team, in that instance.

As we have pointed out in our MediaShot, the US and UK government - and Bush and Blair themselves - have also previously relied on - and quoted - figures based on the same methodology without misgiving.

Could it be that the highly controversial nature of the Iraq war is a factor in your reluctance to apply a similar regard for the research methods in both cases? It would appear from the present disparity that you, and your editorial staff, have found reasonable contention where none exists.

The fact that your stance serves to lessen the crimes of the coalition invaders and in turn their allies, Ireland included, is regrettable. And if anything, the lower figures which you are prepared to specifically mention have less scientific validity to them, in the opinion of many qualified observers. At the very least, surely viewers are owed even handed treatment of lower and upper figures. Perhaps you would consider noting in your reports - given it is a straightforward fact, that the Lancet methodology has been accepted and by whom?

With thanks and best wishes,

David Manning &
Miriam Cotton
Editors
MediaBite