next »

[Forums Moderator]

Last fall, an American-Iraqi research team rushed into print with a rigorous scientific study that said some 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed in the war since 2003. The study, conducted at great personal risk, was dismissed or ignored in the American news media, in part it seems because it appeared just days before the election. Did the researchers err in rushing to press? Would it have been more or less responsible to hold back? Why has the study continued to be neglected? Read more...

[%sig%]

[Marcy Tanter]

I don't think it would have mattered when they published the study--the civilian deaths in Iraq are being ignored and the Bush administration wants them brushed under the carpet.  News organizations focus on the loss of American lives with no regard for Iraqi ones--they sometimes report the deaths of "insurgents" but rarely do they mention the deaths of the innocent.  Iraqbodycount.net has been keeping track of as many deaths as they can--it's a sober, honest accounting of civilian deaths.  Thousands of Iraqis have been killed needlessly.

[Socrates]

Summer's comments, regardless of their merit, are not the big story.  The big story is the uproar it caused and his actions.

He immediately apologized due to a storm of protest from the left.

Why? I thought campuses were places to debate issues, not places to demand apologies and then cave in like you had the back bone of a chocalate eclair.

I am a professor, but I really hate the campus environment.  It is stifling and close minded.  "Diversity" as we all know simply means having a bunch of left-leaning thinkers with different skin colors and gentialia.  

Summers is real "Profile in Courage"; he is typical of most gutless administrators who lacked the fortitude to stand up the campus orthodoxies that say men, whites, heterosexuals, and Isrealis are all bad; women, racial minorities, homosexuals, and Palestinians are good; and anyone who disagrees is is not "culturally/racially/gender sensitive."

A friend once told me that the best way to hired in academe is to be a black lesbian in wheelchair.  There is some truth to what he said.

[T. Clarke]

Which media outlets are focusing on U.S. deaths to the exclusion of Iraqi deaths? It is the same media sources that claim objective reporting.  They are by their own admission not under the control of the U.S. adminstration.   In other words, it seems that media are the ones who are hiding the facts for their own ajenda rather than the adminstration.  

All one needs to do is look at the BBC news website (news.bbc.co.uk) or the Australian Broadcasting Corp website (www.abc.net.au/news) to verify this fact.  Or perhaps one can look at the U.S. outlets that are clearly not pro adminstration in their outlook.  Or perhaps Dan Rather is in league with the adminstration.

[Euro]

Rather more interesting is this - on a bulletin board devotin itself to higher education and research, why does it take three days to get a response to this issue

My view - of course they were right to publish. Its the biggest story of the last year, why wouldnt they print it?
As to why it was ignored.....Ask Al-Foxeera.

[Logician]

Why is there doubt about the INTENTION of the author (possibly the editor as well) in rushing publication before the election? The author is anti-war(nothing wrong with that) and intended to influence the election(nothing wrong with that as well). Why the difficullty in reaching this conclusion?  Not to make a number game about a sad situation, but how does the number killed and maimed under the former regime compare to the numbers reported for the current conflict?

[%sig%]

[Dr. Okhamafe, Prof,, U of NE]

What went wrong with this study? Something appears wrong when the main or even sole aim of publishing the study becomes purely political: to affect decisively the outcome of the presidential election. The researchers were obviously against the war and against the Bush administration's foreign policy, but they should have used not the publication date but other means to proselytize their political positions. The rush to publish in order to achieve a certain political goal seems evident. Deliberately playing politics with the publication date of a social-science article (regardless of the article's merit) seems in this context very naive and counterproductive.

[Euro]

Forums Moderator wrote:
Did the researchers err in
> rushing to press?


Wasnt it the editors of the Lancet that made that final decison? Why not ask why they did so?

Would it have been more or less responsible
> to hold back?

How? Responsible how? To whom?

Why has the study continued to be neglected?


....in the USA (pop 250m). The Row (pop 4b) hasnt .

[juantag]

I've no idea why it was neglected. I spent some time e-mailing the link to acquaintances. As for publishing quickly (not early), I would have thought it a good idea too. It's unfortunate sometimes how things work out, but events aren't often foreseen.

There was another story a few years ago that seems to fit this pattern--it was about how the decline in crime rates here in the US corresponded to the abortion rate. It made the papers in Britain, but not in the US. We have to face the fact that our radar screens don't make a very wide sweep--especially when the media are owned by a mere handful of people.

[%sig%]

[R. Hassad]

This study contains an element of sensationalism not consistent with generally accepted academic and professional standards.  Furthermore, it is quite troubling than any well-thinking and well-meaning IRB would have approved this study given the known risk to life and limb, as well as methodological limitations which would have been detailed in the proposal. Specifically, what necessitated the urgency to conduct this study? See Acknowledgements: “Special thanks to Walt Jones for swiftly facilitating this project."

Studies of this kind are always helpful but only if sound methodology is adhered to. Aspects of the sampling leave much to be desired, and the width of the 95% confidence intervals for total number of deaths and risk of death from violence are at the minimum worthless, and speak to the inadequacy of the sample, and consequently a large standard error. The data from the sample studied have almost zero external validity, that is,  population estimates are not permissible.

Regards,
R. Hassad

[p. anders]

This is a typical ad hominem attack from the right -- when they can't defend their actions they resort to personal accusation, insult and inuendo.  That's why the story was/has been ignored -- newscasters are subject to the same villification for criticizing anything this administration does.

[p. anders]

It's not just that the US media is owned by a few corporations -- its that they are at best incompetent .  See the recent story about a picture released by Arab media purporting to show a captured US Marine,  CNN ran with it immediately but turned out the "marine" was a GI JOE doll.  Ok so the insurgents are fools, but shouldn't a major US news organization be a little sharper?

[%sig%]

[Carol Hellman, Chem. Prof.]

Socrates has hit the bullseye!!

Despite his sarcastic tone, he has accurately depicted the campus environment today. How did we ever get here? Everyone used to say the college campus was always the place where all thoughts and ideas are welcome.

No more.

The radical left has transformed the college campus into a poisoned environment where the most vile orthodoxyies are tolerated (celebrated??) and tradition, honor, and integrity are shunned, laughed at, ridiculed and sometimes even punished.

To all of you on the left, I have one question.  Are you now
really happy?  (I wonder...)

[Suresh Dogra]

Who will not be saddened by the death of such a large number of innocent people in any country?And why should media in America be blamed when they have their own priorities,preoccupations and interests?American Government,supported by American people who gave their verdict in the Presidential election,is doing what it believes is in America's interest.

But,for the people of Iraq,there is a lesson to learn from their sufferings.They allowed the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein to tyrannise over them for decades.Thousands of people were killed and tortured.Civil liberties didn't exist.Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives in futile wars with their neighbours.The peole lived in constant fear.

The regime through its provocative acts,ineptitude and intrasigence earned the wrath of the only super-power in the world.The regime met with a disastrous end.The people have paid heavily and are still paying for the misdeeds of their rulers.

Human history is full of instances of people paying for the sins of their rulers.Hitler was responsible for the ruin of Germany.Japanese rulers were responsible for the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,alongwith those who decided to drop the nuclear bombs.

There is now a golden opportunity for the people of Iraq to put their past behind and make a fresh start by adopting a progressive constitution and electing a representative and responsive government.They should get rid of the scourge of terrorism.They have the wealth of oil to create a prosperous society  in a short time.They will live with honor in the comity of nations.

The people of Iraq, as the people of all nations, need to learn to be vigilant against vulnerabilities of their own polities.Blame America for whatever wrong it has done,but don't absolve the rulers of Iraq and the terrorist outfits for the misfortunes of the people of Iraq.

[GNM]

"Japanese rulers were responsible for the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,alongwith those who decided to drop the nuclear bombs."

Indeed, let's not forget the infamous "Rape of Nan King" in WW II, during which Japanese soldiers slaughtered at least 300,00 Chinese civilians in the most horrific ways, and raped at least 20,000 women. It is believed by some that the civilian death toll in Nan King was greater than combined death tolls from US atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.  

Now consider too these civilian casuality numbers from the Vietnam War released by the French Press Agency on April 4, 1995: 2,000,000 in North Vietnam, 2,000,000 in the South.

Vietnam ended with the U.S. fleeing the country as it fell to communism.  In Iraq, the first democratic elections in history, as far as I know, were held thanks to the U.S. led invasion. The point here is not to minimize the tragedy and horror of civilan casualities in Iraq, or in any conflict for that matter, but to realize that the Iraqi people themselves may eventually find it was worth the sacrifice of even 100,000 for the sake of securing a democratic and free country.  I say this fully aware that the situationm could easily deteriorate, and that it may not end this way.  But at least now these people have a chance.  


I ask everyone here, how many died, from the Revolutionary ar to the Civil War to World War II and beyond, to form and protect this Union in which we live and prosper, in which we enjoy so much freedom and abundance (again, knowing fully that not everyone enjoys so much freedom and abundance, but that most do)?  Has  it been worth it?