Is the Media Neglecting to Report Iraqi Insurgent Casualties?

[Futobingoro]

We all know that the media likes to portray itself as "unbiased," but do the media organizations live up to their claim? As of this writing, the number of US military dead in Iraq is 2,081-2,085 (depending on the source). Yet there is a critical piece of information missing here.

What about the insurgent casualties?

I have done some research and I have found that the lack of reporting about insurgent casualties is as much the US military's fault as it is the media's. Early in the war, General Tommy Franks famously said, "We don't do body counts." This decision permanently confined the media to mere speculation about insurgent (and civilian) casualties. General Franks's stance was based off of experience gained by the US military during the Vietnam War. Daily tallies were shown on the evening news then, displaying the number of "ours" who were killed alongside the number of "theirs." This practice, the military believes, created a false sense of "scoring" by weighing "our" losses against "their" losses. The military also believes that this placed pressure on commanders to provide good numbers, causing some officers to issue inflated reports. The very nature of the conflict also created difficulties in reporting enemy losses. In Vietnam (as in Iraq) aerial forces frequently struck at enemy positions. The destruction caused by a string of 500-pound bombs made the process of estimating the enemy's losses all but impossible. In many cases, teeth or bone fragments were all that remained of the enemy soldiers and an estimate was inaccurate at best. Though the process of estimating enemy dead may be difficult, the military's refusal to release the information it does have results in incomprehensive reporting. We know that at least 2,081 US soldiers have died in Iraq, but we have little way of knowing how many enemy combatants have perished. Imagine, for example, that your favorite sports team won a game yesterday. The sports section of the newspaper reports the score by saying that the winning team scored 5 goals. This report fails to focus on several important aspects of the game. How close was the game? Was it a shutout? Did the winning team score its goal in the final seconds of play? These critical pieces of information are lost due to the incomplete nature of this kind of reporting, just as important information is left out of Iraq War coverage due to the US military's policy. It is true that 2,081 US soldiers have perished in Iraq, but how many insurgents/terrorists/fanatics were killed or captured during the same time period that the US sustained those losses? Fortunately, the US military seems to be revising its policy. As reported by the Washington Post, the US recently announced that it is abandoning "its previous refusal to publicize enemy body counts and now cites such numbers periodically to show the impact of some counterinsurgency operations." How extensively the media reports these numbers has yet to be seen, due to the recent nature of the change, but it will be interesting to see how the media picks these numbers up.

We now arrive at my question:

In spite of the difficulties in reporting the Iraqi insurgent casualties, do you think that the media, as a whole, has irresponsibly omitted information about insurgent setbacks and/or casualties? Does the media have a contract of responsibility, made with the public, to find the numbers even if the US military will not release them?

Your votes and discussions are welcome.

 

[flotsam]

They have of course done this. You are correct. Who cares for truth?

 

[pattylou]

I don't know that it is the media's fault.

I think it is the public's fault. The media relies on some governmental funding, some media survives because of tax breaks, etc.

So, there is pressure (small, but present) to not report things (like coffins coming home) that might jeopardize that funding in any way.

Who is responsible? Maybe the media, or more broadly the government -- and therefore more broadly the voters.

Look to (reputable sources on) the internet. Look to reports in other countries that are not subject to *any* US funding.

This is rather oversimplified, but an interesting discussion (interview with Bill Moyers) on this topic was on our local NPR station yesterday. The station doesn't have a transcript available, but NPR will be re-airing segments on Morning Edition on Dec 7 or 8.

 

[edward]

Just as this has been the most secret administration in the History of the USA, this has also been the most secretive war. All reports and video submitted by embedded reporters, are heavily censored by the military.

I don't blame the media for that. I blame the American people for not demanding more accountability from both the military and the Bush administration. Civialian body counts aren't even taken.

 

[Futobingoro]

Civialian body counts aren't even taken.

The US military's tight lips have not prevented independent groups from making civilian death counts:

Iraq Body Count

http://www.mykeru.com/bodycount.html#iraqi

It is interesting to note that sources such as the Iraq Body Count have been quoted in the mass media.

If independent groups are capable of collecting sufficient information to create estimates on the civilian death toll, it is not too far-fetched to believe an insugent death toll could be compiled as well.

I have, however, not seen such an estimate - from the military, mass-media or independent groups.

 

[wasteofo2]

I don't see insurgent deaths as really being a vital number to quantify. The media should definitely report the amount of civilian deaths, but I don't see the real importance with accurately numerating the amount of insurgents dying.

If we were fighting an army, it'd be one thing, but it's not like there's a set number of insurgents, and with x amount killed we have x less insurgents to deal with as a whole. Insurgents are being created and snuck in all the time, so while you may kill 5 million insurgents, it doesn't mean that there's no one out there who might be convinced to become an insurgent.

Civilian casualties is what I'm apalled about. I've heard numbers indicating that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of non-combatant civilians have been killed. How many totally innocent people have died is one of the most tragic things about this war; that, and the fact that the media doesn't give a damn.

 

[Futobingoro]

I don't see insurgent deaths as really being a vital number to quantify.

Some media organizations like to quote the 2,081 US deaths to show that the mission is not "accomplished." Unfortunately, knowing the US deaths alone is not enough to make that kind of judgment. Imagine if the US media had reported the D-Day landings this way: "Allies sustain 10,000 casualties during landings." A person who read that article would not have learned about the critical Allied beachhead in Normandy, or the number of Axis casualties. He would not realize that this operation was actually a great success. Now I am not comparing the Iraq War to the Normandy landings, nor am I comparing a war against insurgents to one against a formal army, but I am comparing what I see as two similar media situations to illustrate how it is a mistake to omit information about the enemy's setbacks.

So if the media uses US casualties to gauge the progress being made in Iraq, it should do likewise with the insurgent casualties. I recognize that quantitative measures, such as numbers of deaths, do not fully depict the situation on the ground in Iraq, but if the media decides to quote numerical statistics for one side it must do so for the other. Otherwise, the coverage is not comprehensive.

 

[Evo]

I don't even see how a count of "insurgents" would be practical or even possible. The "insurgents" are not uniformed, they don't carry ID cards saying "I'm an insurgent".

Futobingoro, how would someone go about looking at 20 plain clothed men and tell which were insurgents? If you are going to accuse someone of not reporting the numbers accurately, then you need to explain how it's possible.

I agree with Wasteof2, what matters is the number of civilian casualties.

 

[Futobingoro]

Futobingoro, how would someone go about looking at 20 plain clothed men and tell which were insurgents? If you are going to accuse someone of not reporting the numbers accurately, then you need to explain how it's possible.

Early in the war, many reporters were embedded in US military units. The embedded reporters' information was just about as good as the military's information. If the unit knew about it, the chances were, the embedded reporter knew about it as well. Unfortunately, embedded reporting became less common as the invasion campaign came to an end. Due to the growing insurgency, reporters tended to remain inside the "Green Zone" in Baghdad. The consequence of this trend was a loss of the view "in the field." Tim Ryan, an officer who has served in Iraq, wrote about this phenomenon:

"I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms — how convenient.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan."

-from http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html

If what Tim Ryan says is true, the terrorists in Iraq have the media wrapped around their finger. Reporters are too frightened to leave the safety of the "Green Zone," and therefore miss the important events which frequently unfold outside their "bubble." The media needs to be more courageous about its reporting, perhaps brokering a deal with the US military to accompany some patrols and raids.

Because the media has remained inside the Green Zone, reporters have not been able to report at the scene of a battle, where the number of enemy dead is tallied up - missing the only opportunity to obtain these numbers. The recent change in policy, however, gives reporters access to these numbers even if they do not accompany US forces.

 

[Evo]

Because the media has remained inside the Green Zone, reporters have not been able to report at the scene of a battle, where the number of enemy dead is tallied up - missing the only opportunity to obtain these numbers. The recent change in policy, however, gives reporters access to these numbers even if they do not accompany US forces.

If you are just wanting to try to tally up the number of insurgents dead to gloat over the numbers, I don't see the point. I don't care how many we're killing, I don't care how many blow themselves up, it's all a tragedy. People aren't asking for these numbers because there is no point.

Some media organizations like to quote the 2,081 US deaths to show that the mission is not "accomplished." Unfortunately, knowing the US deaths alone is not enough to make that kind of judgment. Imagine if the US media had reported the D-Day landings this way: "Allies sustain 10,000 casualties during landings." A person who read that article would not have learned about the critical Allied beachhead in Normandy, or the number of Axis casualties. He would not realize that this operation was actually a great success. Now I am not comparing the Iraq War to the Normandy landings, nor am I comparing a war against insurgents to one against a formal army, but I am comparing what I see as two similar media situations to illustrate how it is a mistake to omit information about the enemy's setbacks.

So if the media uses US casualties to gauge the progress being made in Iraq, it should do likewise with the insurgent casualties. I recognize that quantitative measures, such as numbers of deaths, do not fully depict the situation on the ground in Iraq, but if the media decides to quote numerical statistics for one side it must do so for the other. Otherwise, the coverage is not comprehensive.

Are you saying that if the news posted "2,000 US troops killed and 10,000 insurgents killed since the war began" that we can feel successful? Or if it was less it would matter? The point isn't how many insurgents we kill, it would be a success if we could help restore peace without any deaths, don't you think?

Your quote

Some media organizations like to quote the 2,081 US deaths to show that the mission is not "accomplished" Unfortunately, knowing the US deaths alone is not enough to make that kind of judgment.

I really don't get this. I don't remember that we had to reach some number of US dead before we could say we had accomplished anything and I don't see how the number of insurgents dead matter in relation to the number of US dead. This isn't a numbers game.

 

[edward]

Your quote I really don't get this. I don't remember that we had to reach some number of US dead before we could say we had accomplished anything and I don't see how the number of insurgents dead matter in relation to the number of US dead. This isn't a numbers game.

How true for the current war, yet in Vietnam , numbers were the whole game. Daily body counts, both ours and the Viet Cong, were on the evening news along with still pictures and video.

I really think if people are in favor of a war, they should at least see the results of that war.

 

[Evo]

How true for the current war, yet in Vietnam , numbers were the whole game. Daily body counts, both ours and the Viet Cong, were on the evening news along with still pictures and video.
I really think if people are in favor of a war, they should at least see the results of that war.

You do realize that the "numbers" reported were for, as Futobingoro's sports analogy put it, "keeping score", to bolster support of the war?

I would think you would be against this type of thing.

Also, we're not talking about two armies being engaged. These are disparate groups with different goals and agendas that are pretty much making random attacks. What would be the point of trying to come up with numbers, not to mention that it's pretty much impossible. I'd say the fewer "insurgents" that we kill, the better, since we're not there to track down and kill them, are we? Or are you suggesting that we start a huge offensive to start doing this and bump the numbers up?

 

[edward]

You do realize that the "numbers" reported were for, as Futobingoro's sports analogy put it, "keeping score", to bolster support of the war?
I would think you would be against this type of thing.

MY greatest wish is that there would be no bodies to count, especially young Americans. But I reiterate that when people are in favor of a war they really should be moraly bound to observe it's consequences. Sweeping deaths under the carpet and sanitizing them with the chlorox of avoidance will only prolong the war.

Also, we're not talking about two armies being engaged. These are disparate groups with different goals and agendas that are pretty much making random attacks.

Whew , major Vietnam dejavu on that one.

Or are you suggesting that we start a huge offensive.

We are doing that anyway in a start and stop fashion, city by city. And it is not working.
The assault on Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insergency. It did not, even though it was the biggest military operation against a city since HUE in Vienam.

If we can't train enough Iraqi troops to do the job in the north effectively by themselves, it is time to look at other options. Iraqis should die for Iraqi freedom, not Americans.

 

[Futobingoro]

This isn't a numbers game.

I think there has been a misunderstanding. I do not think that numbers alone show whether progress is being made; I even said, "I recognize that quantitative measures, such as numbers of deaths, do not fully depict the situation on the ground in Iraq." I take issue with the media because the media thinks that the Iraq War is a numbers game. CNN reports George Bush's approval rating almost daily. News organizations frequently tabulate the total monetary cost of the war. The most prominent of these numbers, however, is the US death toll. We should not forget the flurry of coverage that was unleashed when that statistic passed the 2,000 mark. Several leading newspapers, including the New York Times, reserved their front pages for the story. In the case of the Times, 4 additional pages were filled with the photographs and names of some 1,000 servicemen, bridging the gap between that issue and their previous 1,000th-death issue.

It would seem, therefore, that the media has decided to stake its analysis of the Iraq War's progress on the number of US casualties. When media organizations choose to play this "numbers game," however, they must adhere to the rules of number games. A point is a point, regardless of whether it is in "our" favor or in "their" favor. And the media organizations have shown that they count only the points in "their" favor.

If you are just wanting to try to tally up the number of insurgents dead to gloat over the numbers, I don't see the point. I don't care how many we're killing, I don't care how many blow themselves up, it's all a tragedy. People aren't asking for these numbers because there is no point.

It is neither my place, nor yours or the media's place, to decide what the public shouldn't know. If a story is genuinely important and not indecent, it should be reported. The decision to report all of the facts is made on behalf of the media organizations when they promise to report all of the facts.

 

[Futobingoro]

The assault on Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insergency. It did not, even though it was the biggest military operation against a city since HUE in Vienam.

We are doing that anyway in a start and stop fashion, city by city. And it is not working.

Where did you hear/read/see that information?

I ask because, in a case where the media is the subject of a kind of trial, evidence taken from the media proves very little. Any evidence which is used to defend the media does not possesses much authority because that evidence probably came from the media. This is a situation similar to that of a real trial, where a suspect's claim of innocence is not sufficient evidence of his innocence.

Because of the nature of this kind of "trial," evidence which can be used to incriminate the media is also very hard to come by. One becomes stuck in a kind of Catch-22. Imagine that I attempt to show that the media's coverage is imcomprehensive by claiming that the media failed to report 50 insurgent deaths in a certain battle. Doubt is cast upon my claim because no evidence can be found in any publication that 50 insurgents were actually killed in that battle.

Information from a truly independent source is required before a judgment can be made.

 

[edward]

Where did you hear/read/see that information

Minus a rambling reply:
Why would you even question that information? It is common knowledge. Both Bush and Cheney mentioned in speeches that the assault on Fallujah was going to break the back of the insurgency.

As for links,
Here:
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf

Here:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2005/n01112005_2005011103.html

And Here:

http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Galloway_120304,00.html

 

[Futobingoro]

Why would you even question that information? It is common knowledge.

It would be wise to avoid those kind of statements in a thread where "common knowledge" is being investigated.

The failings of the Iraq Coaltion may be common knowledge, but the successes are not. One reason for this is that the positive news is just not as sensational as the negative news is. Does the media report all the terrorist threats which fail to materialize? Of course it does not. On November 12, a US patrol captured a 7-man mortar team near Baqubah. The patrol captured 6 terrorists; the seventh man was killed in a firefight. Which outcome would have generated more news coverage: the terrorists' capture or a terrorist attack on a checkpoint which killed 3 US soldiers? I think we can all agree that if the terrorists had been allowed to set up their equipment and attack, the event would have garnered much more attention than it actually did. Instead, this story was buried in the Iraq War coverage and I had to dig to find it.

Both Bush and Cheney mentioned in speeches that the assault on Fallujah was going to break the back of the insurgency.

I am not disputing that Bush and Cheney made those comments, I am disputing the information that individuals are using as "evidence" that the Fallujah raid failed to "break the back of the insurgency."

The Galloway article that you link to makes many of the mistakes I warn against:

It can be fairly argued that we Americans created the insurgency that today bedevils us and takes the lives of four to six American soldiers every day.

Galloway makes the assumption that the insurgent activities are far more costly to the US than they are for the insurgents.

Nor has anyone in authority yet stated a plausible exit strategy, an end if you will, for our costly and deadly involvement in Iraq.

Galloway again makes the assumption that our involvement in Iraq is far more costly to the US than it is for the insurgents.

An insurgency can only be beaten when, through information and incentives, the civilians among whom the insurgents hide are eventually convinced that they gain nothing, and risk everything, by shielding and supplying the guerrillas.

Galloway makes yet another assumption. His claim can be rebutted by a story from, of all sources, CNN:

"We were very well received by the people of Baquba," Hasan said. "People are fully cooperating, providing us with all the information needed to capture all terrorists."

It is interesting to note that, though this article mentions a success of the Iraq War, it fails to mention the mortar team's capture even though it occurred on the same day and in the same city the article covers.

 

[edward]

Futobingoro

All three links are valid and directly answered your question.

Where did you hear/read/see that information?

You can ramble on about Galloway all you want.

 

[Art]

Futobingoro, Having read the posts in this thread IMO you really need to clarify exactly what your point is. Like Evo I thought you were looking to keep score as if this in someway will mitigate against the loss of american lives. Her repy to you explained very clearly why aside from being impossible (e.g. 500 lb bombs make it a tad difficult to count bodies) this is a shallow and irrelevant argument to which you replied that she had misunderstood and that wasn't your contention. You then proceed to continue to make that very argument so perhaps as some of us are obviously not understanding in the least what you are saying you could spell it out for us.

 

[Futobingoro]

Again, I do not think that numbers should be the unit of measure for progress in Iraq. The media thinks that numbers should be the unit of measure, however. A look at the evening news confirms that. Though I do not support the media's numbers game, I believe they should provide the number of enemy dead. The entire point of having a standardized measure is to be able to apply it to both sides, and the media is not doing so. So it is not that I think that casualty counts should be the standard of progress in Iraq; I am saying that the media should stick to its own standard.

While the military's tight lips and the realities of the conflict make it very difficult to create an insurgent death count, Iraq Body Count has demonstrated that it is still quite possible to tabulate the total plain-clothes death count for the Iraq War. Logic dictates that if a plain-clothes death count is possible, and the insurgents wear plain clothing, an insurgent death count is also possible.

 

[Art]

Again, I do not think that numbers should be the unit of measure for progress in Iraq. The media thinks that numbers should be the unit of measure, however. A look at the evening news confirms that. Though I do not support the media's numbers game, I believe they should provide the number of enemy dead. The entire point of having a standardized measure is to be able to apply it to both sides, and the media is not doing so. So it is not that I think that casualty counts should be the standard of progress in Iraq; I am saying that the media should stick to its own standard.
While the military's tight lips and the realities of the conflict make it very difficult to create an insurgent death count, Iraq Body Count has demonstrated that it is still quite possible to tabulate the total plain-clothes death count for the Iraq War. Logic dictates that if a plain-clothes death count is possible, and the insurgents wear plain clothing, an insurgent death count is also possible.

The flaw in your logic is you are basing your argument on an assumption that the press publish news of american casualities as some sort of score in a war game. That is not the case.
War is not a game played for it's own sake, it is a means to an end, so they are weighing american casualties against american interests (end goals) and it is that equation they are questioning and that is why the number of EC killed is completely irrelevent.

 

[Futobingoro]

War is not a game played for it's own sake, it is a means to an end, so they are weighing american casualties against american interests (end goals) and it is that equation they are questioning and that is why the number of EC killed is completely irrelevent.

It is interesting that you should write that because terrorism is also a means to an end. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden share the goal of removing Western influence and "Apostate Regimes" from the Middle East. Terrorism is their means to accomplish their end goal.

If your interpretation of the media is correct, the media is still required to report insurgent/terrorist casualties so it can weigh the terrorist casualties against terrorist goals.

 

[Evo]

If your interpretation of the media is correct, the media is still required to report insurgent/terrorist casualties so it can weigh the terrorist casualties against terrorist goals.

The media isn't "required" to report anything. How can someone "weigh the terrorist casualties against terrorist goals" when no one knows how many terrorists there are? Not to mention that it's not one group with one goal.

Logic dictates that if a plain-clothes death count is possible, and the insurgents wear plain clothing, an insurgent death count is also possible.

Your logic escapes me.

 

[Futobingoro]

How can someone "weigh the terrorist casualties against terrorist goals" when no one knows how many terrorists there are?

You are asserting that if the media does not report something, it does not exist as fact. That is the very idea I am challenging.

People have trusted the media for so long that it has become the benchmark for the quality of information. Information that does not conform to the media's standard never makes it to the airwaves. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that the media has made a mistake in its Iraq War coverage. And because each "informed" person adheres to the standards of the media he or she subscribes to, informed people claim that my beliefs do not conform to the commonly-held standard of information. My response to them is this: Of course they don't!

Still, I receive rebuttals such as this one:

Why would you even question that information? It is common knowledge.

It is not enough to suggest that my claims about common knowledge are incorrect because it is "common knowledge" that "common knowledge" is correct.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

While the military's tight lips and the realities of the conflict make it very difficult to create an insurgent death count, Iraq Body Count has demonstrated that it is still quite possible to tabulate the total plain-clothes death count for the Iraq War. Logic dictates that if a plain-clothes death count is possible, and the insurgents wear plain clothing, an insurgent death count is also possible.

The Iraq Body Count was not a real body count. The Iraq Body Count simply compiled numbers from news sources(<---- take note: news sources).

 

[Evo]

You are asserting that if the media does not report something, it does not exist as fact. That is the very idea I am challenging.

No, I'm saying exactly what I said, that it's unknown and probably unknowable in this particular case (number of terrorists).

 

[Futobingoro]

By the way, why do you keep referring only to the number of terrorists?

How can someone "weigh the terrorist casualties against terrorist goals" when no one knows how many [highlight]terrorists[/highlight] there are?

No, I'm saying exactly what I said, that it's unknown and probably unknowable in this particular case ([highlight]number of terrorists[/highlight]).

Your statement is not parallel if you at first mention terrorist casualties and later speak only of terrorists in general. For your statement to be parallel, it must read, "How can someone weigh the terrorist casualties against terrorist goals when no one knows how many terrorist casualties there are?"

-----

No, I'm saying exactly what I said, that [highlight]it's unknown and probably unknowable[/highlight] in this particular case

You are again making judgments based upon the standards the media impresses upon you. It is your experience as a client of media coverage which tells you that the terrorist death count is "probably unknowable."

 

[Evo]

By the way, why do you keep referring only to the number of terrorists?

Because YOU brought it up and it was a direct response to YOUR post. Have you really forgotten so soon? See your post below.

the media is still required to report insurgent/terrorist casualties so it can weigh the terrorist casualties against terrorist goals.

You are again making judgments based upon the standards the media impresses upon you. It is your experience as a client of media coverage which tells you that the terrorist death count is "probably unknowable."

Not what I said at all. I said the number of terrorists is unknowable.

Sorry, since I can actually read my posts, I'm not having any trouble recalling them.

 

[Futobingoro]

I said the number of terrorists is unknowable.

So you were talking about the number of terrorists, not terrorist casualties. In that case, how does the number of terrorists pertain to a discussion about the media's omission of terrorist casualties?

 

[Evo]

So you were talking about the number of terrorists, not terrorist casualties. In that case, how does the number of terrorists pertain to a discussion about the media's omission of terrorist casualties?

It pertains to your post.

Go back and read posts 22 & 23.

 

[Futobingoro]

There is a new development in Iraq War journalism. Though it does not directly pertain to Iraq casualty reporting, it nonetheless illustrates one of the media's failures.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-30T190543Z_01_BAU068721_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-NEWSPAPERS.xml
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511300264nov30,1,6049966.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Now, the US military is disseminating these stories as though they were written by objective, independent writers. I do not intend to focus on this aspect of the story, because I probably agree with most that the military's practice here is questionable.

I do, however, intend to focus on the label of 'propaganda' given to the military's Iraq stories. The media ought to exercise extreme caution when labeling something as 'propaganda.' I am taking issue with the media because I believe they have not exercised such caution. The media have failed to consider that the labeling of something as 'propaganda' may, in itself, constitute propaganda. The media's labeling of these stories as 'propaganda' is suspect due to their track record. The New York Times reserved a 4-page section for the names and pictures of 1,000 dead US soldiers, bridging the gap between that issue and their previous 1,000th-death issue. CNN, CBS, ABC and others report almost every terrorist bombing, attack and kidnapping in Iraq. George Bush's low approval rating is quoted almost daily. News organizations frequently tabulate the total monetary cost of the war. And the media have the arrogance to judge whether something is 'propaganda'?!

It is a sad reflection on the media when the only effort for positive reporting is being made by the US military through Iraqi newspapers.

 

[Manchot]

There is a new development in Iraq War journalism. Though it does not directly pertain to Iraq casualty reporting, it nonetheless illustrates one of the media's failures.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-30T190543Z_01_BAU068721_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-NEWSPAPERS.xml
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511300264nov30,1,6049966.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
Now, the US military is disseminating these stories as though they were written by objective, independent writers. I do not intend to focus on this aspect of the story, because I probably agree with most that the military's practice here is questionable.
I do, however, intend to focus on the label of 'propaganda' given to the military's Iraq stories. The media ought to exercise extreme caution when labeling something as 'propaganda.' I am taking issue with the media because I believe they have not exercised such caution. The media have failed to consider that the labeling of something as 'propaganda' may, in itself, constitute propaganda. The media's labeling of these stories as 'propaganda' is suspect due to their track record. The New York Times reserved a 4-page section for the names and pictures of 1,000 dead US soldiers, bridging the gap between that issue and their previous 1,000th-death issue. CNN, CBS, ABC and others report almost every terrorist bombing, attack and kidnapping in Iraq. George Bush's low approval rating is quoted almost daily. News organizations frequently tabulate the total monetary cost of the war. And the media have the arrogance to judge whether something is 'propaganda'?!
It is a sad reflection on the media when the only effort for positive reporting is being made by the US military through Iraqi newspapers.

The goal of the news should not be "positive reporting." It should convey the truth. If the media did not report about the going-ons in Iraq, then we would have no idea how the war is going, because the Bush administration certainly gives us no clue. The reason that they point out the negatives is because there are so few positives. And no, labelling the Iraqi journalist thing as propaganda is not propaganda itself. The military is paying journalists to alter their stories in their favor. If that isn't propaganda I don't know what is.

 

[Futobingoro]

And no, labelling the Iraqi journalist thing as propaganda is not propaganda itself.

Many people have a vested interest in discounting the positive aspects of the war.

The military is paying journalists to alter their stories in their favor.

There are many anti-war journalists who will alter their stories free of charge.

This is not the largest problem here, however.

The reason that they point out the negatives is because there are so few positives.

You make the assumption that because the media has reported so few positives, there must not be very many positives. What information did you use to make that judgment? Where did it come from? I am 99.9% certain that your information came from the media. As I have said numerous times, one can not use information from the media to defend the media. Doing so is akin to citing a report from Marlboro which says cigarettes are not responsible for lung cancer.