Robert Naiman is one of the people behind the new counter
which somewhat crudely combines figures from Iraq Body Count
(IBC) and the Lancet study.
It doesn't inspire confidence to see Naiman making basic errors
on this issue, but he isn't alone in making such errors (eg John
Pilger repeatedly - and incorrectly - described the Lancet figures
as representing "civilian" deaths. Others have incorrectly
described the Lancet study as the "only" scientific
study of its type on Iraqi mortality, thereby consigning the larger
UNDP study to the memory hole).
Naiman at least (unlike others) has made a token attempt to correct
one or two of his errors. For example, he initially wrote (incorrectly)
in the Huffington Post that Iraq Body Count "tally
individual deaths reported in Western media". The false
implication is that IBC ignore non-western media (an implication
apparently disseminated by poorly researched writings from the
media-criticism website, Medialens).
In fact, IBC monitor 72
major "non-western" sources on a daily basis, along
with 120 "western" sources. Naiman added a footnote
to his article after this was pointed out to him:
 Note, 9/23: A reader points out that this mis-characterizes
IBC. IBC monitors "non-Western" sources. The issue
is not that IBC is ignoring "non-Western" sources,
which I did not mean to claim. The issue is, what is the size
of the gap between the IBC tally, which counts individual, reported
deaths, and the true death toll. IBC acknowledges that its tally
undercounts the true death toll, as, being a tally, it must.
The question is the size of the gap. I regret the mis-characterization.