Back to Messageboard | Home | Site Map  
 

Marc Herold's latest comment on Medialens  
Posted by Peter on October 31 2007, 11:20 » Uploaded 31/10/07 11:31  

I've just noticed Professor Herold's response (yesterday) to the debate on this board concerning the misuse by Medialens (not to be confused with Media Hell) of his quote: http://www.mediahell.org/community/07102504.htm (comment 14).

(Professor Herold later posted a slightly differently worded version to the Medialens board).

I think it's worth giving more prominence here (as it's buried right at the end of that older thread):

Hello compagneros:
If your wage is $20,000 a year and it is increased to $40,000 a year, I believe that represents a vast raise. Ask anyone who experiences such a change. I simply used the word "vast" in that sense, but it was highjacked by Media Lens and used as a propaganda weapon to critique IBC.
Counted civilian impact deaths in Afghanistan number some ~6,000-7,000; further indirect civilian deaths at some 20,000.Until someone can show me, I repeat show me, that 3-10 times more civilians were killed directly by US/NATO actions since October 7, 2001, well until then, I don't care which so-called experts are cited, etc. Naturally, counts are different from estimates. My approach relies on much more than pure media reports, everyone capito? Indeed, I include photos supplied by NGOs working in high-conflict zones.
Does anyone READ what I wrote in the much-maligned correction: "First, the population density of Afghanistan in areas where most of the fighting has been taking place since the fall of Kandahar around December 10, 2001, is extremely low. Hence, the numbers of civilians killed in US/NATO operations is nothing in the order of Iraq (which is far more urban)." For numbers approaching 70-100,000 in Afghanistan to hold, entire sections of Kabul, Kandahar, etc. would have had to be flattened (as they were in the intra-mujahideen fighting of the early 9990s). But none of that happened since October 2001.. For this comment to be even considered, does it need to be peer-reviewed? Get real. For 2-3 decades, I have fought and will continue to fight such infatuation and awe of peer-reviewed journals. By that token, terrific journals like Monthly Review, New Left Review, NACLA's Report on the Americas, etc. would count for nothing.
As far as the much ballyhooed Guatemala study, I'd be delighted to shred it when asked. And for one Simon C. above, since when are economists (and engineers - I have an electronics engineering degree...so much for this stupid pedigree nonesense...anyone on the so-called Left should be ashahmed of themselves for playing that game) an inferior breed (including in their mastery of mathematics) to epidemiologists? This type of gratuitous inuendo is pathetic.
Professor Marc W. Herold, University of New Hampshire

[Originally posted to Media Hell messageboard, 20:08, 30/10/07]

 

COMMENTS Post comment

 

Comment 1 – SimonC November 1 2007, 10:23

Just like to point out that I have replied to this in the original topic.

Comment 2 – Ian Cresswell November 2 2007, 20:57

The Editors have responded.

I had to laugh at the conclusion of the second part, I quote

"“As far as the much ballyhooed Guatemala study, I'd be delighted to shred it when asked.”

It’s depressing to read this kind of comment from a respected academic. Suffice to say that Patrick Ball's work in Guatemala is seen by most specialists in the field as groundbreaking. If it was so weak, one has to wonder why the UN asked Ball to repeat the process in Kosovo, and why he was also hired to work for South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There are many ways to test the sensitivity of surveillance-based systems - these tests are the proper focus of serious discussion on this issue."


As if the Editors took Patrick Ball's Kosovo study seriously....

They mean this

http://shr.aaas.org/kosovo/icty_report.pdf

They talk about 'serious discussion' of the issues. Compare and contrast the study above with the Editors discussing the same issue, no talk now of 'the sensitivity of surveillance based systems'

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/[...]

Quote

"In 2004, Neil Clark, a Balkans specialist, reviewed Milosevic’s trial in the Guardian, noting that the charges relating to the war in Kosovo were expected to be the strongest part of the case. But “not only has the prosecution signally failed to prove Milosevic's personal responsibility for atrocities committed on the ground, the nature and extent of the atrocities themselves has also been called into question”. (Neil Clark, ‘The Milosevic trial is a travesty,’ The Guardian, February 12, 2004)

Philip Hammond of South Bank University summarised the extent of the political and media deception:

“We may never know the true number of people killed. But it seems reasonable to conclude that while people died in clashes between the KLA and Yugoslav forces... the picture painted by Nato - of a systematic campaign of Nazi-style ‘genocide’ carried out by Serbs - was pure invention.” (Degraded Capability, The Media and the Kosovo Crisis, edited by Philip Hammond and Edward S. Herman, Pluto Press, 2000, p.129)"

Unquote

Patrick Ball's study gets waived away just by quoting Neil Clarke of all people. And a false dischotomy, unrelated to empirical evidence from Phillip Hammond. That's it. Why haven't the Editors once complained that the MSM has not used Patrick Ball's study if they think it's such good practice? Groundbreaking indeed. It's largely been ignored. How does the propaganda model explain this? As favoured victims shouldn't this have been widely quoted in the media?

And how do the Editors explain why this has been ignored by the MSM, and why is it never mentioned in their Alerts? In other situations they absoloutely insist that this is the only valid methodology, and from the same journal too

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/[...]

You never hear the headline 'excess death' figure for Kosovo of 18,000 in the MSM. Yet they give Kosovo as an example of alleged double standards of the media reporting of war casualties.

My general point is that methodolgy they laud in one situation, they take no notice of in another situation. When they praise someone like Patrick Ball, it's purely rhetorical. What they seem to be interested in is getting the right campaigning number, from whatever source, that suits the ideological needs of the situation.

Comment 3 – Woofles November 3 2007, 19:57

"Patrick Ball's study gets waived away just by quoting Neil Clarke of all people."

No it doesn't. Clark's comment was: "the nature and extent of the atrocities themselves has also been called into question". That's correct. He meant in reference to, for example, US Defence Secretary, William Cohen's claim that: "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing... They may have been murdered."

By contrast, Ball's study estimated 10, 356 Kosovar Albanians were killed (March-June 1999). That supports what ML was arguing - that the endlessly repeated claims of "genocide" were a lie. 10,356 dead is horrible, but it's not a genocide.

"Why haven't the Editors once complained that the MSM has not used Patrick Ball's study if they think it's such good practice? Groundbreaking indeed. It's largely been ignored."

Did they say it was considered groundbreaking by journalists? This is the quote:

"Patrick Ball's work in Guatemala is seen by most specialists in the field as groundbreaking."

God knows "specialists in the field" doesn't include journalists!

W

 

Post comment

   
Name:
Email:  
Display email
address?
  Don't display    Display
Lifespan of comment   Delete after 3 weeks    Keep permanent if post is permanent  

Comment:

 
Optional link URL:
eg "http://mediahell.org"
 
Optional link text:
eg "Media Hell"
 
 

 

  Messageboard Back to top