I keep seeing evidence of ignorance on basics - from people
who should know better.
The Guardian's Jonathan Steele wrote that the WHO study
(which estimated 151,000 violent deaths) was a "civilian
death toll". It wasn't - it included civilians and combatants,
as did the two Lancet studies. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq
Robert Fisk, John Pilger and others have written (incorrectly)
that the higher estimates (eg of Lancet 2006 and ORB) are "civilian"
Meanwhile, Dav, over at Medialens, has been busily emailing journalists
"correcting" their mistakes, or so he believes. Unfortunately,
Dav has got it wrong as well. (He writes, incorrectly, that the
WHO estimate of 151,000 was for "civilians"). And, it's
not a good idea to rely on the mistaken claim from the unreliable
WSWS that "Including violent deaths, the total mortality
figure would then rise to roughly 558,000—much closer to
the results of previous studies." Better to stick with
what the IFHS team say about their own study than to try to make
it look more like the Lancet study (with extrapolated wishful
- or disingenuous - thinking). http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1206467732.html
Let's hope that Dav has enough integrity to correct his own errors
- perhaps by emailing those journalists and admitting he got the
basics wrong too.
"Correcting for the distorted vision of the
corporate media - with a different set of distortions".