The BBC strikes again!!!

Given the BBC’s apparent biases, it was with some trepidation that I clicked on this story on estimating the number of Iraqis killed and injured during the war. To my surprise, I thought it was pretty fair — until I got to the last part of the story: “An independent website has been set up ...

By Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast.

April 7, 2003, 12:33 AM

Given the BBC's apparent biases, it was with some trepidation that I clicked on this story on estimating the number of Iraqis killed and injured during the war. To my surprise, I thought it was pretty fair -- until I got to the last part of the story: "An independent website has been set up to try to keep track of the body count. They're collating figures from news reports and they give two figures. On Sunday they showed a maximum estimate of 1049 civilians killed and a minimum of 876." The bland prose suggests that something is afoot. Why doesn't the BBC name the web site or discuss its qualifications beyond "independent" (which certainly connotes respect)? Perhaps because the site they fail to name is clearly Iraq Body Count. This site is affiliated with Marc Herold, an academic at the University of New Hampshire who produced wildly inflated civilian casualty estimates for Afghanistan (see also here). This explanation of the site's methodology includes the following: "The project takes as its starting point and builds upon the earlier work of Professor Marc Herold who has produced the most comprehensive tabulation of civilian deaths in the war on Afghanistan from October 2001 to the present, and the methodology has been designed in close consultation with him. Professor Herold commented: 'I strongly support this initiative. The counting of civilian dead looms ever more importantly for at least two reasons: military sources and their corporate mainstream media backers seek to portray the advent of precision guided weaponry as inflicting at most, minor, incidental civilian casualties when, in truth, such is is not the case; and the major source of opposition to these modern ‘wars’ remains an informed, articulate general public which retains a commitment to the international humanitarian covenants of war at a time when most organized bodies and so-called ‘experts’ have walked away from them'." Herold's quote provides a decent clue as to his biases, but if you want to understand why this site's methodology is flawed, go to Josh Chafetz's posts here and here, as well as Iain Murray's Tech Central Station article. Here's all you need to know -- according to both Murray and Chafetz, on Tuesday of this past week Iraq Body Count Project's minimum count of Iraqi civilian deaths were higher than the Iraqi government figures! Shame on the BBC for failing to raise any of these problems in their (otherwise fine) report. UPDATE: This blog's raison d'etre is bias in the BBC.

Given the BBC’s apparent biases, it was with some trepidation that I clicked on this story on estimating the number of Iraqis killed and injured during the war. To my surprise, I thought it was pretty fair — until I got to the last part of the story: “An independent website has been set up to try to keep track of the body count. They’re collating figures from news reports and they give two figures. On Sunday they showed a maximum estimate of 1049 civilians killed and a minimum of 876.” The bland prose suggests that something is afoot. Why doesn’t the BBC name the web site or discuss its qualifications beyond “independent” (which certainly connotes respect)? Perhaps because the site they fail to name is clearly Iraq Body Count. This site is affiliated with Marc Herold, an academic at the University of New Hampshire who produced wildly inflated civilian casualty estimates for Afghanistan (see also here). This explanation of the site’s methodology includes the following: “The project takes as its starting point and builds upon the earlier work of Professor Marc Herold who has produced the most comprehensive tabulation of civilian deaths in the war on Afghanistan from October 2001 to the present, and the methodology has been designed in close consultation with him. Professor Herold commented: ‘I strongly support this initiative. The counting of civilian dead looms ever more importantly for at least two reasons: military sources and their corporate mainstream media backers seek to portray the advent of precision guided weaponry as inflicting at most, minor, incidental civilian casualties when, in truth, such is is not the case; and the major source of opposition to these modern ‘wars’ remains an informed, articulate general public which retains a commitment to the international humanitarian covenants of war at a time when most organized bodies and so-called ‘experts’ have walked away from them’.” Herold’s quote provides a decent clue as to his biases, but if you want to understand why this site’s methodology is flawed, go to Josh Chafetz’s posts here and here, as well as Iain Murray’s Tech Central Station article. Here’s all you need to know — according to both Murray and Chafetz, on Tuesday of this past week Iraq Body Count Project’s minimum count of Iraqi civilian deaths were higher than the Iraqi government figures! Shame on the BBC for failing to raise any of these problems in their (otherwise fine) report. UPDATE: This blog’s raison d’etre is bias in the BBC.

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner

Tag: Culture