Death in Iraq

A discourse that is approached from an objective, journalistic perspective almost always falls short of ideal. This is a flagrantly biased assessment, yet it stands as quite reasonable, in that it is my own. Thus, many times in my pursuit for truth amidst lengthy, often disingenuously written news articles, I find myself staving off growing cynicism, not to mention boredom. This is partly my own fault however, for I do enjoy mixing things up a bit. Fortunately, my conscience does not plague me for deriving news from several sources, including those of marginal reputation.

While I don’t take every article seriously, there have been a few times I’ve located an anomalous piece that is both well-written and sufficiently supported. Such is the case with my chosen article of analysis.

The authors’ initial objective is not to persuade the reader of personal views, but rather, to illuminate the credibility of the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. It is only towards the end of the paper that I find myself detaching from my warm sentiments and replacing them with skepticism that is well-earned by the author’s subjective assertions. I appreciate this approach to journalism, for it allows readers a chance to form their own opinions without the interference of unilateral persuasion.

About a week ago on Progressive Talk, a radio station which broadcasts most current political issues, I caught the tail-end of a report on the war in Iraq . After reassuring the radio audience that the polls were credible for various reasons, the announcer went on to state that as a result of the current war, around 600,000 Iraqis have been lost. This number surprised me, as I hadn’t heard anything on previous estimates.

Surely this number is an exaggeration, I thought. How can this be, when there have been far fewer American casualties? It left me dumbfounded in disbelief.

I was unable to find this figure repeated or supported elsewhere in the news, although later I was told there had been short blurbs of this estimate on at least one major news station. Within a few days, that particular broadcast had crept into the back of my mind and lay dormant until this morning.

Skimming through online news today, I came across the article in question on the World Socialist Website. Once again, it was the outrageously high claim of casualties that drew my attention. A fourth of my way into the article, my brain warmed up and I remembered the aforementioned broadcast. Unlike my short debriefing during the radio broadcast however, the detailed summary of Kay and Gray’s article allowed me the freedom to better digest the subject matter.

The content of the paper offered clear insight as to how the John Hopkins’ death-polls were not only conducted, but in addition, allowed the reader a closer look at the credibility of the conductors themselves. It is an easily read, well-organized paper, which brought to light a darker part of the war, a part which the American media seemingly chooses to ignore. The scientific study, conducted by Iraqi physicians, was posted on a British website run by a medical journal called The Lancet. “The study is the only systematic estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians and military personnel to have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation to be brought to the attention of the American and international public” (Kay).

The Lancet is said to be “one of the oldest and most prestigious peer-reviewed medical publications in the world. The Johns Hopkins public health school is the largest in the world, and regularly ranks as the top public health school in the United States. The journal article was reviewed and approved for publication by four independent scientific experts in the area“ (Kay).

I began to wonder why the American media would choose to downplay and discredit these findings. “Well,” as Kay and Gray concluded, “It demonstrates that the American intervention in Iraq has produced a social and humanitarian catastrophe of historical dimensions, with vast political implications not only in the Middle East, but throughout the world and, above all, in the United States itself.” Kay is pointing out a possible incentive for the media’s downplay on this issue. It is no longer a little known fact that we are being scrutinized unfavorably by a majority of the world.

Further challenging my faith in a government too often revealed as duplicitous, this article has raised some questions for me to examine. Why is it that this story, one of an outrageous number of deaths in three years time, has only managed to skim across the outskirts of the media before plunging into the ocean of yesterdays’ news? Especially when a renowned American magazine, The Post, attested to the Hopkins poll’s validity when a published editorial stated the Hopkins researchers were “the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods” (Kay). In addition, Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, told The Washington Post the survey method was “tried and true… This is the best estimate of mortality we have” (Badken).

This article left me feeling frustrated, having been informed that Bush, after being questioned about the estimated 393,000 to 943,000 Iraqi deaths, dismissed the issue with minimal comment. He waved off the issue by saying the study is not credible. More correctly, there have been no “credible” arguments as to why these numbers should not be honored. Before having read this article, I felt that were there a topic of political and social importance to be contended with, someone out there in the media would rise to the challenge. This has been my excuse for evading confrontation myself.

Towards the end of the paper, the authors assert that, “The administration and its supporters assume, correctly, that they can simply make unsubstantiated claims and the media will not challenge them.”

Toward the end of this article the authors begin to wrap up their story with some feisty arguments and what I like to call “cheap shots.” For example: Kay’s comment on the media’s silence towards Bush’s earlier response, “Instead, the minimal coverage on Thursday was largely devoted to reporting the statements by Bush, Casey, Blair and the Iraqi stooge regime.”

While the familiar picture of our beloved three stooges implied here to mirror these officials is entertaining, I find it disrespectful.

The author continues with “They (the corporate-owned media) want to conceal this truth, as they have done consistently since the war began, because they are complicit in a massive war crime in Iraq, and continue to support the bloodletting by the US military.” Although I agree with the implications of media secrecy, there is no conclusive evidence offered within the text to support it. Too bad; I would have enjoyed the enlightenment.

Regardless, applause is in order. Kay and Gray have managed to not only sufficiently inform, but also shrewdly persuade the reader of an otherwise overlooked issue concerning the media. They are expressing concern for the loss of human life as it correlates to the governing official’s ambiguous advocacy of the war.

While the nature of journalism is inherently subjective, the loss of a human life is intrinsically objective. People are dying. This warrants Kay and Gray’s cry against the horrific deaths occurring in Iraq. Their paper, which persuasively argues for the credibility of the Johns Hopkins study, should cause us to seriously consider their perspective.

If you’d like to view a copy of the paper discussed in this article, click here.