Last October, the story of how there were 650,000 or so excess Iraqi deaths in the war wasn't important enough to make the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. In today's paper I see that the death of a minor American celebrity gets five out of eight columns on the front page.
More like this
The Washington Post buried the story of 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq on page A12.
I don't know what inside page the story appeared on in the New York Times, but look what they had on their website (image to right). Three American deaths are much more important than 600,000 Iraqi ones. Gee, New…
In today's Sydney Morning Herald Miranda Devine has a go at the Lancet study, writing
The British medical journal The Lancet published a paper last October (timed deliberately, its authors admit, before the US presidential election), estimating that 100,000 more Iraqis died…
The Iraq Family Health Survey, conducted by the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization, found that there were about 400,000 excess deaths in Iraq up to June 2006 associated with the invasion. The second Lancet survey conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins and Al Mustansiriya…
Mark Goldblatt mounts an attack on the Lancet study:
The JHBSPH study attempts to calculate the number of civilian deaths "above what would have occurred without conflict." I wonder, therefore, if the survey group was taking into account the effects of United Nations sanctions on Iraq prior the…
Just got a late-night news update here in the States.
Anna Nicole Smith is still dead. I'll let you folks down under know if the situation changes...
You saying she didn't live her life like a candle in the wind?
I thought the story of her death had been pretty much discredited.
Correction: Anna Nicole Smith was not a "minor" American celebrity--she was a major American celebrity.
Hay! Don't forget to say that her blond beauty comes from Sweden and the drugs from America ;)
I say she was a mid-level celebrity. Whatever, Tim's point is a good one. When the report about excess deaths came out, the main point to get coverage was the fact that some people debated the accuracy of the report, not the report itself.
WE have a treason trial that is exposing the complicity of our media, our imperial wars are a disaster and one of them was shown to have had pallets of money distributed to the terrists who surely used it to kill our soldiers, one of our Representatives just started hearings into BushCo and Blackwater, it was just shown that the document created for BushCo's 'intelligence' to go to war was falsified...
Yeah, no sh*t they'd use her for a distraction. Some television shows would have a media mogul killing her just for the distraction.
You can't make this stuff up.
Best,
D
She is at best a minor celebrity. Only interesting because of her kerfuffle over that huge pile of money from the old idiot.
It is a pathetic state of affairs that our media pays so much attention. The same media that loves the Democrats so much.
AS I pointed out just above, ben, it is in the media's interest to distract away from the fact that they were on their knees in front of BushCo for 5.5 years and were partially complicit in purveying the lies in the run-up to war.
I guess if you want to say that a media in thrall to power is evidence that it loves the Dems so much, I guess that doesn't reflect so well on you.
But it gives us a chuckle, and for that, I thank you for making me laugh today, ben. If you didn't exist, we'd have to invent you.
Best,
D
Dano,
The Australian media, which is what Tim is talking about, doesn't even have that sort of morally bankrupt but fundamentally rational justification for their coverage of Smith's death.
They do it because aping the US media is more or less reflexive and, thanks to agency arrangements, it's cheaper than actual journalism.
Myopia regarding Murrican-centric reasoning noted. I'll remember my standards in the future.
D
Whatever Dano, whatever.
Hey Tim. Thanks to a posting yesterday I found your site. Would you please respond someplace to the claims made by this Purtilo guy (if he is who he claims to be) http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/
What about these claims that you are making these false claims about people?
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/namecalling.htm
What about these claims of you doctoring evidence?
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/lambert.htm
Your help would be appreciated.
"What about these claims of you doctoring evidence?:
Let's see someone using using the name "Economist123" cut and pasted what everyone admits is a review written by John Lott.
Tim appending Lott's name to WHAt LOTT WROTE is proof of Tim "doctoring evidence".
Since these claims are coming from rabid rightwingers in the vicinity of Washington DC perhaps we should bow to their special expertise on the topic of doctoring evidence.
So let's look at the evidence that "Lambert has frequently accused Ann Coulter of using sock puppets as well."
http://timlambert.org/2004/01/coulter/
If I were a pedant I'd simply point to the word "frequently" and ask for more than one example.
More seriously let's look at what Tim wrote:
"Now, it is possible that Coulter has a fan in NY who has copied her style and has made a hobby of anonymously defending her in the Amazon.com and that fan knows how Coulter thinks, but I suspect that the "reader from New York, NY" is actually Coulter."
That's followed by Tim's reprinting of Reader's denial of Coulterhood (which is admittedly one of the most vile charges I can think of to make against someone).
Yeah Tim certainly asserted Coulter's use of sockpuppets as absolute fact and doctored the evidence to cover up Reader's denial.
4x, you're off topic. If you can figure out which thread your question belongs in, I'll answer it.
Tim concluded the Coulter post with this: " I tried to see how many reviews of Coulter's books the "reader from New York, NY" had posted and counted 36 five-star reviews before I got too bored to continue." Sure seems like he believed it in the end.
Tim, are you afraid to address http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/namecalling.htm points? It is understandable. If I put them up on the old posts, no one could see them.
I think xxxx was trying to find the double-hard-core porno site and somehow ended up on science blogs.
"aping the US media is more or less reflexive"
..and here I thought the US media were mostly following an Australian's lead...
http://www.foxnews.com/
Did you notice that 4x's "Thanks to a posting yesterday" message is the carbon copy of the one he made in the Bolt thread? Not to mention the fact that he keeps spamming the same URL over and over. There's something awfully screwy about this fella, but I can't put my finger on it...
Ben said, 'Media which loves the Democrats'. Ben do you mean the second 'Property Party'? (After all, there is only one US Party with two right wings). BTW, Ben, are you referring to the same media that amplified official lies about Iraq's non-existent WMD as if it was the fact, where more than 90% of the media supported the invasion, the same media that has downplayed the carnage and 'normalized' the occupation, the same media that responded to Bush's messianic embracing of 'democracy' with reverential awe, and the same media that is beginning to amplify more manufactured evidence from the DC junta as it prepares to carpet bomb Iran?
Ben: "Media which loves the Democrats"
Yes, everyone knows FOX News owner Ruppert Murdoch loves the Democrats -- well, at least one Democrat (Hillary Clinton) anyway.