When the Lancet study first came out, I argued that conservatives couldn't just criticize--they had to offer their own alternative, credible numbers for the civilian death toll. Matt Yglesias goes one further: why not a second study using credible methods of which conservatives approve?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Or at least 655,000 (± 140,000) of them. Before I get to the news reports, I think it's important to make something clear. These statistical techniques are routinely used in public health epidemiology and nobody complains about them. Critics of this estimate can't play the same game the…
The latest issue of the Walkley Magazine has an article I wrote about the media coverage of the Lancet study. They haven't made it available on line, so I've put a copy below the fold.
Imagine an alternate Earth. Let's call it Earth 2. On Earth 2, just like our planet, there was a Boxing Day…
I missed this when it first came out, but Carl Bialik has written excellent summary of the issues in the Wall Street Journal.
Researchers concluded that about 100,000 more Iraqis had died outside Fallujah since the invasion than would have died had the prewar death rate continued. Yet the study,…
As my readers know, the reason why the Lancet study and the ILCS give different numbers for deaths in Iraq is because the studies measured different things over a different time periods. Of course, that fact isn't going to stop pro-war columnists from claiming that the ILCS refutes the Lancet…
Les Roberts had a simple suggestion, which he addressed to the press corps: visit a sample of graveyards and check how many bodies were buried each year. So far, no journalist has shown much enthusiasm.
like there isn't a whole bunch of iraqis dead.