 In “The Big Picture(s),” I noted that the establishment media in Iraq tended to rely on dubious reports from various sources, including within the Iraqi police.
This weekend, the establishment media brings bad news from Iraqi governmental sources — shocka! — but how reliable is it?
The L.A. Times reports:
Bombings, sectarian slayings and other violence related to the war killed at least 1,773 Iraqi civilians in August, the second month in a row that civilian deaths have risen, according to government figures obtained Friday.
In July, the civilian death toll was 1,753, and in June it was 1,227. The numbers are based on morgue, hospital and police records and come from officials in the ministries of Health, Defense and the Interior. The statistics appear to indicate that the increase in troops ordered by President Bush this year has done little to curb civilian bloodshed, despite U.S. military statements to the contrary.
The Associated Press sees the L.A. Times and raises the count:
Civilian deaths rose in August to their second-highest monthly level this year, according to figures compiled Saturday by The Associated Press. That raises questions about whether U.S. strategy is working days before Congress receives landmark reports that will decide the course of the war.
***
The top American commander, Gen. David Petraeus, is expected to cite security improvements when he and Ambassador Ryan Crocker submit reports to Congress during the week of Sept. 10.
However, figures compiled by the AP from police reports nationwide show that at least 1,809 civilians were killed across the country last month compared with 1,760 in July…
The numbers differ, but the theme is clear — despite what the US military may say, the “surge” is failing and civilian casualties are climbing.
The L.A. Times got its numbers from “morgue, hospital and police records and come from officials in the ministries of Health, Defense and the Interior.” The AP compiled its numbers from police reports.
How reliable are those numbers?
It might be useful to compare the numbers the media cites now against those the media has actually reported in the past. The iCasualties website keeps monthly totals based on casualties reported by the Associated Press, with the caveat that the real numbers are likely higher. Even so, iCasualties at least employs a methodology that is — unlike numbers from Iraqi officials — relatively transparent.
According to the new numbers from the L.A. Times, in January 2007 there were 2,076 Iraqi civilian casualties; iCasualties put the number at 1,802. The LAT number for February is 1,646; the iCasualties number is 3,014. The LAT number for March  is 1,872; the iCasualties number is 2,977. The LAT number for April is 1,500; the iCasualties number is 1,821. The LAT number for May is 1,949; the iCasualties number is 1,980. The LAT number for June is 1,227; the iCasualties number is 1,345. The LAT number for July is 1,753; the iCasualties number is 1,690. Incidentally, the iCasualties numbers here include Iraqi police and security forces casualties, so the pure civilian numbers would in each case be lower still.
In short, the L.A. Times would present as reliable numbers that were lower than those reported by the Associated Press in every month from February-July 2007.
As noted in Engram’s analysis of August’s civilian casualties, the Associated Press does not present a complete set of its new numbers compiled from Iraqi police reports. However, the AP does report this:
AP figures show May was the deadliest month for Iraqi civilians this year, with 1,901 people killed in political or sectarian violence.
The iCasualties figures — derived from AP reports — show much higher civilian casualties in February and March.
Is the AP suggesting that it vastly inflated the civilian casualty count in February and March? Are those numbers now discredited? Or are its new numbers from Iraqi police reports — arriving just before Gen. Petraeus is scheduled to give a progress report of the “surge” to Congress — perhaps a wee bit suspect?
Update: happyfeet tracks back with recent Iraq reports from the L.A. Times, which contain even more interesting numbers. On April 25, 2007, Tina Susman — also the reporter on the story discussed above — wrote:
(N)umbers obtained from various ministries by the Times indicated that already this year, 5,509 civilians had died violently in Baghdad province alone, which includes the capital.
***
The numbers obtained by the Times indicated that civilian deaths, which had been 1,991 in January, dropped to 1,646 in February — the month the security plan began — then rose to 1,872 in March.
The LAT numbers for January do not match each other. However, the April 25, 2007 numbers add up to 5,509 — the number the L.A. Times gives for Baghdad province alone. This may partially explain the difference between the L.A. Times numbers and those compiled by iCasualties, though the LAT seems to now be presenting apples and oranges, as their numbers are now being set forth as nationwide figures. Seems like Tina Susman has some ‘splainin’ to do — particularly in light of an interview she gave to NPR:
BOB GARFIELD: And in fairness to the Iraqi government, do we have any reason to believe that they actually know the real numbers?
TINA SUSMAN: No, we really don’t. However, if the Iraqi government can’t produce at least an estimate, then how are people supposed to come up with any idea whatsoever? And also, you know, what does it say about their own ability to keep records? And also, what does it say about their desire to make the world aware of, you know, the kinds of hardships that the people here are living with?
But Susman has no problem using numbers from what the introduction to that interview calls “anonymous government ministry employees.”
Just sayin’.
tina susman – recent surge reporting for the la times…
This is really just a comment for Karl’s post today. The filter is not happy with the links, and I don’t feel like arguing with it.
April 25 2007 Baghdad Residents Find Little Security
April 25 2007 UN Report & Times Data Paint Grim Ir…
So what’s the point of the rant; that the evil MSM somehow is colluding to paint a picture more dire than what is really happening on the ground? And that they are doing so because they want us to lose in Iraq? BTW, I highly recommend the documentary No En in Sight. It’s playing at theaters right now. It will give you an account of how we got to the current situation in Iraq. And it’s being told by people who know what they’re talking about.
It’s enough that the LAT is contradicting both military figures and AP reportage, and that both the Times and AP are wholly unaccountable for their assertions. They need to show their work. Given the track records of both the AP and the Times, why would anyone trust their assertions without documentation? Simple as that.
Luis Mendoza, like one or two of the commenters to “The Big Picture(s),” apparently has no response other than to try to stick a straw man in my mouth.
What is the point of the “rant?” It’s in English. Read it.
Karl: You’re dealing with people who depend on willful misrepresentation of facts to serve Teh Narrative™.
…and I hit the “Say It!” button too soon. I guess to expand on it is: so don’t act surprised if Luis acts like he didn’t read what you wrote. It’s likely he did, but he needs to pretend you said something else.
Ok, fair enough. I read it and my interpretation of it (which I admit is very clear) is that the MSM accounts of the situation in the ground in Iraq can’t be trusted. Given that war is hell, and given that it is very hard to have accurate numbers in these types of situations, it is hard to trust any account as accurate. So if we all agree that there are over-counts, and under-counts of issues related to casualties, and issues related to progress or lack thereof of the so-called surge, once we agree on that, my question is what’s next? Some feel that the liberal MSM is gleefully reporting gloom and doom in Iraq in order to influence the politics behind it. I don’t buy it.
Luis Mendoza,
Again, from the L.A. Times:
And the AP:
You may be admitting that hard numbers are hard to come by. Tina Susman may concede the point in an interview on NPR. Good luck finding any of that uncertainty in the linked news accounts. Rather, these numbers from who-knows-who are presented as fact and as fact having a specific political impact.
Also, if you read “The Big Picture(s),” you’ll see that I expressly disclaim that there is a conspiracy at work here. Rather, it’s mostly the groupthink of people with prexisting prejudices. You’ll also find quotes from journalists who have been to Baghdad and believe that the establishment media in fact does enjoy reporting news which they believe validates their preexisting views about the conflict. But you don’t have to “buy” that to conclude that the linked reports are at variance even with prior establishment media reports, but fail to acknowledge it.
Karl, your argument is fair and accurate. At least I can tell you one thing about me: I have no preconceived ideas about hardly anything. I try the best I can to look at data from many different sources and come to a conclusion based on reason and analysis. If someone can show me that a conclusion I have reached is wrong by using argumentation based on facts (as much as that is possible), then I can change my mind. One of the latest pieces of data I’ve come across is the documentary No End in Sight, which I mentioned in my first post. That to me is pretty powerful data. But again, I’m open to others as well.
Luis Mendoza,
As you have seen fit to plug No End In Sight twice now, allow me to quote its director, Charles Ferguson:
The US will have a better chance of doing that if the establishment media does a better job than it has been doing in the instances I raise in this post and in “The Big Picture(s).”
…and I should add that Ferguson does not explain why he thinks that the “surge” won’t work and — based on the reviews I have read — neither does the movie.
[…] like just yesterday that the L.A. Times and the AP were putting out civilian casualty figures from anonymous Iraqi […]
Karl, I’m not saying this in jest; I think that anybody who cares about the situation in Iraq should watch this documentary. I really think it is a fair account of how we got to where we are in Iraq. I like to think I should be able to make an informed opinion about what we should do there, but I have to admit it’s beyond “my paygrade.” Actually, before watching this documentary I was inclined to opine that we should “get out” in an orderly fashion as soon as we can, but now I am convinced we need to play a very big role in helping improve the situation there, somehow. I just don’t know if using blunt military force is going to do the trick.
One thing I think complicates the issue is that I just don’t believe that the war planners really had peace and democracy in their minds when they initiated the invasion. I think there were many other calculations, including oil. The documentary gives a pretty straight forward account on many of these issues.
Military force is necessary, but not sufficient, in accord with classic counter-insurgency doctrine through the centuries.
Really?
[…] I have previously noted that the above-cited AP number conflicts with the number produced by iCasualties, which is […]
reserve such problem. To me frantically seems precise oral sex, and woman is talented to travel this not in schoiceer state. unchanging from kuni became to rebuff, I call to mind a consider because self awaits that I choice ask something in substitutions… get by what tactics?
first mrs reese sex teacher
?:))
Here is appeared muddle with wife….(dislikes minet)
first lynn mrs sex teacher
&&??