Patterico's Pontifications

10/10/2006

Memo to Joel Stein: Making Up Facts Is Not OK — Even for a “Humor” Writer

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:02 pm



I know Joel Stein is a clownish figure who is not to be taken seriously. Still, I have to call him on this:

Although we have killed more than 50,000 Iraqis for reasons that no one is able to explain other than that letting crazy, anti-Western, death-cult Arabs vote for their own crazy, anti-Western, death-cult Arab leaders is awesome, we have decided that we cannot accept mistreating captured enemies.

I’m sorry, Joel. “We” have killed more than 50,000 Iraqis?

The Los Angeles Times reported in April that the civilian death toll during the Iraq war had topped 50,000. However, the paper reported:

Almost 75% of those who died violently were killed in “terrorist acts,” typically bombings, the records show.

In other words, “we” didn’t kill that 75% — the enemy did. Saying “we” killed that 75% makes as much logical sense as saying that “we” killed six million Jews in World War II . . . because we fought an enemy that killed them.

Some could argue that these deaths are attibutable to the invasion — but that argument incorrectly assumes that civilians weren’t murdered in equal numbers under Saddam. As I showed in this post, they were. Saddam murdered, on average, over 16,000 civilians per year — about the same number as have died during the course of the war, primarily at the hands of the same Ba’athist terrorists who murdered civilians during Saddam’s reign.

Nor is it accurate to say that we killed the other 25%. According to the June Times article, that group was killed by both Iraqis and Americans in military clashes, including accidental crossfire.

Any way you slice it, Stein wildy misstates the facts when he claims that “we” have killed 50,000 Iraqis.

I realize Stein is a “humor” writer — and I use the quotation marks advisedly. But being a humor writer does not entitle you to take liberties with actual facts, unless you’re saying something so patently absurd that nobody can possibly take you seriously — like: “the Los Angeles Times has no liberal bias,” or: “Joel Stein is a witty and insightful writer.”

Or: “The L.A. Times is likely to correct Joel Stein’s misstatement, because at the L.A. Times, accuracy is goal number one.”

P.S. If for some strange reason you took me seriously there, the Readers’ Representative can be reached at ReadersRep@latimes.com.

25 Responses to “Memo to Joel Stein: Making Up Facts Is Not OK — Even for a “Humor” Writer”

  1. Thanks for correcting this but–as you point out, indirectly–calling Joel Stein a humor writer takes great liberty with the truth as well.

    Gus (522570)

  2. How any serious newspaper could put Joel Stein on the editorial pages is beyond me.

    Robert (ee5703)

  3. Some could argue that these deaths are attibutable to the invasion but that argument incorrectly assumes that civilians werent murdered in equal numbers under Saddam. – Patterico

    Equal numbers?

    Over more than a decade violent Iraqi deaths may average 16,000 per anum. But you incorrectly assume Saddam was still doing this in the year-plus prior to the invasion.

    The British Lancet medical journal did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it:

    http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html/

    More recently:

    Gianni Magazzeni, chief of the U.N. human rights office in Iraq, which tracks casualty figures from Iraq’s government, confirmed Thursday [September 7, 2006] that the government-run Baghdad morgue had reported 1,536 dead for August.

    In 2002, before U.S.-led forces entered Iraq, the Baghdad morgue averaged 15 shooting victims a month, morgue officials have said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090700768.html

    [Why compare only shooting deaths? Saddam was very creative in the ways he murdered people. Also, do you really think looking at small periods of time yields the most accurate comparison? I don’t. It’s like judging the best ball club by looking only at last night’s box scores. — P]

    steve (db6ba8)

  4. Any stats regarding Saddam’s atrocities are, at best estimated. Not saying it’s not a good thing he’s gone, but we set up this stage, a play where factions can kill at will. Not a success by any standard but it’s our freakin’ mess, and there’s no end in sight.
    Anyone have any ideas, ’cause both sides of the aisle are pretending this abortion of a military engagement barely exists, bleeding us of billions and killing countless civilians and killing/wounding thousands of US troops. Will anybody stand up and say, “hey, this shit’s not working, anybody got a better plan?” ‘Cause until some semi-courageous soul does, this crap’s gonna go on indefinitely and they will continue to suffer. And our reputation on the national stage will continue to decline; I know many don’t give a crap what the rest of the world thinks, but it matters more than you think when push comes to a real shove.

    mmm...lemonheads (a960c9)

  5. Why compare only shooting deaths? – Patterico

    Why ignore the study accounting for all violent deaths?

    You’re assuming Saddam’s 2001-2002 Iraq exhibited systematic killing patterns in evidence sporadically over 24 years. There’s contrary data.

    steve (db6ba8)

  6. I don’t really mean this to be a “is this a good war?” thread. But since you brought it up . . .

    I disagree that it’s not a success by any standard. I will probably elaborate in coming days, but I think that — while a good argument can be made that, with the benefit of hindsight, the war was a mistake, and we should consider getting out of the business of patrolling the streets, and get out (while leaving behind a couple of strong bases) — the everyday Iraqi (even in Baghdad) is better off today than he was under Saddam.

    Of course, that view will make me unpopular with both sides. The right will insist that we must stay the current course at all costs. The left will never admit that everyday Iraqis are better off. But this is how I see things.

    Patterico (de0616)

  7. You’re assuming Saddam’s 2001-2002 Iraq exhibited systematic killing patterns in evidence sporadically over 24 years. There’s contrary data.

    No, you are assuming that his 2001-2002 Iraq killing patterns are representative of what the patterns would have been like in 2003-2006.

    You’re like the guy who watches the roulette wheel come up black 8 times in a row and figures it’s a lock that it will come up black the next 8 times too. (Or red, for that matter.) Past performance is not a guarantee of future results, as the brokers say. But if you want accurate predictors it’s always good to look at the long term. In the long term, the stock market goes up, and red and black come up equally often.

    But you can insist on a narrow focus on the last 8 spins of the wheel if you like. Just don’t ask me to be overwhelmed.

    Patterico (de0616)

  8. steve, are you really trying to argue that “we” killed 50,000 Iraqis?

    Will you at least admit that Stein was wrong?

    Patterico (de0616)

  9. Well, now just wait a minute: Recall that earlier this spring Stein wrote a column telling us that he does not support the troops. Can’t we therefore conclude that when he says that “we” have killed 50,000 Iraqis, he is simply aligning himself with the terrorists, er, insurgents?

    Oh, I know, here come all the lefties who are going to jump down my throat for implying that Stein is a traitor. Hey folks, he wrote the aforementioned column, not me.

    JVW (a62639)

  10. Not saying it’s not a good thing he’s gone, but we set up this stage, a play where factions can kill at will.

    Sunnis had been slaughtering Shia at will long before we got there. We’ve only leveled the playing field.

    It amazes me that people actually think we created the dynamic responsible for sectarian violence, as if the Muslim schism didn’t exist for centuries before we went into Iraq.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  11. Steve,

    The British Lancet medical journal did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it:

    That Lancet study is crap. The methodology was little more than guessing, as the sample used in the survey was ridiculously small. The lead author in the piece you link says:

    “Our findings need to be independently verified with a larger sample group. However, I think our survey demonstrates the importance of collecting civilian casualty information during a war and that it can be done,”

    That verification has not been done, no study has replicated the findings, and there is no evidence to support the 100K claim, especially not as of two years ago. Iraq Body Count is much more accurate.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  12. considering all the ordnance we’ve detonated over there, i suspect the number of 50,000 iraqi deaths is conservative.

    assistant devil's advocate (7f5876)

  13. An second study out this week from Johns Hopkins:

    “In an update of a two-year-old survey that sparked wide disagreement, Johns Hopkins researchers now estimate that more than a half-million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S.-led invasion and its bloody aftermath.

    “To put these numbers in context, deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003,” he said [Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author and co-director of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health].

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.iraqdeaths11oct11,1,1458190.story?coll=chi-news-hed

    Michael O’Hanlon at Brookings criticized the methodology as “seriously flawed” last time. The authors say the cluster sample was broadened to avoid clusters of extreme violence.

    [The June report said 50,000 and this one says well over half a million. Wow . . . the last 3-4 months have been worse than I thought! Come on. With numbers this disparate it’s hard to know *what* to believe. — P]

    steve (db6ba8)

  14. It would probably be appropriate to consider that true victory requires the populace to believe that “resistance is futile.” That would seem to indicate that the death toll is insufficient, whatever the true total is. Somehow, I just don’t believe that is the point that these “studies” are trying to promote.

    Richard (5641c4)

  15. Here’s another article about the JH/Lancet study.

    Dubya (c16726)

  16. “With numbers this disparate it’s hard to know *what* to believe”

    That’s the same reason why I’m skeptical of human caused global warming. This is the 2nd U turn scientists have done about the direction of earth’s tempatures in my lifetime. And with each U turn the major science publications quickly coalesced around the new position. Pushback usually focuses on numbers (more of us than them – an odd argument for a scientist) and industry connections of detractors.

    I’m not saying the equivalent of the Earth is flat. I’m saying scientists are in a full blown effort to find data to support the theory of the day. In such a climate – finding data to support a theory while side stepping the arguments of detractors – I think the position that I don’t know and neither do they is largely common sense.

    Sweetie (901f54)

  17. In 2002, before U.S.-led forces entered Iraq, the Baghdad morgue averaged 15 shooting victims a month, morgue officials have said.

    And people executed by government forces were taken to the morgue, were they? In what universe? How would morgue officials have a clue how many people were being killed by the secret police, not-secret police, army, etc, even in Baghdad, let alone elsewhere (i.e. in Shi’ite areas)?

    Milhouse (61ed0f)

  18. Aren’t you making the assumption that by “we” Stein meant the U.S.? Maybe he was being more honest than you think…

    The Editors, AFJ (18b54f)

  19. Patterico: “the everyday Iraqi (even in Baghdad) is better off today than he was under Saddam.”

    110 more everyday Iraqis better off now. I don’t know how much more of Patterico’s improvement they can take:

    WP: “BAGHDAD, Oct. 10 — Iraqi police found 50 bodies dumped across Baghdad on Tuesday, apparent victims of sectarian death squads, and a bombing at a bakery in the capital killed 10 people in the biggest single attack of the day.

    The discovery of the bodies, many tortured and all shot, brought to at least 110 the number found in Baghdad in the past two days, an Interior Ministry official said.”

    m.croche (aba412)

  20. m. croche:

    So what is your conclusion? That Americans turn Iraqis into fratricidal murderers? Or that Iraqis are fratricidal murderers to begin with and Sadam Hussein was able to direct the fratricide towards his enemies? Seriously.

    nk (32c481)

  21. m.croche,

    Lucky thing there were no sectarian death squads under Saddam.

    Patterico (de0616)

  22. UN Special Rapporteur for Torture, Manfred Nowak (October 8, 2006):

    “Under his dictatorship there was also terrible torture, but one could at least still predict who would have to fear being tortured. Today, on the other hand, the security situation is out of control to such an extent that in the final analysis every person can become a victim of abductions, summary executions, and the worst methods of torture: people’s limbs are being amputated, their fingers are missing, their eyes have been put out.

    The report of the [UN] support mission for Iraq concludes that the situation is very serious. In July and August 2006 alone, the bodies of 6500 persons were found who had been abducted and often very gravely tortured — that is more than 100 people each day. I collaborated on this report to the extent that I interviewed various victims and non-governmental organizations. Many of them credibly reported that in their view the situation is now worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.”

    http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID5977314,00.html

    steve (db6ba8)

  23. It’s a bit like Jimmy Carter’s recent claim that he stopped the NK nuk-u-lar program. Yeah, and he brought the hostages back from Tehran, too. Being a lefty means never having to acknowledge reality.

    TNugent (6128b4)

  24. While it’s difficult for us over here to summarize a situation thousands of miles away, there are posts like no. 22 that attempt to disseminate information we don’t have over here. Also, the International Red Cross is a reputable source for parsing the details.

    TNugent, I hail from Detroit, and trust me, most don’t find his connection to the area to be a positive thing. Dude’s a reactionary moron.

    mmm...lemonheads (a960c9)

  25. […] There is evidence, including this evidence provided by commenter steve, that these interpreters are not alone. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Bring the Boys Back Home? (421107)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0838 secs.