Posted by gunnar on July 2, 2009, 14:44:42, in reply to "Is this "real dialog"?"
Raoul
Indeed, the discussion is not fruitful.
I try to set the frame of the debate again. If we can agree on this then we can move on.
Many moons ago I was reponding to Anna's point over on Mediahell
(I had a very tough time convincing one reader of Medialens's misinformation that this was completely false, despite demonstrating that IBC monitor 72 non-western media sources daily, along with 120 western sources).
http://www.mediahell.org/community/08011201.htm
The stats I pulled together showed, that IBC are mainly citing 21 sources which account for roughly 95% of reported deaths.
My point is that if they monitor 192 sources daily one would expect a wider spread of sources cited. Instead we have a bias towards a few sources. This does not support the impression Anna and IBC are trying to make on the casual reader by stating that the database is built on a wide range of supporting information when the large majority of reported deaths (95%) are based on 21 datasources (11% of sources reported to be used).
For the record, again:
I am not critising the IBC. I think their work is very valuable. It provides a bottom line of deaths that can not be discussed away.
Does this clarify my position?
Message Thread:
« Back to thread