Posted by Michael Hardiman on July 2, 2009, 20:28:45, in reply to ""one would expect a wider spread of sources cited""
When I made that point a long time ago I was called an idiot by Finn and by you, I suggested that IBC was a media study rather than an attempt at counting deaths(which it undeniably is if most deaths aren't counted). You mention yourself the fact that most aren't counted. I have no interest in getting into a long debate about this, I feel that those 'against' IBC worry about the uncounted deaths hence the importance given to statistical counts like the John's Hopkins counts which give far higher numbers. This probably has something to do with a mistaken belief that an extremely high death toll will somehow force people onto the streets to knock the USUK governments over out of sheer revulsion which is of course naieve in the extreme and typical of the medialens position. To state that nobody is making that point is just plain wrong, it has been made, I've read it although I don't archive what I read for the purposes of digging it up later. However, I'm confused to see you post the assertion that nobody is making that point because you have taken extensive part in the threads on IBC here and 'there'.
At the risk of Finn chiming in like an irritating newton's cradle(is there any other kind) and at the risk of being accused of being stupid and antagonistic I revert again to the position of the simpleton that I am.
1. IBC is a study of what media reports and media reports are always distortions as you know only too well, loaded with bias to the point of irrelevance.
2. Many/most/some deaths are not reported in the media.
3. IBC is an undercount possibly/probably a big undercount.
4. IBC's worth can only be judged at some distant point in the future which may never arrive.
I can't see anything in gunnar's posts which is especially controversial given the above facts.
Truth be told I don't even know why I am posting other than the immature urge to raise my voice while others are being raised even higher.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread