Posted by walter on July 3, 2009, 22:33:18, in reply to ""a touch nihilist""
You can posture all you want, Raoul. I asked “Has it been “shown” that twenty sources is adequate?”. The only answer that may conceivably merit any mock show of impatience is “Yes”, followed by the substance I must have missed. Instead you keep repeating that I should show they are not - but you said that already.
You may have a point that bigger media sources hoover up reports from smaller outlets, but as you don’t give anything to quantify this, you can’t really expect everyone to accept IBC’s “comprehensive” description based on this.
Really Raoul, both you and Gunnar have a point on an unresolved issue. The difference is that while Gunnar merely stated his point, you went straight for the histrionics. Ditto with Michael and then me, so not due to past form.
I don’t really want involved in the usual IBC debate, especially with the close attention of your comedy support – I only came in because I thought the substance and indeed the point of dispute was being lost in your aggression.
But OK lets say the glove fits. What is your explanation of the discrepancy between IBC and the true count? There are anything up to a million or so deaths to be accounted for that are unreported in 'suggestedly' adequate media. Even if we accept IBC’s estimate that the real count is only double theirs, there are still a hundred thousand deaths which didn’t make the IBC-monitored media. However if IBC’s sources are adequate, then this means reports of these deaths didn’t make any media at all. As there are only four middle east sources in the ‘top twenty’, it’s hard to escape the impression that if there were more, the discrepancy would have been less. Now I can't prove this, and I don’t want to journey to Iraq to investigate what local sources the ME outlets should have consulted - I just wondered what you thought of this.
Walter
Message Thread:
« Back to thread