Iraq death figures - exchange with Jon Snow

To Channel 4 News and the BBC asking them to explain and amend their use of Iraq Body Count death figures in reports and presentations.
 
To Channel 4 News
presenters Jon Snow and Krishnan Guru-Murthy:
 
Dear Jon and Krishnan,
 
I wonder if Channel 4 News would care to review what appears to be its selective use of Iraq Body Count (IBC) figures for civilian war deaths in Iraq.
 
The problem is discussed here, with reference to a particular Channel 4 News report on Iraq:
 
As noted, the following suggests a simplified alternative which, rather than IBC's limited and misleading count, offers a more informed and balanced range of figures:
 
Civilian war deaths in Iraq
(range):
 
Iraq Body Count (IBC)
(till Dec 2012)
110,937 - 121,227
 
Lancet/Johns Hopkins survey
(March 2003 - end of June 2006)
654,965
 
Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey
(August 12–19, 2007)
1,033,000
 
Source: Wikipedia
 
I'd be most grateful for your thoughts on replacing sole reference to IBC with this fairer and more viewer-serving graphic.
 
Kind regards
John Hilley
 
Reply from Jon Snow:
 
Thanks John..it is eternally controversial..from my own experience reporting in Iraq the IBC count has always seemed very low..I try not to use it....The Lancet figure may be more truthful...I doubt we can be more accurate in reality than say that credible sources believe more than half a million died and at least four million were displaced.
 
Thanks for your help..best wishes,
 
Jon
 
Hi Jon
 

Many thanks for replying. It's very much appreciated.

 

I also appreciate your open acknowledgement that the IBC count "[seems] very low", your reticence about using it and that the Lancet figure "may be more truthful".

 

Alas, the report referred to specifically didn't offer viewers any information on those more "credible sources" indicating, at least, over half a million dead.

 

Which returns us to the original question of what specific undertaking Ch 4 News might give in replacing the IBC count with a more informative set of figures. Any further thoughts?

 

Kind regards

John

 

Also sent:

 

Hi Jon,

 

Another contributor at the Media Lens message board makes this further vital point:

 

"Perhaps it should also be pointed out that The Lancet and others are cited without reservation on other issues (I think mass-killings in Congo is an example). Hence, for the sake of not just balance but consistency too, news broadcasters should necessarily be citing other estimates (e.g. Lancet) too."

 

Kind regards

John

 

No further response, as yet, received.

---------------------------------------------

 
To BBC (via online complaints form):
 
I'd like to request that the BBC end its selective use of Iraq Body Count (IBC) when denoting civilian war deaths in Iraq.
 
The issue of BBC bias towards IBC and the false impressions it serves is discussed here.
 
As noted, the following suggests a simplified alternative which, rather than IBC's limited and misleading count, offers a more informed and balanced range of figures:
 
Civilian war deaths in Iraq
(range):
 
Iraq Body Count (IBC)
(till Dec 2012)
110,937 - 121,227
 
Lancet/Johns Hopkins survey
(March 2003 - end of June 2006)
654,965
 
Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey
(August 12–19, 2007)
1,033,000
 
Source: Wikipedia
 
Please consider replacing sole reference to IBC with this fairer and more viewer-serving graphic.
 
The use of IBC as an 'authoritative' and singularly-mentioned figure is widespread across the BBC, which suggests that a specific executive/editorial decision has been taken in this regard.
 
I'd like to see any copy or/and details of that decision-making process.
 
As the BBC's own charter/editorial guidelines specify a requirement to be neutral and impartial, I look forward to a fairer presentation of this key information. If such an alteration is not undertaken, I intend to seek a ruling on this matter from the BBC Trust.
 
For the purposes of this complaint, I cite the following online report and its singular, biased use of IBC figures:
 
Iraq 10 years on: In numbers
 
I look forward to your reply.
 
Regards
John Hilley
--------------
 
It's also worth recalling here that in 2007 the BBC's own World Service obtained restricted government information denoting advice from a senior MoD adviser that the Lancet study was "robust":

"Asked by officials to comment on the survey, the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Sir Roy Anderson, concluded: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to 'best practice'." He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study"."

This confirmation of authenticity further undermines the BBC's ongoing omission of the Lancet study and the use of IBC as its sole or principal source.
 
Getting the BBC to concede any of these points is, of course, interminably difficult. As many who have used the BBC's labyrinthine complaints system may attest, the prospects of receiving any official acknowledgement of bias, imbalance or breach of guidelines is unlikely. But, as ever, one useful purpose of the exercise is to further highlight that very process of evasion and denial.