WhiteHouse Stenographers AKA "media" underreporting Casualites in Iraq

[Zebo]

Text

Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely. (The tally is current as of Oct. 20.) Of this number, 1,590 were wounded in hostile action, and 337 from other causes. About 20% of the injured in Iraq have suffered severe brain injuries, and as many as 70% "had the potential for resulting in brain injury," according to an Oct. 16 article in The Boston Globe.

Current injury statistics were easily obtained by E&P through U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon, so getting the numbers is no longer a problem. According to Lawrence F. Kaplan, author of an article on injured troops in the Oct. 13 issue of The New Republic, this information has only recently been readily accessible. "Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, U.S. Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured tally either," Kaplan wrote.

A United Press International investigation, published Oct. 20, revealed that many wounded veterans from Iraq, under care at places such as the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia, must wait "weeks and months for proper medical help" and are being kept in living conditions that are "unacceptable for sick and injured soldiers." One officer was quoted as saying, "They're being treated like dogs." The Army has said it is attempting to remedy the situation.

 

[Bowfinger]

This was interesting too:

Even now, when the injury information is easily available, many newspapers neglect to report or keep a tally, as an informal survey of some top papers has shown. This comes on the heels of reports Wednesday that attacks on American troops in Iraq had increased in recent weeks from an average of 15 to 20 attacks per day to about 20 to 25 attacks a day, with a peak at about 35 attacks in one day, according to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

According to an Oct. 3 report by UPI, nearly 4,000 soldiers had been medically evacuated from Iraq for non-combat reasons.

As for the tally of total deaths in Iraq, most of the media continues to only cite those killed in hostile action. On Oct. 20, for example, The New York Times reported: "Since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq on May 1, 106 American soldiers have been killed." But this number represents only those killed in combat by hostile fire. A total of 200 American troops have been killed in this time period from all causes, such as vehicle accidents, drowning, and suicides, a figure that is rarely mentioned in the press.

"Liberal" media indeed. Another big lie from the right.

 

[Zebo]

"Liberal" media indeed. Another big lie from the right.

I have yet to hear a good argument for the media being "liberal"..

Lie? It's a total fabrication by skinheads on talk radio cause they wer'nt given major netwrok time to spew thier hate. The media never covers liberal issues.Text

More lies from the right all debunked..Text

 

[Crimson]

Lets ignore the 14 million other things the media slants left on, and point out one they don't, and conclude they are not biased... good reasoning..

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Lets ignore the 14 million other things the media slants left on, and point out one they don't, and conclude they are not biased... good reasoning..

Your statement is without substance and is a mere opinion.

 

[DealMonkey]

Yeah, the media should just print whatever the White House wants them to print. That way, Bush won't have to go out of his way to speak "over the filter" and talk directly to the American people. Or perhaps the administration can just publish their own paper and mainline the propoganda straight to the dittoheads?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Lets ignore the 14 million other things the media slants left on, and point out one they don't, and conclude they are not biased... good reasoning..

Ok I'll bite, provide me with 14 million examples that the media slants left

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Crimson
Lets ignore the 14 million other things the media slants left on, and point out one they don't, and conclude they are not biased... good reasoning..

Ok I'll bite, provide me with 14 million examples that the media slants left

about 1400 right there



CkG

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Crimson
Lets ignore the 14 million other things the media slants left on, and point out one they don't, and conclude they are not biased... good reasoning..

Ok I'll bite, provide me with 14 million examples that the media slants left

about 1400 right there



CkG

Damn you CAD... no helping!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Crimson
Lets ignore the 14 million other things the media slants left on, and point out one they don't, and conclude they are not biased... good reasoning..

Ok I'll bite, provide me with 14 million examples that the media slants left

about 1400 right there



CkG

Damn you CAD... no helping!

I can't help it. It is a slow night here in P&N. BTW here are about 1200 more

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Crimson
Lets ignore the 14 million other things the media slants left on, and point out one they don't, and conclude they are not biased... good reasoning..

Ok I'll bite, provide me with 14 million examples that the media slants left

about 1400 right there



CkG

Only 1,400? Given the pervasiveness of Bush administration deceit, I'd say that's a better indicator of right slant. The media has been much too deferential in not calling Bush on his lies.

By the way, your search pulled up another great article. I'll start a new thread in a moment.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Crimson
Lets ignore the 14 million other things the media slants left on, and point out one they don't, and conclude they are not biased... good reasoning..

Ok I'll bite, provide me with 14 million examples that the media slants left

about 1400 right there



CkG

Damn you CAD... no helping!

I can't help it. It is a slow night here in P&N. BTW here are about 1200 more

CkG

Oh yeah, well I can prove Bush lies, he even admits it!

From your first results:

this

Bush thanks Australia for help but says much lies ahead

Ah ha! he admits more lies ahead! Do you beleive us now, huh ?



edit: yeah p&n is dead alright... sleepy time

 

[Gaard]

What'd they call this in the other thread? The 'Dove Report' or something like that? Is that why the casualties aren't being reported? What reason do you think?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Crimson
Lets ignore the 14 million other things the media slants left on, and point out one they don't, and conclude they are not biased... good reasoning..

Ok I'll bite, provide me with 14 million examples that the media slants left

about 1400 right there



CkG

Damn you CAD... no helping!

I can't help it. It is a slow night here in P&N. BTW here are about 1200 more

CkG

Oh yeah, well I can prove Bush lies, he even admits it!

From your first results:

this

Bush thanks Australia for help but says much lies ahead

Ah ha! he admits more lies ahead! Do you beleive us now, huh ?



edit: yeah p&n is dead alright... sleepy time

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
What'd they call this in the other thread? The 'Dove Report' or something like that? Is that why the casualties aren't being reported? What reason do you think?

I have seen the casualties reported in several publications. It seems it is being reported.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
What'd they call this in the other thread? The 'Dove Report' or something like that? Is that why the casualties aren't being reported? What reason do you think?

I have seen the casualties reported in several publications. It seems it is being reported.

Oh.

[Rosanne Rosannadanna]nevermind[/Rosanne Rosannadanna]