Paved with Good Intentions - Part 2

My comments on this document

The second part of Media Lens' attack on IBC is busy with more investigative journalism. Not serious investigation - just browsing the IBC site to look for evidence of under-reporting of civilian casualties of US air strikes.

They can draw no conclusions apart from incredulity that the US isn't killing the masses of civilians on a daily basis. But they can't resist some weasel words:

What do these figures tell us about the sincerity
and honesty of the IBC editors? Absolutely nothing
- it is not at all our intention to challenge their
integrity. But there are some important points
that need to be made.

They then go on to make a massive error by comparing death rates today from Air Strikes with those that include the invasion phase of the war. And reinforce this with a clearly biased quotation from a journalist on the ground in Fallujah which starts:

“I just finished having a look at what
you suggested... I agree with your findings...

Now there's a surprise...

Skipping the exchange between ML and John Sloboda, we move on to "The Editors" revealing their true left-wing, nannying tendencies:

But why has IBC not made crystal clear
on its website that its figures under-represent
the true figure in a particular direction -
one that clearly favours the US-UK
‘coalition‘? Where are the caveats on the
website advising that sources based on a
largely Western press reporting on Western
armies engaged in a ferocious war are
inherently biased against filling in the
wrong gaps - the gaps that reflect badly
on the West?

It's not enough for IBC to make their methods and limitations public. Each page must have a health warning. And failure to provide one means that IBC are responsible for every quoted use of their data in all media, worldwide.

This point is re-hashed over and over again until we get to the ridiculous final paragraph:

It is not rocket science to perceive obvious
flaws in the IBC methodology - a glance at
the database suggests that Iraqi civilians
are somehow immune to the firepower of US
jets, tanks, helicopters and artillery.
Other studies, and simple common sense,
suggest otherwise.

What would Chomsky have to say about that shameful example of propaganda?.