Military Deaths, MSM And Biased Reporting
Biased Reporting:
By Steven Foley
Update: It has been brought to my attention that when copying the figures used below from the study the actual numbers and dates got mixed up… this error was not intentional but happened nonetheless. So please disregard the list of numbers below but do keep in mind that while Clinton (during peace time) had less than the current administration in time of war it's only less by 1292. This in no way detracts from the meaning of the original post and questions asked in it! The fact is the NYT and others have, are, and will keep twisting these numbers to drive their agenda and the evidence is clear in this and other posts! Please see Military Deaths, MSM And Biased Reporting: The "Wacko Vet Myth" Edition [Update]
Thank you!
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
1980 .......... 2,3921981 ......... 2,380
1984 .......... 1,999
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 ......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 ...........2,465
1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @14,000 deaths
1997 .......... 817
1998 ......... 2,252
1999 .......... 1,984
2000 .......... 1,983
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1,007
2003 ....... ... 1,410
2004 .......... 1,887
2005 ......... 919
2006.......... 920
If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war?
More confusing is the fact that in 1980, during the reign of President ( Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures reinforce the fact that our Media & Politicians will pick and choose the facts and figures they use to present or further push their story or agenda.
Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth and where are they getting their marching-orders for their agenda? One can only speculate.
Our MSM and many Politicians are so invested in slant that they have maintained the false position that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN -- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent (White) ..... 69.12%
Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
Black..................................... 12.3%
Asian ...................................... 3.7%
Native American .................... 1.0%
Other .................................... 2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) ...74.31%
Hispanic ............................. 10.74%
Black ................................... 9.67%
Asian ................................. . 1.81%
Native American .................. 1.09%
Other ................................... .33%
You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure then distort these numbers to try and sway public opinion! These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:(PDF)
Now ask yourself these two questions:
1)"Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?"
2)"Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?"
Cross posted from The Minority Report
posted by Steven Foley
at 8:08 PM
5 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
As a legal editor I'm very familiar with CRS Reports, on whose research the content of your post was based. In fact, I use a number of their reports as practice aids in my own publication (a pension and benefits reference library), and I know they are thorough, accurate and reliable.
That said, I also know that you can make statistics say pretty much whatever you want in order to back up a position if you just "spin" them the right way. Because of the obvious bias in your post, I went into the CRS report itself and studied it a bit.
What I found was that you "skewed" the material to support your position (that the media are liars trying to hide the truth from Amurica?) As one who may in fact fall into that classification--an editor/journalist, not a liar-- I thought I'd try and clarify what the figures actually represent, without any agenda of my own.
The numbers you listed, of annual military fatalities among active service members from 1980 through 2006, were accurate through 2000 and matched those in the CRS report; however, they differed from the CRS figures for some reason beginning in 2001. The report showed military fatalities as:
2001: 891 (not 890)
2002: 999 (not 1,007)
2003: 1,228 (not 1,410)
2004: 1,874 (not 1,887)
2005: 1,942 (not 919)
2006: 1,858 (not 920)
I can’t say where you got the other figures, but as you can see, this is a significant difference only for the last 2 years. However, it shows that during what you call the "Bush yrs." (presumably you mean from Jan. 2001, when Bush took office, through Dec. 2006, the last month for which figures were available) there were actually 8,792 active duty military deaths, not 9,016 as you stated. Of course, this figure does not include any military deaths during 2007, so to get a full picture of military deaths during the “Bush years” one would have to add an actual or estimated number for 2007.
Rather troubling is that the numbers in the CRS report do not support your assertion of "Clinton years @ 14,000 deaths." Clinton took office in Jan. 1993 and left office at the beginning of 2001; based on the annual figures in the report, the total number of active military deaths from 1/93 through 12/00 was 7,500, not 14,000.
Most significant, however, is that you (conveniently?) leave out of your discussion the fact that these reported deaths are from ALL CAUSES, including not only hostile action, but accidents, homicides, illness, terrorist attack, and self-inflicted. You suggests that the figures "mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton's presidency, when American wasn't even involved in a war". It appears that either you (a) didn't know how to read the table, (b) didn't know how to extrapolate the meaning of the figures, or (c) chose to use only those portions of the whole that support your argument.
A more complete reading of the figures in the table shows that during the Clinton presidency there was ONE death, in 1996, from hostile action and 75 military deaths from terrorist acts. During the Bush years, the report shows 2,596 military deaths attributable to hostile action and 55 deaths from terrorist acts. The rest of the military deaths for all those years are from other causes, mostly accident, illness, or self-inflicted.
You admit to being “even more confused” about the statistic that in 1980 “during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,393 military fatalities!” Again, you fail to notice that of those fatalities, 1,556 were from accidents, 174 from homicides, 419 from illness, 231 were self-inflicted, and 1 was from terrorist attack. NONE were the result of hostile action. Are you suggesting that because that number of military personnel died while on active duty during Carter’s “reign,” Carter should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize?
You say these figures indicate that “many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose” and “present only those ‘facts’ which support their agenda-driven reporting.” I would suggest that you are doing the very same thing and substantially weakening your own argument by selectively presenting statistics that do not in fact support that argument when viewed in whole and in context.
And I’m not even going to touch the race discussion, since I have not seen the issue of a disproportionate number of minority casualties raised in the mainstream media since Vietnam.
I agree with everything Lmohre stated.....talk about biased reporting...get real
This post has been removed by the author.
Also note that the higher number of deaths during the Carter and reagan years were due to a military that was 30% larger. Since most deaths were due to illness death and homicides during those years it makes sense that with 800,000 more troops in the military at the time these figures would also be greater.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home