admice

Did you notice how yesterday NONE of the media is mentioning Iraqi casualties. They are de-emphasizing that indeed, Iraqi's are fighting back. They 'take', 'control', 'capture' but don't bother to mention they had to kill Iraqis to do so. Man I'm pissed.

Thanks, had to vent

Celsus

This won't give you Iraqi death tolls just yet, but if you want the extreme leftwing try this: http://www.indymedia.org/

Joel

Grumpy

It's day 3 of the war. Must we have casualty totals immediately?

FWIW, I saw zero casualty listings on the AP wire yesterday, except for the allied fatalities that occurred early in the day. On the first day of strikes, we quickly saw "unconfirmed" Iraqi reports of 1 dead, 14 injured in Baghdad. The Red Cross soon verified that number.

Be patient.

Kamchatka

Obviously, you've been "watching" the news with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears.

Daniel Consolatore

Absolutely. There will be little coverage, and I think it's attributable to the fact that the networks are driven by their audience. It is, unfortunately, a largely hawkish and nationalistic audience, and the networks won't want to try to sell them disturbing images that will make them turn off the TV. Happy and images of a strong America--mock-ups of war rooms complete with maps and generals, and touching personal profiles of moms and soldiers will keep people wathcing. Images of Iraqi children in hospitals will lose them audience and hence advertising money.

When and if the American public starts to get tired of the war--and they might, as they did in Vietnam, when/if American casualties start going up--the news media will be in a dilemma, because there's no good news in that. If public opinoin turns against the way, the network coverage will shift and be less triumphalist.

Loren Pechtel

Where in the world would they get decent numbers to give?

sullster

I grew back in the old days, during the Vietnam War, and believe me the media back then reported casualties. It was called the "body count". Every day on the news you would hear things like:"Five US soldiers killed today and One Hundred Viet Cong killed". Every day the enemy body count was tabulated and it didn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the count was a bunch of crap.

I think that the military wants to avoid the body counts. Besides, if you are against the war, you won't believe them anyway.

Loren Pechtel

I would expect a lot better data out of Vietnam than now--most casualties are going to be from falling bombs. There's nobody on-scene that we can remotely trust to count them.

Nataraja

It seems that lately there have been a great deal of civilian casualties. War crime, right there.

If you want something resembling real news, switch to C-SPAN. At least there you get the crap straight from the horse's hole, and even get to hear some opposing viewpoints.

admice

So a little while ago I looked at the CBC canadian broadcasting. They have a webcast.
http://www.cbc.ca/newscast.html

I recommend you check it out. Boy are we being lied to by our media.
Then checked out Australian news

http://www.abc.net.au/news/

as well as the Guardian.

CNN reported yesterday that we took the port, Australian news reported this:

But at the nearby port of Umm Qasr coalition soldiers using Cobra helicopters are still trying to root out Iraqi troops who are refusing to throw down their arms

CNN reported the Iraqis didn't sabotage a bridge over the Euphrates, just abandoned it. Canadian broadcast said the coalition took it over fierce fighting.

From a The Guardian story:

Dr Jaddue well knows that the reprieves last only hours, until the next wave of US bombardments. He is also aware that no war can be fought without civilian casualties. A dozen wounded were brought to al-Kindi's casualty ward within the first 24 hours of the bombardment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...919648,00.html

I want accuracy in reporting