portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war | media criticism

Coalition Casualties and how they're reported

Has anyone else noticed that the reporting of Coalition casualties has changed drastically in the last week or so?
Articles on BBC and other mainstream news sites are now reporting things like "a dozen U.S. Soldiers have been killed since May 1st." -or- "About 20 Coalition troops have died since Bush declared the end of hostilities at the beginning of May.". A couple of weeks ago the numbers were much higher!
Has anyone else noticed that the reporting of Coalition casualties has changed drastically in the last week or so?
Articles on BBC and other mainstream news sites are now reporting things like "a dozen U.S. Soldiers have been killed since May 1st." -or- "About 20 Coalition troops have died since Bush declared the end of hostilities at the beginning of May.". A couple of weeks ago the numbers were much higher! I was able to find a recent story online that states, "... 56 Americans on the honor roll of troops lost since the formal end of hostilities." This is closer to the numbers that were being reported by everyone not too long ago. I understand the tactic and why the establishment would want to spin things to look a bit less bleak. What I don't understand is how everyone could adopt this policy of underreportage. It also seems weird that the change came practically overnight. At any rate, I was wondering if anyone else had noticed this and whether or not there is a good source for an accurate count of casualties? I'm familiar with the one showing all Coalition casualties but they aren't organized chronologically so it's harder to tell how many died after May 1st.
They are lying about the number of dead US soldiers 26.Jun.2003 17:05

news junkie

I have also noticed that corporate media (including NPR) has been lying about the number of dead US soldiers

Here is a link to the Penagon website. Every death since May 1 has been announced in a press release which is available at this site.

 http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/

54 officially dead soldiers since may 1 26.Jun.2003 17:17

news junkie

54 dead soldiers is the tally that I came up with from this official government site (which of course is underreporting the deaths).

combat vs noncombat related 26.Jun.2003 19:13

gnu

the lower number of casualities reported is from "combat-related"activities, i.e. events from hostile fire, landmines, RPGs, etc.
The higher number is the total number of casualties from combat-related activities and "non-combat" related activities like accidents.

so what 27.Jun.2003 09:53

npr listener

A dead US soldier is a dead US soldier.

Just because the press/government chooses to report only certain kinds of deaths does not mean that there are not a lot of dead soldiers, namely at least 54 since May 1st. Reporting only certain casualties is one way to skew the numbers and make the total number of deaths more palatable to the amerikkkan public. They will do anything to ensure that the public does not perceive the military occupation of Iraq as another Vietnan.

By the way, it is very easy to classify a death as non-combat related so that it isn't included in the total reported. Some might say that US soldiers sure do have a lot of "accidents" others might say that the press/government is outright making shit up.

suspicious reporting 27.Jun.2003 14:14

watch dog

It si also fascinating to me the amount of helicopter "accidents" there have been. I was in the military and so was my brother, who worked on army helicopters. In his four years he knew of two crashes and I never heard of even one, I was in the navy as an Aviation electrician. but I can tell you this after any kind of accident the big bosses start going crazy trying to find out why, but now they just seem to almost not care. I guess accident sounds better than "got their asses shot off." This, however, shouldn't surprise any of us, fascist government officials have been lying about this type of thing for, well, forever.

Had the same question... 30.Jun.2003 17:01

JD

I posted the same question on the www.mikemalloy.com website. Then I did a couple of searches and ended up here. There are many people who don't remember what happened in Vietnam. If you could share any factual information on casualty reporting from that war it would be welcome.

Did the information come from the reporters, the army, the pentagon, LBJ?

Thanks.