It's All Relative

Everyone acknowledges the importance of getting the Iraqi militias under control, so take a look at this front page story in today's Post:

The surge in sectarian killings, triggered by the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in late February, had slowed in recent weeks. It was uncertain if attacks on prominent Shiite mosques Thursday and Friday would signal an onset of renewed bloodletting.

Assassinations, many carried out by Shiite gunmen against Sunni Arabs in Baghdad and elsewhere, accounted for more than four times as many deaths in March as bombings and other mass-casualty attacks, according to military data. And most officials agree that only a small percentage of shooting deaths are ever reported.

Shiite Muslim militias pose the greatest threat to security in many parts of Iraq, having killed more people in recent months than the Sunni Arab-led insurgency, and will likely present the most daunting and critical challenge for Iraq's new government, U.S. military and diplomatic officials say. (My emph.)

Actually I inverted the order of those paragraphs.

Now imagine if the reporter had been specific about how much sectarian violence had slowed by. If that's "four times as likely" as a mass casualty attack, then there's an actual number behind the claim. Why not tell us what those number are? Be specific. Why not tell us precisely what the numbers are these days? What's the reason for leaving the magnitude of the problem vague right at the start of the article?

Update: I noted after reading the other front page article in the Post today that the reporters see an attack on a Shia mosque and assume sectarian violence, although there is no proof of same. What I should have caught, but didn't until reading this post from Greyhawk, is the double irony: those reporters assumed violence was sectarian in nature, even though it was targeted against Shias, and even though this second front page article in today's Post posits that the primary threat of sectarian violence is coming from Shia militias. Wouldn't their targets be Sunni?

Comments

[Ron Hardin]

It sets up an escalation. Last month it's 4 times as many from gunmen as bombs, next month it's 4 times as many from bombs as guns, leaving you with the impression that something is now 16 times worse.

Only a quarter as many goes the other way.

Avoid fractions, is my advice.

[Christopher Whitaker]

As usual, data presented without context. While I continue, perhaps blindly, to refuse to believe in some kind of grand MSM conspiracy, there is no doubt that there is a complete inability to put events in some kind of objective context. To use Ron's example from above, the type of attack used gives us a clue into the motivation and effectiveness of the "insurgency." Where they attack, who they attack and the method they use give us clues to the status of the insurgency. However, if the press either cannot or will not learn to understand this, then how are average people supposed to do so...or is that the intention?

[Judasmac]

Check out Omar at Iraq the Model on this, as on pretty much everything else cocnering Iraqi affairs. If the Times or the Post had a clue they would simply hire Omar for biweekly updates and analysis to help out their beleaguered reporters.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

[Christopher Whitaker]

They couldn't do that! Not only would is spoil their narrative, but it would take away from their "objectivity" to have someone who knows what he's talking about and can put events in context.

[Jane]

good point, yes the targets would be sunni but as your commenter said all the context and perspective are spent building their narrative