• Home
  • Blogs
  • Public Eye
Public Eye
May 30, 2006 11:04 AM

The Numbers And What's Behind Them

Posted by Brian Montopoli
(CBS/U.S. Army)
Estimating the numbers of people killed in any war is an inexact science. But the deaths of CBS News cameraman Paul Douglas and soundman James Brolan, who were killed by a car bomb while accompanying a military patrol in Baghdad, along with a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter, may represent a milestone.

According to Ann Cooper of the Committee To Protect Journalists, 71 journalists and 26 support staffers have been killed in the Iraq war. "That number [71] is more than the 63 killed in Vietnam, the 17 killed in Korea, and even the 69 killed in World War II, according to Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan free speech advocacy group," notes the New York Times. The Times thus determines that, at least by some estimates, "the death of two journalists working for CBS News on Monday firmly secured the Iraq war as the deadliest conflict for reporters in modern times."

It's important to note that while an estimated 71 journalists have been killed in the war, more than 2,450 American soldiers have died. More than 200 foreign military personnel have been killed. There have been, according to estimates, more than 4,700 Iraqi police and military casualties, and an unknown but certainly significant number of Iraq civilians killed.

Some commenters have complained that CBS News has given too much coverage to its own personnel at the expense of coverage of soldiers. Certainly, their deaths are just two among many, and the tragedy one of countless that have occurred in this war. Douglas and Brolin, along with injured colleague Kimberly Dozier, risked their lives telling the stories of these tragedies, as well as other stories of the war. When they were killed, they were working on a story about how Memorial Day is a day just like any other for American troops.

While there is value in considering the figures, they can never really tell the story of a war. I think Bob Schieffer did a nice job articulating what many at CBS News are feeling last night when he said that "days like today are reminders that this is not about numbers -- each of those numbers is a person, a person that others know or love or depend on."

Ned Parker, a British journalist in Baghdad who knows Dozier, wrote about that side of it today. "One does not have to spend too much time in Iraq to know someone, whether American, British, Iraqi or some other nationality, who has died, been kidnapped or seriously wounded," he wrote. "Trouble finds you and sometimes it just hits too close to home."
Tags:
Paul Douglas ,
James Brolan ,
Kimberly Dozier
Topics:
CBS News Issues
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More From Public Eye

Add a Comment
by hs_nc May 31, 2006 5:44 PM EDT
One of the things I remember most about when Bob Woodruff was injured--is the respect ABC gave to his family and their privacy. There was a statement on his injury, when he was moved and a statement made that the US taxpayers would not have to pay the bill at the Army med ctr. And then nothing.I couldn't even find anything on google about his condition until he made a statement. I wonder what Kimberly will think when she recovers and sees that her story is everywhere. I hope CBS begins to give Ms. Dozier and her family space until she is able to tell her own story.
Reply to this comment
by peterbaldwin-2009 May 31, 2006 4:32 PM EDT
Bush never made it past the airport. A mouse ran by, Bush dropped the rubber turkey, made a beeline back to the plane, and flew back home to hide under his bed. Even Hillary made it on the ground in Baghdad. Bush is a spineless, yellow coward, and now all the world knows it
Reply to this comment
by gardis72 May 31, 2006 10:58 AM EDT
President Bush has been to Baghdad in Thanksgiving of 2003 (or was it 2004, can't quite remember). It was a surprise visit, made by a limited number of journalists aboard AF1 sworn to secrecy about the trip lest the insurgents get advance notice of the trip (no wonder so few were asked along). Much as you despise the President, clearly, please get your facts straight.
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 May 31, 2006 5:03 AM EDT
peterbaldwin raises an interesting point about how the insurgency may view the press in Iraq. At times, some hostile groups seem ready to have a frank, on-the-record interview (usually through intermediaries). This clearly gives them unprecedented opportunity to speak to American audiences without heavy censorship. You would think they understood what an opportunity speaking to the world press represents. At other times, however, some of them go brain-dead and pull a Daniel Pearl or shoot at the press. Or kidnap Jill Carroll, and despite the passage of weeks, cannot even give her a story. Go figure-- if they were more media savvy, they would welcome any press, from anywhere in the world, to get their POV across. Eventually, a few cool heads among them will realize perpetual war has no future for anybody, and they will start a dialogue along multiple channels (not simply the "unofficial" ones they have with Bush). Anyone at the Pentagon will tell you this is a war for hearts and minds, but the reality so far is both sides want to continue killing each other without us civilians interfering (thank you) with the carnage.
Reply to this comment
by alphaa10-2009 May 31, 2006 4:25 AM EDT
(from dsjolly) "I would be very interested to hear more about the wounded soldiers and the killed soldier who are there serving their country than to hear about journalists who CHOOSE to be there and are compensated handsomely for their (sic) tasts." (To dsjolly) Sarge, your aim is off by a few thousand-- cease fire, and listen up. Last I heard, even the Pentagon still thinks the "volunteer army" is a good idea. ALL those brave soldiers you salute actually *volunteered* to be there. (Whether any fully understand the real reason for their presence is an entirely different question.) But high praise goes to those whose job description requires no unnecessary risk (and officially proscribes it), yet bear risk as best they can. That applies especially to journalists from CBS, ABC, Reuters, BBC and certainly others who try to keep us reasonably well-informed-- certainly, with better information than too often arrives from official sources. How many months was it before The Official Expression of Concern started about the 24 Iraqi civilians murdered late last year? This is why you never will learn all about the military from the military.
Reply to this comment
by thomjeffson May 30, 2006 7:43 PM EDT
"an unknown but certainly significant number of Iraq civilians killed." What a lie! - you could at least have admitted the 30,000 civilian dead admitted by Bush a few months ago - which of course was the number known to have dies during the March '03 colonial conquest of Iraq by Haliburton-america, so could only amount to half the civilians murdered by American mercenaries since. Didn't you ever read the surgeon general's warning: "Smokescreens are harmful to your mind"?
Reply to this comment
by tahitinut May 30, 2006 5:24 PM EDT
"Some commenters have complained that CBS News has given too much coverage to its own personnel at the expense of coverage of soldiers." Some have complained that the news media have given too much coverage of soldiers and not enough coverage of all the 'good news' (gospel?) in Iraq, too. Isn't it strange that the forays of journalists beyond the seemingly secure boundaries of the Green Zone into the fields to harvest all that 'good news' have such contradictory results? I guess that liberal reality just gets in the way of the faith-based gospel! Go figure.
Reply to this comment
by dsjolly May 30, 2006 3:23 PM EDT
My condolences for the two CBS employees who lost their lives while on a story and my best wishes for a full recovery for the wounded employee. My sincere feelings and prayers go out to all their family members. I am however discoraged regarding the press coverage of the incident, or should I say the lack of coverage. That IED, like the rest was designed and placed to Kill American Service men/women....Journalists were just a luck of the draw for the insurgents. As for all the number crunchers, does it mean anything that in (pick a battle) WWII there were more Americans killed in the first 36 hours of battle than what we have seen in Iraq. Not to minimise the losses at all, but the significance of time/KIA's shows such a huge improvement of losses in current warfare. I would be very interested to hear more about the wounded soldiers and the killed soldier who are there serving their country than to hear about journalists who CHOOSE to be there and are compensated handsomely for their tasts. The soldier's there do not have a choice and lord knows many are working for a poverty wage without the very freedoms that they fight to preserve for us. D.S. Jolly GySgt USMC Ret.
Reply to this comment
by peterbaldwin-2009 May 30, 2006 2:39 PM EDT
If any good comes out of this incident, it might be a heightened sense of awareness among Lara Logan types that they have become what we call "high value targets". The suggestion is, with the term "curious", that this may have been a setup. The insurgents are not stupid: they will get infinately more mileage killing a , Woodruff, Dozier or Logan than a few anonymous boots. It is also a morale booster to the insurgency to bring down the propagandists (Logan excluded). When I was in the field in Vietnam I would smudge my lieutenant's bar with mud and remove it from my hat to blend in. These reporters are prime targets and plans are underway, I'm sure, for a repeat performance. Lara should know that there may be a bounty on her head. In garrison she is safe, but with no front lines, she is moving about unprotected in an unsecured battlefield while travelling on the roads. She, and Dozier, should have been being transported by helicopter. Why do you think George Bush has yet to step foot in Baghdad?
Reply to this comment

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye