The ABCs of effective writing: accuracy, brevity, and clarity. These are not objective measures, of course, and the practice of the American press illustrates this, according to an analysis in the current Editor & Publisher.
Arguably, the press in general accurately reports casualty figures from the war in Iraq when it reports X number of soldiers killed, X number wounded according to the Pentagon. That is, they accurately report that the Pentagon reports something. Unfortunately, that leaves the impression that the number reported casualties is also accurate.
The Pentagon isn’t lying, either, but then neither are they giving a complete picture, according to E&P. The Pentagon reported on Nov. 24 that 1,230 U.S. troops had been killed, and 9,300 wounded in action. If that’s untrue, it has more to do with problems in information-gathering than any intent to mislead.
On the other hand, the media tend not to report some other numbers that are available, but that take a little more digging. For instance, out of the 9,300 wounded in action, more than 5,000 were wounded badly enough to render them unable to return to duty. Also, as reported by CBS’s “60 Minutes” last Sunday, about 15,000 troops have been sent home from Iraq “with so-called ‘non-battle’ injuries and diseases.” Only 20 percent return to their units in Iraq.
Military analyst John Pike told “60 Minutes” that “the total number of casualties due to wounds, injury, disease would have to be somewhere in the ballpark of over 20, maybe 30,000.”
You can’t really expect the Pentagon to be completely open about things that would make them look bad. But it makes you wonder why the professionals who are supposed to be the watchdogs haven’t been keeping up with this.
Of course, some of them are, or I wouldn’t even know about this to pass it on to you. Kudos to E&P and to “60 Minutes.” Let’s hear it for accuracy.