| |
| |
You are here: Frontpage > Issues > 2491 >
|
|
When a respected polling agency drew up a huge
new estimate of Iraq's death toll, journalism student
Polina Aksamentova expected better of the media.
Self-censored
Polina Aksamentova
When the polling agency ORB's find ings came out [see
last issue], I was sure that The
Guardian, The Independent, The
New York Times and other
major papers would cry out
in outrage and pronounce in
thick, black ink across their
respective front pages that 1.2
million Iraqis had died because of the Iraq war: a genocide revealed.
I expected fervent discussion,
indignation and controversy
across the entire world.
I was wrong: the poll was
ignored.
Although it was hardly a surprise to my editor, Milan Rai, I
was stunned.
I could not believe that journalists of the free world would
self-censor themselves.
As a journalist student, I was
taught that journalists served
the public. My disillusionment
was great.
34 seconds
The poll came out on 14 September and BBC's Newsnight carried the story that night  for 34
seconds.
Host Gavin Esler said that the
new number is significantly
higher than the previous estimate of 650,000, published by
The Lancet in October 2006 and
that the Iraqi government puts
the death toll at 75,000.
The following day The Observer
reported the findings. The
shocking 1.2m-dead figure was
not given much prominence,
however.
The ORB story was paired
with an article about Alan
Greenspan's controversial memoir, and it came second. The
headline read: "Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as
deaths put at 1.2m".
And that was all the coverage
the poll received from major
media outlets. I couldn't believe
it.
Outrage soon poured in from
media watchdogs. Newsnight editor Peter Barron was one of the
few to reply to a letter of complaint from MediaLens.
Barron was happy that the
program reported the findings Â
34 seconds or not  and wrote
that it was important to put
them in "context."
My quest
In my own quest for answers, I
called the editors of The
Guardian, The Observer and The
Independent (who did not
answer), and emailed the writers
of the Observer story (who did
not respond).
Hattie Garlick, news editor of
The Times, told me she had never
heard of the ORB poll and then
never replied to my email with
all the information.
I had a rather rude and brisk
conversation with a man (he did
not identify himself) at the
news desk of Channel 4, who
abruptly transferred me to the
messaging system when I
explained my query.
And, at the BBC, the advisor
who dealt with my complaint,
simply answered: "It's a news
editor's personal choice what
they choose to cover. I can't give
you any more information."
To be rudely treated and
ignored by journalists, who
know exactly how vital and hard
interviews can be, was surprising enough.
But, to understand why the
media was so hostile to the story
was still harder.
Four reasons?
To me, there could be only four
reasons for not publishing the
poll: the findings were not
newsworthy, the media were
ignorant, the polling agency
was not credible or the editors
were scared of the backlash.
The first two can be dismissed right away. The ORB
findings put the death toll in
Iraq higher than that of Rwandan genocide  what can be
more newsworthy?
All media outlets also had to
be aware of the poll. The BBC
report and the Observer's story
would have alerted them.
Credibility could not have
been the issue either. ORB is
widely known and respected. Its
clients include the Bank of
Scotland, the Conservative Party
and the BBC itself. The
Guardian and the White House
have quoted ORB surveys in the
past.
And, to top it off, the ORB
was awarded the international
quality standard by SGS Systems and Services Certification,
one of the world's leading certification agencies, this August.
Fear
That leaves the worst crime of
all: fear.
But, fear of what? It is an
insult to the journalists of
oppressed countries, like Russia
and Burma, to even suggest this.
What can UK or US media fear
from the government?
I contacted the editors of
Media Lens, but their reply did
not help me to understand how
this happened.
So, after this unsatisfactory
journey I concluded that the
media were simply afraid of raising the dust.
They were afraid to report
such atrocious news; afraid of
the number being wrong,
maybe; afraid of the political
consequence and, in essence,
afraid of doing their jobs.
At least, Newsnight's treatment
of the poll indicated fear. The
BBC was testing the waters. It
announced the news briefly and
waited for the others to make a
move.
Certainly, no one could accuse
them of not covering the story;
but no one could say they were
blowing the whistle either.
The last 34 seconds were just
the thing. And, if there was an
outcry they could have always
picked it up at the top of the
hour the next day with "as we
reported yesterday..."
Something of that nature
must have passed, because Esler
recognized the importance of the
findings during broadcast. He
said: "the studys' likely to fuel
controversy over the true,
human cost of the war."
But, of course, no controversy
ensued, because the media failed
at their job - the public remains
uniformed.
I was always under the
impression that the media  for
the most part  helped decipher
the lies of the government.
The media's treatment of the
ORB poll proved me sadly
wrong. It was a blow to my idealism and to my profession of
choice.
Polina Aksamentova is a journalism
student at Binghamton University,
New York State, currently working
with Peace News in London.
|
|
|
|
