Video: Increasing casualties = news, decreasing casualties = not news

posted at 3:32 pm on October 7, 2007 by Allahpundit

Nuance. Thanks to Noel Sheppard for the tip.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well, it ain’t calculus, so even I can understand that math!

Bob's Kid on October 7, 2007 at 3:42 PM

If it was the other way around they would say it was a “trend”

Win Win Win on October 7, 2007 at 3:42 PM

“the numbers themselves are tricky” = fuzzy math?

Other than the host, all I saw was fuzzy reporters.

Mcguyver on October 7, 2007 at 3:42 PM

Pretty blatant media bias.

Larger casulties more news…

Less casulties its only a news once its OLD news…

Interesting way to spin it.

Romeo13 on October 7, 2007 at 3:43 PM

These women are idiots. The amount of military knowledge between them would fill a thimble. I feel sorry for the Pentagon, having to deal with these harpies, who think they know more about what is going on in Iraq than they do.

The media deserves all the derision it can get, if these are examples of their brightest journalists. The good news is, we don’t need to read their filtered news products anymore to get the truth. Bloggers are doing a better job than these two nitwits.

Stormy70 on October 7, 2007 at 3:45 PM

If Iraqi casualties had increased by 50% do you think she would say this was not news because “we are at the beginning of a trend maybe not a trend at all…blah blah”.
Some how I doubt it.

liberrocky on October 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM

How did it go from four months of decreasing casualties to two months to one month with that Starr woman?

Savage on October 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM

HK: So, Robin Wright, American troop casualties are down this month. Is that News?

RW: Well, Howie, there are many complexities of how we go about counting the deaths of Iraqi civilians. So no, a reduction in the number of American troop deaths isn’t News.

(That’s not a direct quote, that’s a paraphrase highlighting the absurdity of Robin Wiright’s response.)

see-dubya on October 7, 2007 at 3:48 PM

When did something have to be a ‘trend’ before it becomes ‘news’. Was Abu Gharib really a trend or an isolated incident in one part of one jail and basically confined to one group of soldiers? Seems that wasn’t the operative consideration in a years worth of daily coverage.

I hope no one hurt their backs while moving the goal posts so far, so quickly.

Drew on October 7, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Really, it’s quite simple: If it fits the Narrative, it’s News, otherwise it’s not.

JimK on October 7, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Lol…what a couple of knuckleknobs. Do they *not* report 30 people killed in a carbomb attack, because that one attack might be a blip on the radar?

Why report that? It doesn’t indicate a trend….geez.

Asher on October 7, 2007 at 3:56 PM

“The numbers are tricky”

Well, apparently that trickiness only works in one direction — up.

deesine on October 7, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Increasing casualties = news, decreasing casualties = not news

In other words, “news”=only that which hurts the war effort and aids the enemy. I wonder where public opinion on the war would be if the American people had been getting honest reporting all along instead of enemy propaganda. But we’ll never know.

ReubenJCogburn on October 7, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Notice how they pretend that a drop in violence is a “one month” thing, even though those paying attention have been talking about it for 3-4 months now.

Big S on October 7, 2007 at 4:02 PM

What is so sad about these two is that they represent the vast majority of the MSM. That is why now one is getting their “news” from TV or newspapers anymore.

d1carter on October 7, 2007 at 4:03 PM

For all the grief we give CNN, Howie Kurtz is very fair and evenhanded in his role.

Number 2 on October 7, 2007 at 4:04 PM

[Drew on October 7, 2007 at 3:48 PM]

News for them is a fact or factoid canvas on which to paint their opinion. That’s why they respond with the requirement that their be a trend. That they require a “trend” shows that, on their face, they couldn’t, wouldn’t, didn’t find their favored ‘analysis’ in the “tricky” numbers (lol — numbers are not tricky, it’s the analysis of them that is), they just couldn’t report what they wanted to report. Therefore, it’s not “news”.

Dusty on October 7, 2007 at 4:04 PM

Bad news sells… and it’s convenient for the left.

T J Green on October 7, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Voodoo Mathematics.

Free Constitution on October 7, 2007 at 4:10 PM

How did it go from four months of decreasing casualties to two months to one month with that Starr woman?

Savage on October 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Yeah, I noticed that. I would like to have seen Kurtz pick up on that!

/the numbers reporters are tricky

leepro on October 7, 2007 at 4:13 PM

So now it’s “fuzzy numbers”. Did we suddenly change how, who or what we count? If we did tell me so I can raise hell and get it fixed. If we didn’t then why did you report the numbers when they where going up?

“Forgive me for being skeptical”
- Barbara Starr

Here lies my problem with “journalists”. I don’t give a rat’s *** if you are skeptical and then allow it to bias your reporting. I want your skepticism to drive you to look at the information given you and fact check it. I’m an intelligent adult that takes the time to try and become aware of all sides of an issue. I don’t need you to tell me when to be skeptical. Give me the facts and I am quite capable of making my own decisions.

Just give me the damn facts!!!!

Bogeyfre on October 7, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Those two bimbos are just demonstrating how stupid they are while insulting our intelligence.

infidel4life on October 7, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Once they can figure out how it fits into their Template (Destroy the political opposition, even if it means : Lose at all costs) they’ll “report” it (Distort it to their political advantage).

profitsbeard on October 7, 2007 at 4:19 PM

The only thing that surprises me is that it’s CNN reporting the bias in the media.
-
That’s the pot calling the kettle black.

abinitioadinfinitum on October 7, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Barbara’s not excited about this. It’s only the negative
BS you print that excites you huh Barb. . . . Go cover
and print dog pond stories. ( And not the Cleveland Browns
dog pound )

Texyank on October 7, 2007 at 4:21 PM

I have to say, I do appreciate Howard Kurtz covering this as well as how he handled it. It was topical and he didn’t shy away from it as was about his profession. His questions were targeted, short and without the innuendo that pervades the profession.

His efforts are more than sufficient for me to reduce my denigrating comments about the MSM by not one, but two, a month.

Dusty on October 7, 2007 at 4:21 PM

This is CNN?? Bravo to Howard Kurtz for spelling it out:
CBS a quick blurb
NBC brief mention
NYTs pg 10
WaPo pg 14
USA toady pg 16

spin~spin~spin~spin~spin
Them two female rat bastards need to be thrown to bill o’reilly.

hehehehehe

locomotivebreath1901 on October 7, 2007 at 4:25 PM

[abinitioadinfinitum on October 7, 2007 at 4:19 PM]

I have to disagree in part. Kurtz did this, not CNN, per se. His approach, a non interfering one, left result to be what it was to be, i.e., what the guests’ reponses were.

I can’t explain my opinion well at the moment, so I’ll just say there are many genres of good reporting and this is one of them.

Dusty on October 7, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Here is a chart of US fatalities in Iraq, there is a downward trend, but we have had those before.

bnelson44 on October 7, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Barbara Star is a lying mf. She is not happy to report deaths down. Don’t ask me for a link. I don’t get links from the NY Times, WaPo or CNN.

JiangxiDad on October 7, 2007 at 4:34 PM

“How to count the numbers”? Progressive approach to mathematics.

Does anybody else find it disturbing that liberal progressives only like trends when they “trend” towards increasing deaths and causalities?

186k on October 7, 2007 at 4:35 PM

Quite simple:

- Death up, bad for Bush, report
- Death down, good for Bush, don’t report.

Entelechy on October 7, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Increasing casualties = news, decreasing casualties = not news

Then why don’t they push the enemy casualties numbers ?
that might give a full picture and make it harder to skew it into their ideological favor.

19k enemy off to allahs whorehouse, BBQ and Miller beer bash

Now if they stack the numbers against each other it’s close to a 5 to 1 ratio, which would hardly help int he whole idea of the war is a lose.

Mojack420 on October 7, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Very Simple:
- Death is sexy
- Good News is not news worthy

and what Entelechy said

Kini on October 7, 2007 at 4:59 PM

this is too funny – Robin Wright is an idiot! Someone needs to get her to a shrink! She can’t be serious!
kudos to Kurtz!

iam7545 on October 7, 2007 at 5:29 PM

First off, I’m SHOCKED that CNN allowed this to be a topic. Credit where it’s due, Kurtz.

But these 2 broads are infuriating, and not just for the obvious reason.

They are both idiots for their “well, it’s not news, because we can’t quite call it a trend” argument, because you KNOW if the numbers had spiked, it would have been news, and when Kurtz raises that point to Starr, she even admits it! But she doesn’t state it as if it’s an “admission”… She states it, clearly without even recognizing that it destroys her whole argument.

Starr is so blinded by her liberalism and comfortable with the hate America, pray for the worst, atmosphere that exists in most American newsrooms and at the cocktail parties where these people hang out, she’s oblivious to the fact that she just told us “4 months of declining deaths isn’t news because it’s not enough to call it a trend, but 1 month of increased death and we’d be justifiably all over it, because it’s negative and my job is not to report the news, but to embolden the enemy because I hate George Bush so much.” Think that’s a stretch? Watch it again with a clear mind, and interpret what she’s saying.

But here’s the worst part folks. This isn’t KP or Jane Fleming… This is “CNN Pentagon Correspondent” Barbara Starr. Not Democratic Strategist, not commentator, not editorial writer, not even the sometimes reasonable Jane Hall (of Fox News Watch). She’s the f-ing Pentagon Correspondent. Again, they’re so comfortable with their far left bull*** that they let it slip, completely unaware that they’re doing anything wrong.

RightWinged on October 7, 2007 at 6:22 PM

RightWinged
I admit I hadn’t thought about that, good point that CNN does deserve credit and hell I’ll even give credit to Starr and the others because they said their honest opinions

Their honest opinions are so blinded by BDS and hatred for this country that its second nature to discuss it

Defector01 on October 7, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Wow. Where was this Algebra lesson when they were reporting on the deaths in Iraq.

I would think the formula should be the same, but then I was never very good at Algebra.

simon on October 7, 2007 at 6:31 PM

RightWinged
I admit I hadn’t thought about that, good point that CNN does deserve credit and hell I’ll even give credit to Starr and the others because they said their honest opinions

Their honest opinions are so blinded by BDS and hatred for this country that its second nature to discuss it

Defector01 on October 7, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Except that they aren’t supposed to be giving “opinions”… Certainly “CNN Pentagon Correspondent” doesn’t include “giving personal anti-war opinions”.

RightWinged on October 7, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Dusty on October 7, 2007 at 4:31 PM

I can’t argue with you since I don’t watch CNN that often and do not know Kurtz show or reporting.

abinitioadinfinitum on October 7, 2007 at 7:01 PM

the numbers are tricky

Wow. I guess when the media was in frenzy over the obviously inflated civilian casualty reports coming from Iraq; it was simply a matter of them being confused by those darn tricky numbers.

Opinionnation on October 7, 2007 at 7:58 PM

Both of these…people…are LIARS. The original story, quoted in the ABC News story is that 4 (FOUR) consecutive months have passed with declining MILITARY casualties. The first (w)itch takes off on a tangent about not counting certain IRAQI deaths and then slips in that 2 (TWO) (one-half of those reported) months decline is not a trend. The second retard (HOW did she get a pentagon job – affirmative action?) smirks that “OF COURSE” an increase in deaths would be news by “ANY DEFINITION,” and then claims that the report covers only ONE month. Lord I hate liars who masquerade as reporters.

Excuse all the caps, but I am royally PO’d.

Longhorn Six on October 7, 2007 at 8:39 PM

“the numbers are tricky” isn’t spin. She’s being honest about her personal math skills.

I really got steamed listening to that. I was expecting point/counterpoint with two commentators, not dumb/dumber liar/bigger liar. You wait until you’re damn certain it’s a “trend” and then you report it? Which tenet of good journalism is that taken from?

TexasDan on October 7, 2007 at 8:50 PM

For it to be a trend, it has to look like a hockey stick.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 7, 2007 at 9:44 PM

Transparent and pathetic.

Clark1 on October 7, 2007 at 10:02 PM

As the old saying goes: “If it bleeds, it leads; if it thinks, it stinks.”

ZK on October 7, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Two words… CABLE NEWS. Two more words… BROADCAST NEWS. They’re both CRAP.

Griz on October 7, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Funny how the numbers are not so “tricky” when the numbers increase…

Babs on October 7, 2007 at 11:08 PM

I don’t know Kurtz. Yes, he sounded (for MSM) pretty straight. But how did it end?

Sounds like he lets them turn good news of a 4 month decline into “only one month”, and “not a trend”; that is, good news downplayed again. An honest reporter would have corrected them on their fudging of the numbers and pointed out their inconsistencies.

But if the intent was to let the negative lies stand… Kind of like in any performance – the audience remembers most what was done last. I’d like to know if that is how it ended; this clip did.

IrishEyes on October 7, 2007 at 11:29 PM

No one is asking these dopes to be excited about the data. In fact American citizens in general have not be asked to to a single thing to support this war. No rationing, not super high gas prices, no factories being converted to war production. No one is being asked to do anything. The military is all volunteer so we are not even being requested to do compulsory service. X-Box and PS3 is all most Americans get to see of war. Liberals are spoiled ingrates!

Egfrow on October 7, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Robin Wright is a moron. No wonder she works in media.

Mojave Mark on October 8, 2007 at 1:05 AM

Boy, I can’t wait until the amount of money al-Qaeda has funneled into the US media is revealed someday.

Halley on October 8, 2007 at 1:19 AM

It’s really sad when a person like Barbara Starr, a news correspondent for CNN, says that she’s not really excited to hear about a decrease in troop deaths in Iraq. Even if you are anti-war or anti-Bush, you should at least be happy to hear about a decrease in troop deaths.

SoulGlo on October 8, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Don’t worry once the pansies realize the numbers are heading favorable for the US they will just simple adjust the bar again.

I know many have a hard time but if people would study or even brief military history they would understand the insane success Iraq specifically and the GWOT in general has been. No body on 9-12 ever thought we would be 5yrs deep running S of 4k casualties and still NO DRAFT, NO SPECIAL TAX and did I mention 4.5% GNP military budget total economic cost compared to the 5.5%+80′s peacetime Budget? On every level short the ME’s insane idiotic comparison this GWOT is a insane success.

C-Low on October 8, 2007 at 1:43 AM

How “tricky” is the math when the numbers are going up? Have all of those variables been discussed – at length – when the trend was the other way around? Typical democrat logic – facts notwithstanding.

woodman on October 8, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Context is everything.

When our casualty numbers are up, the enemy is fighting back. The missing context is that we are exponentially killing more of those bastards because they are engaging us. The MSM acts like when our numbers are up, the Jihadists numbers are down.

When our numbers are down, it’s because we are WINNING. We are winning because those bastards chose to engage us and we killed enough of them to weaken their ability to attack us.

NOW is the time to hold their noses and kick em in the a$$!!! No mercy! Root them out and shoot them down in the streets like the dirty dogs they are. I am positive that is exactly what Patraeus is doing.

csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Kurtz and Dobbs are becoming the banes of CNN’s political leanings. How are they still on the air?

MadisonConservative on October 8, 2007 at 11:03 AM

I’m not even suprised anymore. Just one more reason I don’t watch mud stream media channels.

VikingGoneWild on October 8, 2007 at 12:37 PM

“Typical democrat logic – facts notwithstanding.”

woodman on October 8, 2007 at 9:22 AM

democrat/logic/facts

those words put back to back to back really confuse me.

americaslaststand on October 8, 2007 at 2:23 PM

I agree – excellent example of entrenched MSM hostile leftist bias.
.
What do we call it when, according to that poll the other day, twenty percent of Democrats SAID they want us to LOSE the war…and a significant percentage of the MSM do also, just lack the guts to come out and say it???

DavePa on October 8, 2007 at 3:35 PM