why isn't the full casualty count being given for iraq? the news media only reports when an american dies in something that is confirmed to be hostile fire.
so that means that this civilian contractor's death made it onto n.p.r. this morning. but there was no mention of:
an american soldier wounded when a police station was attacked by an angry mob in fallujah (a reference to it is buried in this article)
the u.s. soldier who fell to his death in mosul
the u.s. soldier who died of an "apparent heart attack" while riding on a convoy
the turkish convoy that was attacked in iraq
(thanks to yankee doodle for keeping track of these things for us on his site and making the above list a LOT easier)
i'm not saying that the morning news should mention all of these things, but these kinds of unreported incidents happen every day (actually, yesterday was a light day compared to the average for the last week). the decision not to report the wounding of soldiers or any deaths that are not confirmed to be from hostile fire is seriously misleading about the ongoing costs of this war. as this story from "the guardian" notes that the total number of deaths is more than double what is generally reported. and by not mentioning the wounded unless someone dies in the same attack, the public is largely unaware of just how common these attacks are. due to modern body armor most attacks produce only wounded soldiers on the american side. under these unofficial media ground rules that means that most attacks effectively go unreported.
ADDENDUM: check out this post from the daily kos that also takes up this issue. (via SOB)
