this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
149 points (95.2% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2286 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
149
UN denies Gaza death toll of women and children has been revised down (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The UN has denied that the estimated death toll of women and children in the war in Gaza has been revised downward, pointing towards a confusion between the total numbers of dead bodies recorded, and the number of those who have so far been fully identified.

After the Gaza health ministry’s revised totals of those killed first appeared on the website of the UN’s office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs (Ocha), they were quickly seized on as proof by pro-Israel media and commentators that the UN had previously been exaggerating the toll.

They showed 24,686 dead which appeared to be a downward revision from the figure of about 35,000 which had been reported earlier in May, with 7,797 children and 4,959 women confirmed dead, about half the toll cited in previous reports. But the UN said on Monday that estimated overall death toll remained about 35,000.

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

The NYT coverage says:

The change came because the United Nations switched to citing a more conservative source for its numbers — the Gazan Ministry of Health — rather than using Gaza’s Government Media Office, as it had in recent weeks.

. . .

That Gaza media office has consistently provided an overall death toll similar to the one given by the ministry of health, but different and often higher figures for the number of women and children killed.

Ismail Al Thawabateh, the office’s director general, said in an interview that the health ministry listed and categorized an individual as dead only when all of their details had been documented and verified by a next of kin. He did not explain why his office used a breakdown of women and children based on the overall death toll.

Most of the coverage, including this Guardian piece, makes it sound like they switched to a different dataset but this sounds like a switch to a different source. The HM numbers have generally been regarded as accurate -- historically, at least. I don't think that the media office has that same reputation. It seems like the previous numbers were calculated from the HM's total death toll figure, and not from observed data. I'm not really sure what that means for interpreting the numbers.

Archive

[–] [email protected] 39 points 6 months ago (1 children)

TL;DR: The previous estimate was a count with the minimum standard of evidence that someone has died, such as: "Look, this is the leg of a previously alive human being". The most recent estimate is a count where every corpse (roughly) has a first name, a last name, and a somewhat accurate established cause of death. These are different, yet complementary.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

Sounds like heavier bombs would keep the second number lower. 🧠☠️

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Any number greater than zero is still too high.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Mods removed the original post due to the article being updated and/or the statistics being “debunked,” so I am reposting with the updated headline and article. If you wish to view the original you can find an archive.org link here.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I would also like to point out while the overall death toll is supposedly unchanged, the reported number of women and children killed absolutely is changed.

The original numbers suggest that 11,244 additional women and children were killed on top of those identified. If 100% of the unidentified remains were women and children, that would still put the death toll at 35,890, or ~890 more than the current numbers.

I believe the discrepancy being corrected in the report goes back to when the ministry started relying on “reliable media sources.” Since that time, they have reported unbelievably high percentages of women and children being killed (~86%).

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In the article you link it states:

Gaza's health ministry says 70% of those killed in the territory are women and children. Its most recent breakdown of casualties recorded in hospitals shows women and children make up 58% of those deaths. Al-Qudra could not explain the discrepancy. Recently, Al Jazeera obtained and published a list of thousands of names of Palestinian children in Gaza killed in the war.

Where do you get 86% from?

We are talking bodys that are mutilated, often beyond recognition. So you find a male body in the age range of 14-20. Now do you count it as a child or as an adult? If you know it is Abdul Raheeem 17 years old, you can make that assessment. But otherwise you can only make a best guess. Problem is, if you only find half a body and it is decayed mostly. The most reliable way to distinguish male and female skeletons is the pelvis. For the other bones you have indications but they aren't as definite. So if you find an upper body without the pelvis you again have to guess. And digging up mass graves or collecting body parts after a bombing is not exactly the environment for a in depths medical analysis

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It’s math from the numbers in that article, which is admittedly a few months old at this point.  At that time, according to the ministry 70% of 30,000 deaths (~21,000) were women and children.

For the 17,000 that hospital staff reported, 58% (~9,860) of the deaths were recorded as women and children. For the remaining 13,000 the ministry relied on “reliable media sources.” 

For the overall percentage of women and children killed to be 70%, 11,140 of the remaining 13,000 reportedly killed must be women and children. That is ~86%.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Thank you for clearing that up.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The Guardian – Bias and Credibility

Bias Rating: Left-Center

Factual Reporting: Mixed

Country: United Kingdom

Press Freedom Rating: Mostly Free

Media Type: Newspaper

Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: Medium Credibility

About MediaBiasFactCheck.com

Methodology

Ad Fontes Media Alternative Rating

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Thanks for providing this. I'm actually quite surprised media fact check rates the guardian's reliability as "mixed"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I’ve always found the Guardian to be one of the only reliable newspapers in the UK. I don’t know where that’s coming from. Maybe football transfer rumors or something? Even with that, they’re pretty responsible. The rest of the English media just makes shit up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

MediaBiasFactCheck itself is not scientific at all and has some... weirdness to it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Any metric like this is only as good at the formulator. MediaBiasFactCheck.com can be an arbiter of truth, if you feel it's qualified to act as such.