I’m probably going to get some flak for this, but my last post got me thinking. We are hearing reports coming out from Libya. Many of them are number-based, for example: number of present protesters, number of injured, number of dead. In many of these cases the sources of the numbers are the people themselves, the witnesses.
But can witnesses be trusted? Not from a moral, are they telling the truth? point of view. Rather, can they count in the situation they were in? Can you keep track of what’s around you, when you are under fire, fleeing for your life, trying to stay close to your friends, shooting back, etc?
Of course the other end of the spectrum is not reliable either. When any dictatorial regime discloses official figures, they should be taken with salt, pepper, baked for thirty minutes and served hot. My point here, apart from the fact that I can’t cook, is that in most cases there are no better alternatives. Back to Libya, there aren’t the usual NGO’s who have front line access, and can often be trusted to check their figures before releasing any statement. Hospitals too should be a more reliable source of information, but they describe themselves as having first world conditions, so how accurate would be their record keeping? This would apply most to the wounded figures, as at the least they should be trusted to know how many people they are placing in their mortuary.
Before the media had access to the country, and accounts were being phoned-in from inside Libya, the reports used to state that they could not verify the information being given, as they had no way to independently verify it. When Benghazi was taken over, the eastern border with Egypt ceased to function, and reporters reached the city unchallenged, they finally had access to people who witnessed the events as they happened. But the points I made previously apply – could the witnesses be trusted to count? I don’t believe I ever saw statements on the lines of: “this witness was probably under shock, actual figures may vary”. The figures were published, quoted, re-used, syndicated, and so on.
Let us be clear on one thing, I am in no way trying to discredit any of the reports coming out of Libya. The deaths and the suffering are an irrefutable truth, and very sad on whatever scale. The reporters are risking life and limb to show the world what is happening there. The witnesses speaking to them are risking severe retribution in case the regime doesn’t change, since their identities have been recorded on film. What I think I am trying to arrive at, is that in these situations lend themselves to some degree of sensationalism. The higher the numbers, the better the story. People should be aware of this when digesting the news.
For those of you who may be asking why now with Libya and not the preceding twenty-three protests / revolutions? Well the subject is closer to home, literally, so I’m inclined to follow the news more.
