Does anyone else find this wrong?

[Easy Mac]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/war.tracker/charts/troop_casualties_040203.jpg

Am I the only one offended by CNN's use of a bar graph when tallying up those that have died. I find that a little crude.

[Fritz]

MSNBC had one up early on and I had the same reaction.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Agreed. Most definitely crude. Talk about just being a number. They should get rid of that.

[CamEdwards]

wholeheartedly agreed. Put up a list of names. These are people, not numbers.

[Easy Mac]

Wow, me and Cam agree on something... uh oh, I have to find a new argument :p

[andy m]

i agree, they should have used a pie chart.

the military loves things like that, reducing it to cold figures and passionless information - using nonsense such phrases like friendly fire and whatnot.

[Ksyrup]

Although crude, the point of it, though, is to show exactly that - the numbers. There are more than enough human-interest stories being shared that bring the numbers to life. This is just basic information about the number of people who have died, when they died, and which country they were from. It makes it easier to read that information in graph form, rather than in narrative.

[couriers]

This is down right pathetic. The numbers should be written and not displayed like this is some sort of freak show or something.

[Ksyrup]

I guess I don't get it. Are you saying that this information shouldn't be available to the public in a way that is easy to read and understand? I'm not saying I want or need this information, but there are some who do. Think of how awkward a narrative describing all of the information presented in that chart would be - "On March 23, 15 American and 4 British troops were killed. On March 24, 4 American and 2 British troops were killed. On March 25, ..."

There is nothing off-base about presenting relevant information about the number of casualties, the timing of those deaths, and on which side they occurred. Plus, the graphic shows something that might not be readily apparent from a narrative description of these numbers - that we sustained the majority of losses early on, and that as we move forward, fewer troops are being killed.

Isn't that the purpose of a graphic illustration?

I just don't think anything is so sacrosanct that it can't be provided for what it is - information - in this way. I've seen the same kinds of charts depicting deaths in WWI, WWII, and pretty much any other conflict we've been in. This is relevant information in an on-going conflict, and I don't fault anyone for providing it in a clear and sensible way. Again, this chart isn't meant to be attached to a human-interest story. It's just information.

[couriers]

The charts and graphs should be displayed after the hostilities have ended. In the meantime they shouldn't be displayed as if we are keeping score of a football game. There should not be any type of display that acts as any type of scoreboard. The media should exercise a little more sensitivity to the families who have lost loved ones instead of instantly reducing them to statistics.

[Ksyrup]

BS. All I'm saying is, there's a time and place to mourn the individuals who have died, and a time and place for relevant information as to how the war is proceeding. If you want the former, you can find it. Specific information as to each individual who has died is not relevant and has no bearing on the information being provided by that chart. If you're saying that that information simply should not be provided, then I couldn't disagree more, and I'll just leave it at that.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
BS. All I'm saying is, there's a time and place to mourn the individuals who have died, and a time and place for relevant information as to how the war is proceeding. If you want the former, you can find it. Specific information as to each individual who has died is not relevant and has no bearing on the information being provided by that chart. If you're saying that that information simply should not be provided, then I couldn't disagree more, and I'll just leave it at that.

First of all I have never said that the information shouldn't be provided. I simply disagreed with the way in which the media has chosen to provide it.

Secondly, I never said anything about your personal opinion as being bullshit and I certainly don't appreciate the personal attack on my personal opinion. It is one thing to disagree and a completely different thing to call someone’s opinion bullshit. If you don't agree with my position then simply state your case as you were originally doing. However, there is no need to tell me that my moral stance is bullshit. It not only comes across as a personal attack but it also makes it seem as if you want to argue instead of debate. Although I was more than willing to continue to discuss this issue with you I simply don’t have the time for arguing about it on a personal level.

[Ksyrup]

Although it came off that way, I wasn't attacking your opinion, just the notion that the information shouldn't be provided in that way because of the topic. Sorry for the emotional response.

Anyway, again, I'll just say that I have no problem with the way they've portrayed this information, in the context it's being portrayed, because not only is it relevant information in an on-going war, but the way it is presented is infinitely more digestible and helpful to understand. I simply don't believe the media should be hamstrung by a certain segment of people not wanting to hurt other people's feelings, when it comes to providing facts.

The soldiers who gave their lives are being mourned and praised elsewhere. This information is wholly apart from that. This is simply numbers - and numbers are not emotional, and not supposed to be emotional. If I or anyone else wnats to know the facts, as opposed to the people who gave their lives, I'm entitled to be provided with that information if a media organization wants to provide it.

This has nothing to do with the families. We are all statistics - living or dead - at some point, so I don't see how this is any different. The US provides statistics on the number of people who die each year from different causes. That information serves a useful purpose and should not be withheld, even in graphic form, because it has reduced a person who was cared for by a number of people to a statistic. I just think that kind of stance in this situation is...well, at the risk of sounding "emotional" again, let me just say - not well-founded.

[GrantDawg]

Ksyrup, you work in life insurance don't 'cha? :)

[Ksyrup]

Indirectly. I work as an attorney for insurance companies. But I'm not an actuary-type, if that's what you mean!

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Indirectly. I work as an attorney for insurance companies. But I'm not an actuary-type, if that's what you mean!

Actually, I was shooting in the dark. Just the "we are all numbers" thing made me think "he must be in insurance." :D

[Ksyrup]

Then you got me in the arm!

[Bee]

I basically agree with our attorney (whom I've now mentally dubbed KYJelly after learning his profession :D).

I don't see anything seriously wrong with it. I think we've become a little too PC and try too hard to be "sensitive" to these types of issues. There's nothing wrong with displaying these types of charts IMO. You see them all the time concerning deaths caused by AIDs, car accidents, heart disease, etc.

[Ksyrup]

I know, an attorney who represents insurance companies.

I'M GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!!!!

[Bee]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I know, an attorney who represents insurance companies.

I'M GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL!!!!

Just be grateful you're not a French attorney. ;)

[sterlingice]

I just don't see it: what is so offensive? People are dead and they are showing just that, the numbers of people dead. Do you sit there and blast your newspaper when they show the homicide numbers for the year (they always did that at the end of the year in Houston and it was typically 300-600)? Should we show all of the names of everyone who dies every day in every media outlet? I just don't see how this is offensive at all.

SI

[GrantDawg]

There is really nothing wrong with this, except that the emotions for these men and women are still raw. It is hard to go from pictures of these good looking young soldiers to video of their family dealing with grief to a statical graph. Humanize them, humanize them, and then quickly dehumanize them. People are just having a gut reaction from it. (That is of course for those who have emotions, but of course we understand that lacking souls insurance attorneys don't have that problem.:p ).

[Fritz]

Originally posted by sterlingice
... numbers for the year...


This is the difference I think. The period of time is so short that the reporting becomes tacky. It has the feel of one of those "donation" cards where they keep coloring the thermometer as the donations pour in. It begs to be check often. "How many dead now? How many dead now?" Like that cellphone commercial.

[Ksyrup]

But people want to know now, as the war is still going on, and the graph shows pertinent information. When I saw it, I was kind of surprised that we hadn't lost nearly as many people the last week as we had the week before that. I don't think that comes through if you just list out the numbers in narrative form. And it certainly doesn't comes through if the media stays silent out of respect for the families.

Personally, I'm much more offended when the media falls all over itself trying to provide the human side of stories - camping out at the house of the first US soldier killed, for example - then I am when they do something like this. If anything screams bad taste to me, it's asking the mother of a recently-deceased soldier "how they feel" about the situation. If someone ever asked me such an assinine question, I'd give them the answer they should get to those kinds of questions, right on live TV.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Personally, I'm much more offended when the media falls all over itself trying to provide the human side of stories - camping out at the house of the first US soldier killed, for example - then I am when they do something like this.

I do not disagree with this at all. I felt sick when they surrounded the house of that first Marine to die and barraged his parents with the "how does it feel" questions.

[couriers]

It saddens me that some people dilute life and death down to facts and figures without allowing for the proper healing period to take place. Although I agree with the notion that charts and graphs may make information come across more organized and understandable I do not agree with the notion that thinking otherwise is bullshit. The concept of morality and humanity come way before facts and figures for me personally. I have no problem with displaying information as shown here however such tactics could have been better served by allowing the appropriate time frame to pass before doing so, so that the illusion is not one of insensitivity but rather one of proper reporting. The idea of camping out at the house of the first US soldier killed is no different than the graphs in my personal opinion. Both situations reduce the realities of death down to a commodity by shoving it in our face with such harsh attempts at getting the story out before the competitors. Obviously this falls under the category of, "to each their own" since nothing we say will change how the media operates for better or for worse. My most sincere hopes are that the media doesn't take the next step by displaying the charts and graphs next to their news icons like MSNBC did with the count down to war clock or as it has been pointed out, like the running tally of a telethon.

[Ksyrup]

You honestly can't separate one from the other? The numbers are just facts, they don't have anything to do with the people they represent in those numbers. They're two totally different pieces of information - reporting about the people is for emotion and done on a personal level, reporting the facts of the war is just about information. Allowing time to pass (not to mention trying to determine what is "enough time") takes away from the relevance of the information NOW.

Like I said, it would be wrong to run a human interest story about one of the soldiers and have this graph attached to it. But running it in a "50,000 view" article about how the war is going over the first two weeks, seems appropriate to me.

Since we've both made our points about 5 times each in this thread, neither more valid than the other (except to ourselves and those that think like us), I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

[couriers]

I will gladly agree to disagree with your opinions on the subject.

[Airhog]

I think they are trying to lessen the impact of 73 dead so far. The graph gives the impression of less being dead.

[Ksyrup]

Huh? Not if you can count. It shows a trend, I'll give you that.

[Airhog]

Yes, but how many people will sit down and take the time to count it out...

[ice4277]

You tell me which is more offensive: a bar graph depicting the number of casualties in the war this far, or the nice closeup of a dead Iraqi soldier laying on the ground in this week's edition of 'Time'.

[couriers]

A better approach IMHO

U.S. & Coalition/Casualties (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html)

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Bee
Just be grateful you're not a French attorney. ;)

ahh, french hell. where your forced to bathe every hour, and remove all your body hair! And theres not a whore in sight!

[sabotai]

"You tell me which is more offensive: a bar graph depicting the number of casualties in the war this far, or the nice closeup of a dead Iraqi soldier laying on the ground in this week's edition of 'Time'."

I saw that, too. The first thought that popped into my mind was "And what would happen if this were a close up of a dead american soldier?"