LANCET DEATH TOLL SURVEY HIDDEN ON FRONT PAGE

Lefties are all lathered-up over the new Lancet study showing over 600,000 deaths resulting from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Go figure.

With four posts on the study already (and lots of lefty bloggers linking to him) and lots of posts on the earlier Lancet study, computer scientist Tim Lambert is something of a self-appointed Lancet study expert. But when reading Lambert it must be remembered he's more of a political blogger than a science blogger.

One of Lambert's posts deals with the politics surrounding the study. Its title: How many Iraqis have to die before it is front page news? He starts off by accusing the Washington Post of downplaying the very important Lancet study:

The Washington Post buried the story of 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq on page A12.

The article does indeed appear on page A12. This ignores the fact that the WaPo front page features (above the fold) a large photo of a grieving Iraqi mother with a referral to the Lancet Iraq article on page A12 :

Study Cites Significantly Higher Death Rate

A new study says 655,000 more Iraqis have died violently since the invasion than otherwise would have been killed. A12

The WaPo couldn't have done much more to draw attention to the study.

Is Lambert intentionally misinforming his readers in an effort to score political points or did he simply fail to take the time to research this properly? He should correct his post regardless. Don't hold your breath.

Update: In another of Lambert's Lancet threads there's this comment from Donald Johnson:

Those of us who are American or British citizens should probably spend more of our energies writing to newspapers and politicians demanding a definitive study to determine how many people we are killing in Iraq and less time squabbling about it online. If the two governments refuse(as they almost certainly will) and if the press doesn't pressure them over it ( we're only talking about a humanitarian catastrophe possibly worse than Darfur and we're responsible), then that will tell us exactly how much we can trust either the press or the government to tell the truth on this issue.

Now I'm all for the coalition taking the blame (or credit depending on how you look at it) for any innocent Iraqi civilians killed as a result of military activity but if a local kills a local it's hardly the fault of the coalition. After all, except on rare occasions, we don't blame the police when someone is murdered.

Update II: Many thinks to Tim Blair for linking; my counter desperately needed the boost.

Update III: Lambert probably made the mistake of claiming the WaPo buried this story because he saw page A12 attached to the article online: in looking at the article online he didn't realize there was a photo and referral prominently displayed on the print edition's front page. As an experienced blooger he should have realized, however, that he was taking a chance in not checking to see what was on the front page of the print edition -- the pages are , after all, irrelevant in the online edition.

So, I've had a change of heart concerning the situation. My original post above was mildly accusatory but civil; frankly, that just doesn't do the situation justice. I've caught Lambert out again and again telling lie after lie after lie that he won't own up to. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning if didn't call it like it is: the guy is a liar; nothing he writes can be trusted. End of story.

Update IV: Lambert has updated his post:

In comments, ragout informs me that the story was referenced on the front page. The actual story, however, was not on the front page, but buried on page 12.

Commenter chairman me points out the obvious to Lambert:

That is the lamest, most weasily defense I've seen in some time. So because they only included a huge picture of an Iraqi woman with a coffin plus a prominent referral to page A12, you consider it buried. You know sometimes it's better just to admit you did something boneheaded instead of defending it in such a way that makes you look ridiculous.

His response:

cm says:

You know sometimes it's better just to admit you did something boneheaded instead of defending it in such a way that makes you look ridiculous.

And the innumerate Lancet critics will be doing this when?

In short, he knows he's wrong but isn't about to admit. An interesting trait for a scientist.