I think one good example of this is the Iraqi Body Count Vs The Lancet epidemiological study on deaths from the Iraq war.
The media either balances the scientific study with the IBC one (the IBC one being basically a western media bodycount) or more frequently completely ignores the scientific study which just so happens to show a much higher death toll.

What is most curious about these omissions of balance in this instance, is that previous studies by the very same team in Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans etc were published without any difficulty and were lauded by western political leaders.


Another example is healthcare policy in the US. Polls have shown for years that the American public favour some form of universal provision, with the Canadian single payer model high up in desirability. This is despite the almost complete absence of reporting of this model within the corporate media and the high advertising from for-profit healthcare.
This option is also absent from the two most popular parties in the US.


Finally another example is the situation with respect to Kosovo in comparison to the much more one-sided massacre in Gaza. The dichotomy of reportage and similarity with the dichotomyin response from the political elites is certainly striking. Once again media balance appears to be based upon a mix of the factors of power and market forces.

johnfás wrote:

Whether you have studied law is pretty irrelevant. Your statement that "the force used in self defence must not be greater than the force used to begin with" is fundamentally in error. In your initial statement you equated the word proportionate with the word equal, these are not synonyms. If you don't want the Nally case, which was merely the most recent, you can also be referred to People (AG) v Keatley a case from the 1950s. Provided the physical force used in self defence is not excessive lethal force can constitute a full defence to a charge of murder. If the force used was deemed to be excessive this is generally elevated to manslaughter, but not murder. These are points which are lost on your initial statement, whether you meant them to be or not.

The difficulty with the Nally judgement was not actually not in fact the level of force used but the retreating from the situation and then returning to use further force. The question arose as to whether this was still an act of self defence.

You're bogged down in distinguishing points Johnfas - the state of the law is emphatically that it, under no circumstances, wants any sort of subjective, vigilante style precendent to be set - and it has been very careful to do that - as your qualifiactions of the case you cite make clear. To bring the discussion back to its central point - subjective interpretation/opinion does not have the same legal status as fact - which was the actual point under discussion - even the notion of 'reasonableness' is subject to an independent asessment of facts. The case you refer to is very careful to uphold that exact principle.

My argument is that even without a legal context, facts ought to be the first and foremost consideration in any situation - mere opinion is secondary.

Pax wrote:

I think one good example of this is the Iraqi Body Count Vs The Lancet epidemiological study on deaths from the Iraq war.
The media either balances the scientific study with the IBC one (the IBC one being basically a western media bodycount) or more frequently completely ignores the scientific study which just so happens to show a much higher death toll.

What is most curious about these omissions of balance in this instance, is that previous studies by the very same team in Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans etc were published without any difficulty and were lauded by western political leaders.


Another example is healthcare policy in the US. Polls have shown for years that the American public favour some form of universal provision, with the Canadian single payer model high up in desirability. This is despite the almost complete absence of reporting of this model within the corporate media and the high advertising from for-profit healthcare.
This option is also absent from the two most popular parties in the US.


Finally another example is the situation with respect to Kosovo in comparison to the much more one-sided massacre in Gaza. The dichotomy of reportage and similarity with the dichotomyin response from the political elites is certainly striking. Once again media balance appears to be based upon a mix of the factors of power and market forces.

The Lancet study is a good example - you made the point that the same team's results had been welcomed without equivocation in other contexts. What's also pretty staggering is that they were using they exact same methodology in all those situations - Iraq included and yet they were excoriated in the latter context. But these are all facts which don't get mentioned by most western media journalists/editors. What is that?

Back to basics for us all:

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4017