Kenya

I noticed the violence in Kenya following the election which has killed around 30 people has been described by both sides as genocide. While it isn't genocide, it certainly is a complete mess. The violence doesn't appear to be anything on the scale of that that occurred in Rwanda, although I would caution that any reports of deaths are likely to be an underestimate - the deaths in Rwanda in 1994 were not recognised as such for sveral weeks, and initial reports suggested that only a few thounsand had been killed - an underestimate of at least an order of magnitude.

* * *

On a completely seperate matter I've been reading this excellent discussion about Media Lens and the Propoganda Model.

Most journalists who have been targeted by Media Lens detest them and their tactics

argued the journalist writing the piece and there is a great deal of further discussion about whether or not the Propoganda Model is applicable in the UK.

My own thoughts are that the criticisms Media Lens has been making about Iraq Body count are relevant. Basically, they say that there are two main sources the media have been using to determine the number of deaths in Iraq - a Lancet paper and the Iraq Body Count website. The Lancet paper was based on an epidemoligical study, and the Iraq Body count website uses a variety of sources but mainly the media. The reliance on the media to get its figures means it has a lower overall total than the Lancet study which was peer reviewed. Furthermore this lower figure is quoted by the press wheras the higher figures has tended not to be, and Media Lens alleges that this is due to an unconcious bias. I think they do seem to have a point here. If a figure is in dispute and there are different numbers from different sources, at the very lease the media should quote both of them. Ideally they should point out the flaws in the methodology of the Iraq Body count website as it relies on secondary sources and news reports. In reality the media has tended to neither of these things.