Lies, damn lies and statistics
I’m getting more and more disillusioned with the organizations that are supposed to be promoting righteousness and humanity in the world. For me whether you are fighting for the environment or peace credibility is key. For example having that monkey Mervyn Silva making speeches at a peace march automatically voids any semblance of credibility that the other participants in that march may have had as trying to bring peace to Sri Lanka. Similarly histrionic screaming about rainforests being cut down at an ‘acre a minute’ doesn’t really do any good, because if that figure is wrong (which some people say it is) then your cause is lost no matter how worthy it is.
And that is why I have finally lost any faith in Amnesty International. One would think that if AI was going to launch a huge campaign to get Sri Lanka to “play by the rules” that they would get their facts straight, but unfortunately it seems they were too sloppy to do so. The AI website states:
“Some 4,000 civilians are dead; over 300,000 people are displaced; homes, schools and places of worship have been destroyed, all since the fighting intensified in April 2006.”
I personally thought that 4,000 figure seemed a bit high and did a bit of digging. From the BBC site:
“More than 4,000 people - troops, Tamil Tiger rebels and Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim civilians - are estimated to have been killed in Sri Lanka since late 2005 when a sharp escalation in violence began.”
The SLMM has this press release on the CFA’s status five years on which states "4,000 people".
Yes I know any civilian death is wrong as in fact is any combatant death when a ceasefire is supposed to be on but in distorting the facts like that AI has made a critical error. They in effect lied. And now they have lost all credibility.
It’s a pity that this is going to simply be like preaching to the choir
The reasons why some people put Amnesty up on a pedestal are unlikely to be changed with their fudging of the numbers.
A confirmation bias, I think its called.
Comment by drac — May 14, 2007 @ 8:01 am
“Lie”. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and call it a mistake?
Sri Lanka is not the centre of the universe, and there are hundreds of other countries they have to deal with and reports they have to write.
I would have in fact done the responsible thing and emailed, faxed or called Amnesty directly and courteously pointed out the mistake or questioned them about the source. Its the least we can do. If I were one of those people churning out these reports, I would have been most grateful if you had pointed it out.
For instance recently I pointed out a flaw in a well known Sri Lankan journalist’s article in a private email, and got a prompt reply, and a clear and informative explanation as well as an admission of the fact that he had not had time to research that issue in depth. This was fine with me, because I don’t think I could even do 10% of what he has done in terms of informing the public about events in this country; especially in the warzone.
Some of these people are putting their lives on the line, and I appreciate the time and effort that goes into highlighting the escalating humanitarian crisis, and really, we need to try and assist in anyway we can.
If they refuse to admit a mistake and cannot back up their data, then thats a different matter all together.
Comment by anon — May 14, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
anon, the difference is that the original data with the possibly mistaken conclusion has been widely disseminated.
Will the same credence be given after the fact to errata? Bear in mind that these reports are published to schedules and for presentation to external parties.
It’s the difference between a blaring headline printing a number on a newspaper one day and a 8pt retraction buried in page 6 the next day.
Is the original point invalid? The next time Amnesty produce a number like 10,000 casualties, will we need to wonder if they pulled that number from some hole in the ground? That’s a perfect definition of a loss of credibility.
Comment by drac — May 14, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Yes you have a point. But, I still would like to hear amnesty’s resoning behind the figures before concluding its a mistake.
Comment by anon — May 14, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
I don’t know how amnesty works etc. With reference to Drac’s comment, we live in the age of IT and communication networks. The positive aspect is information travels fast, and problems can be solved quickly But mistakes are also compounded, because of how rapidly news etc. is disseminated.
I have to say though I feel that the assumption that Amnesty deliberately mislead people ie lied is unfair. Saying that it is a mistake or possibly a mistake is a more responsible way of phrasing it.
I should point out that I don’t think organisations like Amnesty are infallible or should not be held accountable.
Comment by anon — May 15, 2007 @ 12:57 am
drac - definitely preaching to the converted..and uhh…thanks for stealing my thunder in terms of the right of reply!:)
anon - I get what your saying. However when an international organization is launching an expensive campaign at a high profile event like the World Cup would you not think that they would/should do the utmost to ensure their figures are correct?
As for responsibility mine is a blog with relatively minute readership and it’s my opinion. I don’t claim to speak for anything or anybody but myself hence I see no problem with pulling punches in my opinions.
I did take your advice and I emailed AI seeking clarification. Lets wait on that and see what they say shall we? If in fact it was a mistake I will post a 5pt correction and apology at the bottom of my blog
Comment by childof25 — May 15, 2007 @ 1:46 am
One problem with commenting on a blog, is when you pick something at the start, then you have to follow up which is tedious!
Anyway, re: minute readership. Well, you have published it on the world wide web. I know it is your personal opinion and you are not using it for profit etc. But nevertheless you do have some sort of ethical responsibility because it is a public document.
Anyway, its not a big deal.
Looking forward to knowing what happens. I am sure they must be having to wade through a fair no. of emails from the Sri Lankan contingent after the cricket campaign!!
I think the Sri Lankans knew more about the campaign then anyone I know overseas. If I hadn’t seen the Sri Lankan’s protests I would have never known about it.
Comment by anon — May 16, 2007 @ 5:16 am
Co25: Oooer. Sorry about the thunder heist
I er. may be doing it again now, so apologies in advance 
anon: I would genteelly disagree with your assessment. Amnesty chose to stick their head up over the parapet, I’d call it fair that they be prepared to deal with indignant emails at the very least when there is some doubt cast on their numbers.
Would you call the Amnesty campaign successful because Sri Lankans know about it? I personally wonder if there were (m)any positive outcomes.
Comment by drac — May 17, 2007 @ 12:31 pm