Rami said:
Yes but the subjectivity leaked into a bombing report will always be less than a freedom of speech report, at the end people are DEAD no matter how you spin a bombing report, one cannot the say the same about the latter....no?
Edit: yes I believe that
Number of deaths is what you are basing all of this on? A figure? Have you ever been to the site of a bombing? I've experienced the chaos, first estimates are based on entry lists (who was in the building at the time of the bombing), second estimates are based on the force of the blast, third estimates are based on how many people are saved versus the ratio of how many are found death, fourth estimates have to take into consideration how many of those rescued are likely to survive in hospital, fifth estimates are made when the official deadlines of how long a human being can respectably be considered to survive under certain circumstances.
Now the problems start at the very first estimates: who was in the building at the time of the blast. Usually there are no registers of visitors and even if there were, they were probably destroyed by the blast. That means the officials have to fall back on what they hear from witnesses and locals, who will tell them to the best of their knowledge how many people they saw going in earlier on the day and how many people are usually in there that time of the week. Those are so unreliable you wouldn't believe it. I don't think I need to expand my explanation to telling you what's wrong with the other four estimates.
Which means the press officials will usually have to resort to the roughest of all conclusions and hand out figures among the lines of "We have reason to believe between 100 and 1000 people have perished". Either that, or they say they don't know. At this point, two things can happen:
1. The press officials have to hand out new explanations roughly every five minutes. Their information has changed every single time, the media sources in question will happily write down all the different estimates, and take whichever one suits their target group best. Was the first estimate 1000 and the second 500? Let's stick with 1000, it's juicier.
2. If no estimates are given, the press will 'investigate' themselves. Meaning they will interview whomever is on the street that moment and says they know the building well. I don't need to tell you that's even less reliable.
In conclusion: I would argue reports of any nature (by press or otherwise) surrounding chaotic situations are the very least reliable of all. Say you're watching a spokesperson of the Baghdad police on television hand out an explanation and an estimate of what has happened: did you really think that was the first and only time he's been presenting himself in front of TV cameras that day? Hell no. The reporters will tape every single presentation of his and pick out the one they like best for broadcasting.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but those thousand words are contradicting and mean nothing. Pictures may not lie, but photographers do.