Another chance to use the word “grim”
Earlier this week it was CNN reporting its “grim” findings. Now AP chimes in:
Deaths mark grim Afghan, Iraq milestones — Militants ambushed and killed six U.S. troops walking in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan — the most lethal attack in a year that has been the deadliest for the U.S. military here since the 2001 invasion…The six deaths brings the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this year to at least 101, according to an Associated Press count, surpassing the 93 troops killed in 2005. About 87 died last year. The toll echoes the situation in Iraq, where U.S. military deaths this year surpassed 850, also a record.
101 US troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Last month it was reported that the MRSA bacterium, untreatable with conventional antibiotics, kills more than 19,000 people a year, people who were doing nothing in particular besides living their daily lives. That seems pretty grim to us, but of course the word was missing from those stories. It has a very particular meaning to the media.

November 11th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Mmmmm, troll bait… *NOM* *NOM* *NOM* You have to divide by the population at risk in order to understand why one death toll is grim and the other is not. That was tasty, thanks! *Hic*