Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Iraq Is a Civil War: Media Dominoes Falling

By Anna Crane, Editor & Publisher. Posted November 28, 2006.


NBC's decision to call the violence in Iraq a "civil war" has launched civil wars within a number of news outlets. But are they ready to challenge the Bush administration?
Advertisement

For months, the media have been torn over use of the term "civil war" to describe the descent into outright murder and torture in Iraq. Apparently the utter chaos and carnage of the past week has finally convinced some to use "civil war" without apology -- with NBC News and MSNBC joining in today in a major way -- but many still hold back, an E&P survey today shows.

The Los Angeles Times was one of the first newspapers to flatly describe the conflict as a "civil war" -- without the usual qualifiers of "approaching" or "near" -- and did again in the first paragraph of a news report on Saturday. The Christian Science Monitor today refers to a "deepening civil war."

But the main Washington Post story today continued to use "sectarian strife." A widely published Reuters dispatch today adopted "sectarian conflict," and McClatchy, in a report from Baghdad, relied on "sectarian violence." Other papers declared that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, but has not gotten there yet, with an Associated Press story calling Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's visit to Iran an effort to prevent "Iraq's sectarian violence from sliding into an all-out civil war."

In a bombshell, however, Matt Lauer on the Today show this morning revealed that NBC had studied and perhaps debated the issue anew, and then decided that it will now use "civil war" freely. "For months the White House rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into civil war," he said. "For the most part news organizations like NBC hesitated to characterize it as such. After careful consideration, NBC News has decided the change in terminology is warranted, and what is going on in Iraq can now be characterized as civil war."

He explained: "We should mention we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say let's call this a civil war. This took careful deliberation. We consulted with a lot of people." One of them was retired Gen. Barry McCaffery, a longtime NBC consultant, who told Lauer he had been using the expression "civil war" for quite some time, with the qualifier "low grade."

Lauer added: "The White House objects to the terminology that NBC News is now using, and here is part of the statement that they've released: 'While the situation on the ground is very serious, neither Prime Minister Maliki nor we believe that Iraq is in a civil war.' It goes on to say that 'the violence is largely centered around Baghdad, and Baghdad security and the increased training of Iraqi security forces is at the top of the agenda when President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki meet later this week in Jordan.'"

Asked about the civil war tag, CNN's Michael Ware said on Friday from Baghdad: "Well, firstly, let me say, perhaps it's easier to deny that this is a civil war, when essentially you live in the most heavily fortified place in the country within the Green Zone, which is true of both the prime minister, the national security adviser for Iraq and, of course, the top U.S. military commanders. However, for the people living on the streets, for Iraqis in their homes, if this is not civil war, or a form of it, then they do not want to see what one really looks like."

In his column in this week's Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria pulls no punches: "We're in the middle of a civil war and are being shot at by both sides. There can be no more doubt that Iraq is in a civil war, in which leaders of both its main communities, Sunnis and Shiites, are fomenting violence."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: civil war, media, iraq

Anna Crane is a reporter for "Editor & Publisher."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
apologizing for telling the truth
Posted by: SteveB on Nov 28, 2006 10:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lengths to which NBC and MSNBC went to justify and essentially apologize for using non-goverment-approved language shows how far we are from having a free press in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oil billions behind U.S. involvement
Posted by: Moonray on Nov 28, 2006 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was puzzled at how this debacle occurred until recent news reports revealed, perhaps accidentally, that the Saudi regime, supported by the Israelis, is the prime mover behind the U.S. occupation of Iraq. That explains a lot. It explains why the Brits and some other Europeans wagged their tails and got in line for the occupation even though anyone could see it was a fool's errand.

It also explains why the Bushies are blissfully unconcerned about how the American public feels about the situation. Acting alone, the Saudis and Israelis are enormously powerful in Washington, D.C.; acting together they virtually own the place.

The upshot is that we can forget about any early troop withdrawal. And even if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008 you can bet that person will immediately take a "realistic" and "moderate" position, ensuring U.S. troops will be in harm's way in Iraq indefinitely. Such is the price we pay for driving our SUVS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Think 1950's big city America for the right language.
Posted by: Plexius on Nov 28, 2006 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The term GANG WAR, I think most aptly describes Iraq at this time. I heard that there are about 25 different groups fighting each other. And that doesn't include the hundreds of less organized criminal cells, joykilling friends' cabals, and doing-it-for-the-money outlaws. Yeah, think The Gangs of New York and you pretty much got the picture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is
Posted by: MAD on Nov 28, 2006 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations NBC, you have successfully stated the obvious. How very courageous of you to break ranks with the likes of Fox and CNN. Now if you could only find the courage to air footage of military cargo planes chock full o'Caskets returning home from Bush's "mission accomplished". How about more visceral footage of Iraqi children blown to bits by errant bombs? Taking this relatively minor step doesn't change much unless your willing to accompany that "strong" language with more than the same tired BushCo propaganda.

You are in a unique position to influence events NBC. The greatest gift you could possible give comatose America is something they generally crave anyway - graphic violence. Let them see what it is to be burned alive, bloodcurdling screams and all. I'm sure you could change a few pro-war minds with footage of parents gathering the remains of their children after a deadly blast. What do you say NBC?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Typical propaganda culture mentality at NBC - just a spin argument
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 28, 2006 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The advertising/ public relations/ psychological ops 'community' are always obsessed with 'branding' issues.

If they call it a 'civil war' they can then claim that the whole disaster was due to age-old Sunni/Shia rivalries and the US had nothing to do with it - it's just those crazy Arabs having another civil war. This is pretty obvious.

However, the argument is likely over whether the 'civil war' will then be blamed on the US intervention; NBC is probably betting that it won't be while the other corporate media outlets disagree.

You can never forget that the same people who control Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell also control TimeWarner (CNN), Disney (ABC), Viacom (CBS), General Electric (MSNBC) and the rest of the media corporations, as well as Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumann, Boeing and the other defense-Pentagon contractors - as well as the major pharma companies like Pfizer, BMS and GSK. (Note: they seem to be trying to move out of the public spotlight and into private equity and hedge funds).

This whole thing is just an argument about how to spin the war in order to keep the domestic American population pacified and deceived about the real reasons for the Iraq invasion and occupation - which were entirely economic and had nothing to do whatsoever with justice or democracy.

It was an oil grab, and the corporate media were the cheerleaders. Now they're trying to hide their complicity in the war crimes.

Contrast this article on media propaganda in the Nazi era with what's going on today:

"Goebbels' core philosophy, based on a tabloid-style populist approach, was said to have been partly inspired by the ideas of the first Lord Northcliffe. "It was a mistake", Goebbels once said, "to conduct propaganda in such a way that it will stand up to critical examination of intellectuals".

He was not unduly worried about winning over his more thoughtful audience because he believed that "intellectuals always yield to strength, and this will be the ordinary man in the street". In dealing with mass audiences, said Goebbels, "tbe most primitive arguments are the most effective".

Goebbels was certainly not primitive. He was an evil but highly intelligent figure with a genuine interest in mass psychology and an undisguised contempt for the critical faculties of public opinion. He was not the inventor of censorship, lies and dirty tricks, but he was one of the first politicians in the age of mass media to make systematic use of psychology in the pursuit of power. In that sense, he was indeed a pioneer."


The US corporate media has become nothing more than the propaganda arm of the military-industrial-academic complex, as this whole issue clearly demonstrates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hedge fund lifeboats Posted by: eddie torres
A Gift to Iran
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 28, 2006 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Iraq war will not succeed but will continue indefinetly. But, it will be a gift to both Iran and N Korea, and perhaps a few others. Why? With so many troops engaged in war and ultimately vulnerable themselves, Iran will no doubt continue to develop its nukes and so will N Korea. The only recourse of the USA and Israel will be to bomb them. This will be of dubious effectiveness and perhaps result in a country like Iran simply pouring it's own troops into Iraq. Even now, the USA has been hushing it up, but Iran is helping fuel the insurgency, can you guess why?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Gift to Iran Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: A Gift to Iran Posted by: pedex
» RE: A Gift to Iran Posted by: Conservasaurus
Not impressed
Posted by: opeluboy on Nov 28, 2006 5:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This new language the warmongering media is using, calling an obvious civil war just that, is hardly cause for celebration. It is simply a ploy to distance themselves from blame. You hear none of them saying "We caused a civil war." No, this allows them to blame the Iraqis for the violence and sneak away so they can start the next war for Israel in Iran or Syria or Lebanon or...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The BIG MISTAKE of Bush
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 28, 2006 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush made a tremendous mistake going into Iraq. He should have simply continued the stalemate that his old man initiated. Only a merciless dictator will ever hold that place together. Perhaps he even now realizes it, but how would he ever publicly say so? But also, I do believe US policy is misguided by picking fights in the Arab world and with Muslims to begin with. US unconditional support of Israel really does not help long term strategic US interests, conservative or liberal. Ultimately also, the USA should let the Arab world duke it out themselves and stay neutral. Don't supply anybody with weapons or support and quit trying to control things and the ultimate outcome. These Middle Eastern countries are not the Russia of the old cold war, quite treating them as such. If the USA did stay out of it, the Middle East would find it's own natural balance and the rationale of much of terrorism would vaporize. The countries in the region really do want stability because they want to keep selling the oil to the USA and the West. Just like with China now, stability is the number one watch word because it means the one thing that talks even more then nationalism and religion, and that is the flow of do re mi, money, however it is called anywhere it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what?
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Nov 28, 2006 8:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are they willing to call it a war crime/a crime against humanity and to call bush a terrorist? Both statments are true (even by our own legal standards) -- over half a million have been killed and the "single question" is know to have been based on fraudulent intelegence.

People will argue that such staments (i.e. the truth) would amount to libel or slander...however, the media (liberal media included) take it for granted that Saddamin Hussain commited crimes against humanity without refernce to facts (esp. those that aslo implicate the US in the alleged crimes) and happily call Osama Binladen a terrorist -- the facts implicating the US and particular individuals are uncontroversial, whereas this is not the case either with Saddam or Binladen; one wonders what this ethical relativism means. That the media function to apologize for crimes of state, perhaps?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Is Not A Civil War
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 29, 2006 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are no blues and greys. There is not the essence of sweet magnolias in the southern breeze. There are no dear ol' darkies, strummin' on their banjos singing Camptown Races in the moonlight. There are no southern belles of unquestioned virtue. There is no old Abe Lincoln. There is no wiley Jefferson Davis. There is no Johhny marching home. There is no cotton. There ain't no Dixie.

How can this be a Civil War???

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq's Civil War More Murderous than Americas
Posted by: Baryy Lando on Nov 29, 2006 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the rate of iraqis killing iraqis is now greater than that of americans killing americans during the u.s. civil war--same, in fact with the civil war in lebanon--iraq is ahead in the rate of killing...see oped in la times noveber 29th, also posted on my blog:
http://barrylando.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civil Schmivil....
Posted by: thehousedog on Nov 29, 2006 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps a better tag line would be "US led violence?" Bottom line, this is a WAR that the USA got involved in simply because it could. The USA is the coalition of the willing. When the history books are written five or even ten years from now, they will sound a lot like Bush & Co. doctrine. When the history books are written fifty years from now, the atrocities committed in the name of 9-11, oil, money, greed and anything else will be laid bare for all to see. What happens next is anybody's guess. Like the double edged Chinese proverb, "may you live in interesting times" - this is very true for us today. Sadly, that people, any people, must die for the sake of our "interesting" times is disgusting and appaling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MSM backbone
Posted by: willymack on Nov 29, 2006 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even a cornered rat will fight back, given the alternative to sure death. Maybe-just maybe-NBC is beginning to see the light. It may just be that they see their future as another Pravda if they don't return to their traditional role as impartial investigators and purveyors of the TRUTH, regardless of whose toes they step on. This may be the start of something great. Follow Keith Olbermann's lead, folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

amacd
Posted by: amacd on Nov 29, 2006 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq 'civil war' debate ---- reality or cover-up story?

This 'civil war' debate is getting as unexciting, unproductive, and perhaps as distractive as watching paint dry.

Today has been a real 'pillow fight' within the media regarding whether or not to call the Iraq civil war something it clearly has become.

In all of the reporting and media circus today there has been no serious analysis ---- but only debate about the semantics and politics of whether the Whitehouse should agree.

Yes, of course, there is a real civil war in Iraq now, but the real issue, and the more significant story, is that before there was a civil war, there was a war of empire ---- which unleashed the civil war!

And the real question is whether smarter minds than Bush in the administration (or advising the administration) are quite happy with the increased talk and flutter about ‘civil war’ in the media and the general population, because this facilitates a face-saving exit from Iraq without first having to acknowledge and learn from the fact that an imperial oil-war was the precipitating cause of this entire disaster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NBC Here....
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Nov 29, 2006 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NBC does not have to apologize to anyone for telling the truth (finally). This one's for NBC for getting it right. Don't worrry about the backlash, NBC. When the government criticizes a media organization, the media knows they hit a soft spot.
I am a journalist and I'm glad (along with the L.A. Times) we called it the way it is: a civil war. We're paid to tell the truth and to inform people. The fighters aren't "terrorists" or "insurgents" whatever mumbo-jumbo label spews from the Pentagon Propaganda Machine.
Now that we cleared the air, let's work on a method on how to get us out of there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

amacd
Posted by: amacd on Nov 30, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch for the term "civil war" being used as the major justification in the actual text by the Baker ISG report for recommending a pull back in Iraq.

This 'civil war' focus of the last few days was initiated by Baker as a convenient and believable way of 'covering over' and disguising for the American public why the 'pull back' is reasonable and trumps GHW Bush's boy's stuborness.

Baker is a master of disguise and the language of deceit since Iraq oil-war I --- he is the 'wise man' behind the surprisingly recent focus of the term 'civil war' through media plants to bring this 'civil war' reasoning to the front of the American peoples' mind as the cover term for selective withdrawal in Iraq.

As I have said before, "smarter minds than Bush in the administration (or advising the administration) are quite happy with the increased talk and flutter about ‘civil war’ in the media and the general population, because this facilitates a face-saving exit from Iraq without first having to acknowledge and learn from the fact that an imperial oil-war was the precipitating cause of this entire disaster."

Yes, Baker and the ISG (along with their friends in the MSM) are 'playing' the public with the term 'civil war' in order to use popular support for withdrawal from Iraq to support their goal of 'partial withdrawal' --- and, most importantly, to focus US public, congressional and media attention AWAY from the real and continuing reason for a reduced and focused military presence in Iraq ----- OIL!!!

Baker, GHW Bush and the oily elite crowd actually controlling the US will outsmart the Bush baby and his string-pulling mentor, Dick (and the departed neocons) ---- no contest here.

If there is any 'civil war' it has been a civil war within the ruling-elite in the US/global empire --- and daddy's team just won, and pulled their oil out of the fire. But Bush Jr. won't escape the fire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq is NOT a civil war -- anna crane's dominos falling
Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah on Dec 6, 2006 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anna will be hard pressed to refute or try to rationalize the data on the following sites:

al qaeda in iraq website (note the extreme number of terror attacks in iraq by this terrorist group)

investigative evidence confirms significant iranian support for shia insurgents in iraq:

liberals go nuts when they are confronted with facts like these conclusively disproving that iraq is a homegrown civil war

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]