We’ve discussed in the past the power of words to help define a situation. That’s what’s going on today with the media, in terms of the situation in Iraq. Several outlets, most notably NBC and the Los Angeles Times, now refer to the Iraq conflict as a “civil war.”
Here’s a discussion from Editor & Publisher. The Bush administration, not surprisingly, objects to this terminology. One general couldn’t say what it was if it wasn’t civil war, but said there were “unacceptable levels of violence.”
The Associated Press, which the Journal often but not always defers to in matters of style, has yet to use “civil war” without a qualifier. Usually it writes of the situation as possibly deteriorating into “all-out civil war.” It tends to be more cautious than many individual papers and members who belong to the AP.
The larger question, of course, is whether it makes a difference what the situation is called. I think it does. One person’s civil war is another’s sectarian strife.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
Hi Ken, I think it matters what one calls the situation, also. But that the Bush Administration objects to the term “civil war” is no reason to make the decision one way or the other. The day the press succumbs to president pleasing will be a sad day, indeed.
Ken,
I’ve been using your blog as a sort of model for one that I began last month doing out here on the West Coast. Interestingly enough, the use of ‘civil war’ has also been part of our discussion. What might be helpful is agreeing to a clear definition of what a civil war is. Is it both sides controlling land? functioning government? Maybe once we get to there, it would be much easier.
Edward, good luck on your blog. It’s a lot of work but rewarding most days ...
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.