Civil War, What is it Good For?
Ok, back from turkey-related festivities.
Yesterday, NBC decided to announce that from now on, it would refer to the sectarian violence in Iraq as a "civil war." In other news, it announced that it would refer to four-legged animals that neigh as "horses," and the giant ball of gas that the earth revolves around as "the sun." (The sun is a giant ball of gas, or something, yes? Can we get fact-checkers on this?)
Matt Lauer, on Monday morning's Today show, said this: "For months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war. And, for the most part, news organizations like NBC have hesitated to characterize it as such. But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted -- that the situation in Iraq, with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, can now be characterized as a 'civil war.'"
I have mixed feelings. Not on the change in terminology, but on NBC's approach to changing the terminology.
On the one hand, I think this change is warranted. Many on the right (though not all, since many are coming around to the Iraq-was-a-bad-idea-camp) resist this notion that Iraq has fallen into civil war. To me, I think it is pretty obvious that the situation can be characterized as a civil war, but I also think we are arguing semantics here. We have groups that violently hate each other butchering each other each day. We can all agree on that much, right? Whether we all agree to call it sectarian violence or a civil war doesn't change much on the ground, nor should it change our approach. But in any event, it is indeed a civil war.
On the other hand, I'm sort of embarassed for the state of journalism, however, that NBC should have to unveil its characterization of the war in such a deliberate manner, in preparation for the onslaught of so right wingers eager to declare the mainstream media as defeatist. The way NBC came out so deliberately and with its rationale prepared, you get the sense that they are bracing for a storm of protest from certain segments of the population, and journalism shouldn't have to take public pressures like that into consideration.
Anyway, if that wasn't enough for you to be adequately depressed about how bad Iraq is going for us, Tim Russert pointed out the following on Meet the Press this past Sunday: "Today marks the 1,347th day of the war in Iraq, which is the exact length of direct U.S. involvement in the Second World War. Yet in Iraq, there is still no end in sight."
Pretty sobering when you put it that way. Obviously, the death tolls are nowhere near comparable, but this still is indicative of what an unforeseen (or foreseen-but-ignored) disaster this war is becoming.
Yesterday, NBC decided to announce that from now on, it would refer to the sectarian violence in Iraq as a "civil war." In other news, it announced that it would refer to four-legged animals that neigh as "horses," and the giant ball of gas that the earth revolves around as "the sun." (The sun is a giant ball of gas, or something, yes? Can we get fact-checkers on this?)
Matt Lauer, on Monday morning's Today show, said this: "For months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war. And, for the most part, news organizations like NBC have hesitated to characterize it as such. But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted -- that the situation in Iraq, with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, can now be characterized as a 'civil war.'"
I have mixed feelings. Not on the change in terminology, but on NBC's approach to changing the terminology.
On the one hand, I think this change is warranted. Many on the right (though not all, since many are coming around to the Iraq-was-a-bad-idea-camp) resist this notion that Iraq has fallen into civil war. To me, I think it is pretty obvious that the situation can be characterized as a civil war, but I also think we are arguing semantics here. We have groups that violently hate each other butchering each other each day. We can all agree on that much, right? Whether we all agree to call it sectarian violence or a civil war doesn't change much on the ground, nor should it change our approach. But in any event, it is indeed a civil war.
On the other hand, I'm sort of embarassed for the state of journalism, however, that NBC should have to unveil its characterization of the war in such a deliberate manner, in preparation for the onslaught of so right wingers eager to declare the mainstream media as defeatist. The way NBC came out so deliberately and with its rationale prepared, you get the sense that they are bracing for a storm of protest from certain segments of the population, and journalism shouldn't have to take public pressures like that into consideration.
Anyway, if that wasn't enough for you to be adequately depressed about how bad Iraq is going for us, Tim Russert pointed out the following on Meet the Press this past Sunday: "Today marks the 1,347th day of the war in Iraq, which is the exact length of direct U.S. involvement in the Second World War. Yet in Iraq, there is still no end in sight."
Pretty sobering when you put it that way. Obviously, the death tolls are nowhere near comparable, but this still is indicative of what an unforeseen (or foreseen-but-ignored) disaster this war is becoming.
posted by Matthew Jerome @ 7:49 AM
4 Comments:
At 2:30 PM,
Lauren said…
"On the other hand, I'm sort of embarassed for the state of journalism, however, that NBC should have to unveil its characterization of the war in such a deliberate manner, in preparation for the onslaught of so right wingers eager to declare the mainstream media as defeatist."
True-ish, but even if that was their motivation I still think it's necessary for them to spell it out in some way. I mean, I always hate it when the media get self-referential because it just seems so obnoxious, this is one of those awkward situations where it would have also been weird if they had not acknowledged it. Sometimes there is no good way to report something.
At 3:40 PM,
liberal journal man said…
I take the point of view of disgust at the watering down of their coverage so as to not venture where the Bush Administration hasn't yet (calling it a civil war).
If the media doesn't give us the truth, who will?
At 10:29 PM,
Dave said…
I think it was particularly pompous of Matt Lauer and NBC. It seems like they genuinely expect some great groundswell in public opinion just because they decided to call the war something different. First of all, people are generally against the war anyway. Public opinion has been shaped. Remember 11/7? Yeah, I seem to remember a ton of Democrats winning and the American people handing the Bush Administration a giant referendum on Iraq. It seems Matty Boy is a little late on this one. I've always liked Matt Lauer but it looks like he just woke up and decided to compare himself to Walter Cronkite. In that spirit, I will follow Matt's lead. From now on, I will be referring to Matt Lauer as a four-time world champion sumo wrestler. Let's see if it catches on.
At 3:15 AM,
Austin said…
I think you should link to my blog...its not to political, but I HAVE been to North Korea!
Post a Comment
<< Home