NY Times Follows NBC's Lead: Reporters Can Call Iraq Conflict 'Civil War'

By Clay Waters (Bio | Archive)
November 28, 2006 - 12:24 ET

This morning, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller announced the paper will follow NBC's lead and allow its reporters to refer to the conflict in Iraq as a "civil war."

Keller said in a statement to Editor & Publisher:

"After consulting with our reporters in the field and the editors who directly oversee this coverage, we have agreed that Times correspondents may describe the conflict in Iraq as a civil war when they and their editors believe it is appropriate. It's hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of civil war. We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully, not to the exclusion of other formulations, not for dramatic effect. The main shortcoming of 'civil war' is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe 'civil war' should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated."

That's vindication for at least one of the Times' Baghdad-based correspondents, Edward Wong, who has been eager to call the Iraq morass a "civil war" for years.

After nearly two years of finding Iraq on the brink of "civil war" (starting with a December 2004 piece headlined "Mayhem in Iraq Is Starting to Look Like a Civil War") Wong's day has finally arrived.

Either anticipating or fostering the recent change at NBC and the Times was Wong's Sunday "news analysis," "A Matter of Definition: What Makes a Civil War, and Who Declares It So?"

Wong begins:

"Is Iraq in a civil war? Though the Bush administration continues to insist that it is not, a growing number of American and Iraqi scholars, leaders and policy analysts say the fighting in Iraq meets the standard definition of civil war."

A day later, NBC's Today show clumsily announced the change, calling attention to what it must think will become the latest "Cronkite Moment" of the Iraq war.

For more New York Times bias, visit TimesWatch.

—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Reporters in the Field

November 28, 2006 - 12:45 ET by allanf

Are these are the same reporters in the field who refuse to embed with US Troops and file their reports from hotel balconies?

ignorant

November 28, 2006 - 12:52 ET by iveseenitall

The arrogance of ignorance. Since when is a many thousand year old religious conflict a "Civil War"? Ignorant liberals run the MSM, ya think?

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

ignorant

November 28, 2006 - 12:53 ET by iveseenitall

I'm glad the Irish "Civil War" is over.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

I understand what the media i

November 28, 2006 - 13:00 ET by aero

I understand what the media is trying to do by framing the Iraq conflict as a civil war, and it's a deplorable attempt to manipulate public perceptions. But for me, it doesn't matter how many other labels you put on this thing, the only one that really matters for us is that it's a front in the War on Terror. As long as it is that, we can't walk away. There can be civil war, government coups, religious infighting, anything, but for us it's a place to fight terrorists that's not here.

It probably is a civil war, or soon will be, regardless of the label the media gives it. But so what? Here's a metaphor. Let's say there's a law enforcement unit tasked with finding and arresting drug lords in Big American City X. While they're tracking down drug lords, a gang war breaks out. Do they redefine their problem as a gang war and walk away since they're not there to deal with gang wars? Or do they keep hunting drug lords regardless of whatever other things are going on around them? Clearly, the drug lords are still there and need to be dealt with. So the law enforcement unit must stay on task and hunt drug lords, regardless of whatever else is happening on the streets of City X around them.

Same deal in Iraq. There are terrorists there that need killing. We can't leave, even if Iraq descends into a full-blown civil war. Especially if that happens.

Today I am going to make a st

November 28, 2006 - 13:52 ET by idahoguy

Today I am going to make a stunning announcement.

"After consulting with myself and a pencil in my drawer, we have agreed that I may describe the coverage provided by NBC et al as 'biased'. The main shortcoming of 'biased' is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening to the media. The media, in addition to being biased, are using faked photos, openly running enemy propaganda, shredding any pretense of journalistic integrity, freely siding with political candidates, censoring dissenting opinions, and blaming the viewers for being biased when they get called on it. We believe 'biased' should not become reductionist shorthand for a media problem that is colossally complicated."

There. My Walt Mitty moment is complete.

Why was Lamont deprived of

November 28, 2006 - 15:30 ET by JDW

Why was Lamont deprived of the 'civil war' thrill?

Islamofascism has been on the rise for years and shows absolutely no signs of stopping. Iraq is being portrayed as a 'civil war' yet D.C., where illegals kill more Americans than military die in Iraq, remains in the news media closet. Why isn't it a civil war?

What do these news media people know v. what do they want?

Which dem ever voted to defund the effort?

Who knows what is occurring in D.C.?

JDW

Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

The enemy within is at full t

November 28, 2006 - 17:35 ET by bigtimer

The enemy within is at full tilt since the election with their onward agenda...at any cost, especially the military, the President and the safety of us all...including the Iraqi people.

May they all rot in hell...

I will never forget.

I get even.

They want to see America and Iraq fail

November 28, 2006 - 18:15 ET by Placebo

They want to see America and Iraq fail, plain and simple. They're traitors of democracy. Truth means naught to these turncoats, only that America and especially Bush fails. Again, abusing freedom of speech to fit their leftist agenda... traitors!