CNN Correspondant Calls Iraq War "Civil War"

[astrosfan90]

Text

So don't get me wrong, I'm not entirely in disagreement with the reporter in question. That said, his job is not to share with me his personal opinions on the stories. In this case, he's offering his personal opinion and not reporting the news, and to me that's a breach of journalistic integrity and reporting the story in an objective manner.

What are your feelings on this? I guess I feel that it would have been more appropriate coming from Lou Dobbs' mouth (or in this case, Kitty Pilgrim) than the "journalist" who is supposed to give us the facts. It's one thing to report that "General X calls Iraq 'civil war'" or to report that some NY Times op-ed guy has done the same--it's entirely another to become part of the story by classifying it as such yourself.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Text

So don't get me wrong, I'm not entirely in disagreement with the reporter in question. That said, his job is not to share with me his personal opinions on the stories. In this case, he's offering his personal opinion and not reporting the news, and to me that's a breach of journalistic integrity and reporting the story in an objective manner.

What are your feelings on this? I guess I feel that it would have been more appropriate coming from Lou Dobbs' mouth (or in this case, Kitty Pilgrim) than the "journalist" who is supposed to give us the facts. It's one thing to report that "General X calls Iraq 'civil war'" or to report that some NY Times op-ed guy has done the same--it's entirely another to become part of the story by classifying it as such yourself.

Ummm it is a civil war. Its not opinion its fact.

 

[Narmer]

Are you kidding? Are you waiting for somebody in high office to call it that before it's officially known as a civil war? The civil war really went into high gear after that bombing of the blue mosque in February, which was the intentions of the insurgents. But there's no real date as to when it officially started.

Since you need somebody to hold your hand, here's a definition of a civil war:
link

a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

There you have it, we have Sunnis fighting Shi'ites.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess it depends on how controversial a subject is. I do agree that reporters should be very reluctant to inject their own personal opinion into what they say. God, I wish that they would be more reluctant. I guess that's what you get when CNN and everyone else try to FOX-ify themselves though.

In this case however, he is there in Iraq, he has firsthand experience in what is going on... and he has gotten a lot of his information directly from the Iraqis that are in the middle of this 'conflict'. I think that this makes what he says an intellectually valid report on the topic at hand.

 

[Genx87]

NBC made a big deal about this over the weekend. They act like this is the first time any news organization has brought this up. Matt Lauer actually said with a straight face we decided to use this phrase for the first time this weekend. I have been hearing the media throw this around for at least 12 months, probably longer. It must be a slow week in jounalism so why not make news eh?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Are you kidding? Are you waiting for somebody in high office to call it that before it's officially known as a civil war? The civil war really went into high gear after that bombing of the blue mosque in February, which was the intentions of the insurgents. But there's no real date as to when it officially started.

Since you need somebody to hold your hand, here's a definition of a civil war:
link

a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

There you have it, we have Sunnis fighting Shi'ites.

Well I think it should be a little more defined than that, otherwise we have civil war all over our country when gangs or factions fight over turf.

 

[astrosfan90]

Originally posted by: Genx87
NBC made a big deal about this over the weekend. They act like this is the first time any news organization has brought this up. Matt Lauer actually said with a straight face we decided to use this phrase for the first time this weekend. I have been hearing the media throw this around for at least 12 months, probably longer. It must be a slow week in jounalism so why not make news eh?

Yeah, I guess that's more my issue here. Like I said above, I agree that it's degraded to civil war.

What I take issue with is the fact that CNN, and also apparently NBC (I missed that one) are becoming the story by making a show of reporting it.

I'm not really sure at what point it becomes appropriate to call it a civil war, honestly. But the media should be among the last to join the bandwagon of calling it that, as it's not their job to classify events, it's their job to tell us about them with as few qualifiers and descriptors as possible. And in this case, I feel like CNN and NBC are letting us down.

 

[Genx87]

Well yeah, I mean they dont have a lot of disasters to report on now.

The democrats took control and the global warming super hurricane x12 season never happened.

I guess time to bring the Iraq war out of the closet to drum up the ratings.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer
Are you kidding? Are you waiting for somebody in high office to call it that before it's officially known as a civil war? The civil war really went into high gear after that bombing of the blue mosque in February, which was the intentions of the insurgents. But there's no real date as to when it officially started.

Since you need somebody to hold your hand, here's a definition of a civil war:
link

a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

There you have it, we have Sunnis fighting Shi'ites.

Well I think it should be a little more defined than that, otherwise we have civil war all over our country when gangs or factions fight over turf.

Gangs are not political factions. They are a criminal enterprise. But if you still disagree with dictionary.com, why don't you try to formulate an apolitical definition that we can all use as a reference.

But I doubt you'll be able to do that. What I think the OP is looking for is someone like Bush to tell him is in civil war, then he'll expect the media to follow like lemmings. This is not unlike the time when Bush decided to call suicide bombers homicide bombers and fox ran with it. Such stupidity.

 

[Ronstang]

Don't worry, the Democrats are going to fix everything. They just need a little time. All will be well.

 

[Genx87]

The 2nd and 3rd definition from your link states "A war between factions or regions of the same country." It doesnt have to be political to be considered a civil war by that definition.

Now you can go ahead and disagree with your own link if you like, be my guest.

In case you dont understand what a faction is Faction

 

[tomywishbone]

It's not Civil War, it's just a misunderstanding. I maintain, the US must stay the course.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The 2nd and 3rd definition from your link states "A war between factions or regions of the same country." It doesnt have to be political to be considered a civil war by that definition.

Now you can go ahead and disagree with your own link if you like, be my guest.

In case you dont understand what a faction is Faction

Don't try to have such a narrow definition because it does everyone a disservice. You know damn well that there's a serious conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq right now and the US isn't/can't do anything about it because these two groups are bent on fighting each other. Call it what you want, or you can wait until Bush calls it what you want, but reality states that there's a war going on right now between two major tribes/political factions in Iraq.

Civil War, Internecine conflict, it's all the same thing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87
The 2nd and 3rd definition from your link states "A war between factions or regions of the same country." It doesnt have to be political to be considered a civil war by that definition.

Now you can go ahead and disagree with your own link if you like, be my guest.

In case you dont understand what a faction is Faction

Don't try to have such a narrow definition because it does everyone a disservice. You know damn well that there's a serious conflict between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq right now and the US isn't/can't do anything about it because these two groups are bent on fighting each other. Call it what you want, or you can wait until Bush calls it what you want, but reality states that there's a war going on right now between two major tribes/political factions in Iraq.

Civil War, Internecine conflict, it's all the same thing.

Well this is something new to P&N forum, somebody who posts a link complaining their own link has a narrow view.

As for the civil war in Iraq, I have believed there has been a lower lvl fight going on for years and has ramped up significantly in the last couple of months. People can call it whatever they want, I just think it is funny the major news media acting like they calling it a civil war is a worthy story in of itself.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Don't worry, the Democrats are going to fix everything. They just need a little time. All will be well.

You can't fix the clusterfuck Bush created.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Don't worry, the Democrats are going to fix everything. They just need a little time. All will be well.

You can't fix the clusterfuck Bush created.

Then why did we elect democrats if they are incapable? Might as well have gone with the same old status quo.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Narmer


Don't try to have such a narrow definition

Lol, it is your definition that you posted from your link.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
It's not Civil War, it's just a misunderstanding. I maintain, the US must stay the course.

See all those dead bodies in the Iraqi morgues they just magically appeared there over night. Must be a Dem conspiracy I tell you because they said so on Fox!

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Don't worry, the Democrats are going to fix everything. They just need a little time. All will be well.

You can't fix the clusterfuck Bush created.

Then why did we elect democrats if they are incapable? Might as well have gone with the same old status quo.

Because having the same assholes who won't adapt to or listen to new ideas gets old fast. People want change even if it means eventually leaving. They don't want the same old, same old..bullshit. Why would voters even think of rewarding the drones who created this mess ? Seriously are you that blind ?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Ronstang
Don't worry, the Democrats are going to fix everything. They just need a little time. All will be well.

You can't fix the clusterfuck Bush created.

Then why did we elect democrats if they are incapable? Might as well have gone with the same old status quo.

Because having the same assholes who won't adapt to or listen to new ideas gets old fast. People want change even if it means eventually leaving. They don't want the same old, same old..bullshit. Why would voters even think of rewarding the drones who created this mess ? Seriously are you that blind ?

Not after you showed me the light.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer


Don't try to have such a narrow definition

Lol, it is your definition that you posted from your link.

The first definition called it a political conflict. Subsequent definitions gave more narrow definitions and that's the one he ran with.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer


Don't try to have such a narrow definition

Lol, it is your definition that you posted from your link.

The first definition called it a political conflict. Subsequent definitions gave more narrow definitions and that's the one he ran with.

This is kind of funny, what is more narrow and well defined ,"faction" or "Political Faction"?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer


Don't try to have such a narrow definition

Lol, it is your definition that you posted from your link.

The first definition called it a political conflict. Subsequent definitions gave more narrow definitions and that's the one he ran with.

This is kind of funny, what is more narrow and well defined ,"faction" or "Political Faction"?

Well, if you look in ANY dictionary, you usually get the most popular definition and more esoteric ones later. Tell me, which is the better definition?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer


Don't try to have such a narrow definition

Lol, it is your definition that you posted from your link.

The first definition called it a political conflict. Subsequent definitions gave more narrow definitions and that's the one he ran with.

This is kind of funny, what is more narrow and well defined ,"faction" or "Political Faction"?

Well, if you look in ANY dictionary, you usually get the most popular definition and more esoteric ones later. Tell me, which is the better definition?

They all have their own qualities and neither is absolute or better than the rest.
I find it hilarious you call your own link narrow. Lets see how much more we can get that foot in your mouth tonight

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer


Don't try to have such a narrow definition

Lol, it is your definition that you posted from your link.

The first definition called it a political conflict. Subsequent definitions gave more narrow definitions and that's the one he ran with.

This is kind of funny, what is more narrow and well defined ,"faction" or "Political Faction"?

Well, if you look in ANY dictionary, you usually get the most popular definition and more esoteric ones later. Tell me, which is the better definition?

They all have their own qualities and neither is absolute or better than the rest.
I find it hilarious you call your own link narrow. Lets see how much more we can get that foot in your mouth tonight

I give you a definition from my link. You give me a definition that was buried down the page. I accuse you of being narrow in your mindset because you wanted to generalize the subject so much so that it had no meaning, which basically means that you wanted to look every which way but straight. With that, you could easily say "look, there's really nothing to define the current situation, let's move on."

By narrow I meant narrow-minded.