CNN Correspondant Calls Iraq War "Civil War"

[UberNeuman]

Uhm, the bitterness over losing the House and Senate still lingers.....

 

[sandorski]

It took over 2 years to call it what it is and you're concerned about Media Bias?

I recall a couple months ago when we were in WW3 and the End was nigh. Was that Good Reporting?

 

[blackllotus]

The Iraqis even call it a civil war. To claim its not is to live in denial.

For example, wikipedia puts New York City's population at around 8.2 million people. Its homicide rate is 7 out of 100,000 per year. That puts it at around 500-600 homicides per year. Compare that to Baghdad which can see death tolls of up to 100 in a single day, and its clear that Iraq is in a civil war.

 

[Rainsford]

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.

I'm not saying this applies to either the Dems or the Republicans, or even this particular political situation, but generally the reason you replace idiots with competent people isn't because the latter will fix the problems caused by the former, but because a competent person generally won't KEEP screwing things up.

Let's imagine we're talking about, say, crane operators instead of politicians. Imagine we have this one crane operator named Bob who keeps screwing up his job. He keeps dropping stuff, injuring his fellow workers and setting the project more and more behind. Bob gets fired and Joe is hired in his place. Presumably the boss doesn't expect Joe to "uninjure" the workers hurt by Bob, nor does he expect Joe to magically get the project totally back on schedule. But the boss still fired Bob and hired Joe instead, probably because, while Joe can't fix everything Bob did wrong, he probably won't make even more mistakes and make things even worse.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: 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.

Agreed. It's not like some threshold was crossed, they just grew a pair. If I were them I'd play down the fact that they had been avoiding calling it what it was for months.

 

[feralkid]

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 most Americans realized it's best not to reward incompetence.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87


Not after you showed me the light.

QQ

 

[her209]

Bush says there's no civil war yet he won't meet the PM in Iraq?

 

[Craig234]

You can't fix what Bush and the repubs did, but you can prevent them making it worse and you can make the best of it, unlike they would.

 

[judasmachine]

If a reporter calls it a civil war, who cares. They aren't the only ones anymore. Hell I heard a reporter say Gore was president, so what?

 

[Thump553]

It's extremely sad and distressing that someone could honestly (albeit naively) equate journalistic integrity with loyalty to the national government. By that standard, Nazi Germany and the USSR had the finest journalists ever.

 

[IronWing]

How dare the media not repeat the buzz words issued by the Whitehouse. Have they forgotten 9/11? I still relish "Regime Change", Shock and Awe", and "Weapons of Mass Destruction". The press needs to get behind the word of the day, that's what freedom of the press is all about, FREEDOM, FREEDOM, FREEDOM!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: feralkid

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 most Americans realized it's best not to reward incompetence.

America already did that in 2004.

Took them long enough to wake up but here's a :beer: to them finally doing it. :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

Topic Title: CNN Correspondant Calls Iraq War "Civil War"
Topic Summary: Raises questions to me about journalistic integrity

Awwwwwwww you just hate to see your heroes falter eh?

 

[Stoneburner]

Only in this warped political world can we be arguing, even discussing whether or not this is a civil war. Think about why the term civil war matters... just because it reflects poorly on the administration? So essentially we are arguing over whether the media should use language that makes an administration squeamish?


How utterly stupid. NBC had an entire report over their decision to qualify this as a civil war. Next year we'll be debating whether this should be called, "a mind bending clusterfuck of a mess"

 

[Buck Armstrong]

I think everybody with eyeballs can see that its a civil war.

 

[magomago]

We can call it a civil war...but the interesting part is that its one in which the average joe on both sides - Sunni or Shi'ite - really don't want. So its a civil war in that regard because you have two political sides each claming a school of thought within Islam- but not one in which many Sunnis are lining up or many Shi'ites are lining up for...and one in which both sides really hate those who are the driving force between this sectarian violence. I think this is something key that has to be recognized in this.

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

congress is not in charge of foreign policy.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Here's some of the extenuating circumstances:

1) The Executive branch of government continues to deny such a conflict is occurring in Iraq.

2) The same branch has vigorously attacked the press for previous 'transgressions' against the Bush League propaganda program.

3) A prominent administration mouthpiece . . . Faux News . . . is likely to toe the party line and play up their 'patriotic' support of the nation.

4) The American public (even the slow ones that vote Republican) will NOT tolerate the presence of US troops being drawn into a conflict that we cannot possibly resolve . . . unless of course we just side with the Shia.

Given the above, it seems quite reasonable to take some time to explain the how and why of OIF has become FUBAR but there was a lag in recognition and denotation . . . primarily due to politics.

Granted, I haven't seen any of TV in the past 24 hours so maybe I'm missing something.

 

[shadow9d9]

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

yeah... and under those definitions a gang is still not considered a faction.

 

[shira]

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.

Now wait just a second. The news services need to refer to what is going on in Iraq as something. If they refer to it as a "war against terrorists", THAT'S putting an editorial spin on it. If they refer to it as a "conflict", THAT'S putting a spin on it. The point being that any term used has implied editorial content.

So what is the most honest thing a serious journalist can do in a situation like this? I say use whatever terms reflect the consensus view on the what the underlying reality is. And if there is a significant minority viewpoint in opposition to the consensus, then the minority viewpoint(s) should also be reported.

In the current situation, I think "civil war" is clearly the consensus view on what is happening in Iraq. So Michael Ware's terminology is reasonable, especially since he clearly explains what the context for "civil war" is:

This is what we're talking about. We're talking about Sunni neighborhoods shelling Shia neighborhoods, and Shia neighborhoods shelling back.

We're having Sunni communities dig fighting positions to protect their streets. We're seeing Sunni extremists plunging car bombs into heavily-populated Shia marketplaces. We're seeing institutionalized Shia death squads in legitimate police and national police commando uniforms going in, systematically, to Sunni homes in the middle of the night and dragging them out, never to be seen again.

I mean, if this is not civil war, where there is, on average, 40 to 50 tortured, mutilated, executed bodies showing up on the capital streets each morning, where we have thousands of unaccounted for dead bodies mounting up every month, and where the list of those who have simply disappeared for the sake of the fact that they have the wrong name, a name that is either Sunni or Shia, so much so that we have people getting dual identity cards, where parents cannot send their children to school, because they have to cross a sectarian line, then, goodness, me, I don't want to see what a civil war looks like either if this isn't one.

And:

[Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki has no popular base. He lacks the currency of political power in this country, which is an armed militia. So he's had to beg and borrow for political capital.

He found that the U.S. military desperate to put any kind of reasonable face on this apparition that they call the Iraqi government. And meanwhile, in real political terms, he's had to draw on Muqtada's militia and its political faction to actually put him into place.

So this is a man in a terrible predicament, who is unable to deliver. And yet, we have Muqtada in this time of crisis just turning that screw.

The "non-civil war" view is that Iraq is a functioning democracy being attacked by anti-democracy forces. That viewpoint is a HUGE stretch, and to report as though that viewpoint were the reality would be enormously dishonest.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 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.

ohh...boohoo

 

[Jaskalas]

Of course it?s a civil war. It?s just that you need to realize, if you say it isn?t, that war evolved since last century. Terrorism is war. It?s the natural counter to a superior force that refuses to carpet bomb your location. So yes, the violence there constitutes a war, and it is between themselves.

The Media upping the rhetoric is merely the media being itself.

As for 2006, we?re tired of sitting on the pot. **** or get off, and the message has been clear that our leaders are too incompetent to get the job done of destroying Iraq, thereby permitting it to breed insurgency, thus the course of action was to remove the incompetence from power.

I do not like the alternative option the Dems present one bit, I?d much rather see us destroy Iraq and all the people in it who so much as look at us cross eyed. Yet no one has the will to get the job done, so without victory as an option defeat is all we have left. It?s a matter of it we lose today, or tomorrow. For the sake of our soldier?s lives, maybe it should be today.

One could say that if Bush didn?t give us a good choice, then maybe the Dems could help us lose more efficiently and that is why things turned out as they did.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Of course it?s a civil war. It?s just that you need to realize, if you say it isn?t, that war evolved since last century. Terrorism is war. It?s the natural counter to a superior force that refuses to carpet bomb your location. So yes, the violence there constitutes a war, and it is between themselves.

The Media upping the rhetoric is merely the media being itself.

As for 2006, we?re tired of sitting on the pot. **** or get off, and the message has been clear that our leaders are too incompetent to get the job done of destroying Iraq, thereby permitting it to breed insurgency, thus the course of action was to remove the incompetence from power.

I do not like the alternative option the Dems present one bit, I?d much rather see us destroy Iraq and all the people in it who so much as look at us cross eyed. Yet no one has the will to get the job done, so without victory as an option defeat is all we have left. It?s a matter of it we lose today, or tomorrow. For the sake of our soldier?s lives, maybe it should be today.

One could say that if Bush didn?t give us a good choice, then maybe the Dems could help us lose more efficiently and that is why things turned out as they did.

GrowTF up!

 

[nageov3t]

civil war vs struggle for freedom

war on terror vs global campaign against islamofacists

I did not have sexual relations with that woman

it's all semantics and double speak. why let ourselves get bogged down in the specific terminology and lose sight of the real issues?