The Daily Background

This is probably the most significant of all of the news organizations deciding to label the situation in Iraq a “Civil War” that has happened yet, or could possibly happen. The New York Times has an incredible (probably underestimated) impact on the news cycle and on the way smaller news organizations treat issues. If the Times starts calling something with a new label, other smaller organizations follow it. Whether it’s fair or not that the NYT has this much influence, it’s true. Which is why this is so important:

“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,” Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, revealed in a statement. “It’s hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of civil war. (See Ed Wong’s story on the subject in Sunday’s paper.)

“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.”

It’s safe to say that you can expect to hear the term “Civil War” used more often in the near future. You can read a list of other news organizations and notable individuals choosing to be honest about the conflict in Iraq (admitting that it is a civil war) here.

Filed under: News Media, Iraq Related, Z-TDB Blog