A week ago, I wrote about The Bee now calling the war in Iraq a “civil war” and how, of equal interest, readers didn’t seem to notice or care.
There were no calls, no letters, no e-mails, no nothing.
But that, of course, didn’t stop the masticating and kneading in the nation’s media and on the Internet over the subject as several other news outlets, from the Los Angeles Times to NBC News, also adopted the terminology.
And the questions flowed freely: Was it the right thing to do? What are the political implications in light of the Bush administration steadfastly opposing the label? Will it hurt the war effort? Will it make any difference? Will it (fill in the blank)?
In discussing whether an explanation to The Bee’s readers was necessary, the paper’s managing editor predicted many wouldn’t even notice the change, calling it an incremental step in the years-long coverage of the conflict. Readers, she said, would see it as an escalation of Iraq’s well-documented sectarian violence.
I asked readers what to make of their silence.
And by e-mail, voice mail and letters, they replied, many of them.
Most said it didn’t matter what we called the war: It was and is a mess regardless of the semantics; the mainstream press was pathetically late in recognizing what had been obvious for a long time; the media should get over itself and stop being so self-centered; the press had lost its credibility because it had played patty-cake with President Bush for too long.
A few bashed the paper and its McClatchy Newspapers Washington bureau for making the change.
Calling the conflict a civil war was a political decision based on liberal bias, said a few readers, while others contended conditions in Iraq don’t meet their definition of a civil war.
Some were long-winded, others brief one-sentence declarations. Most were articulate, thoughtful, strong and to the point. Here is a sampling of the many responses:
“If you are under the impression that readers are dumb or don’t care enough about what is going on in Iraq, let me set you straight,” said reader Grace Brown of Carmichael. “In my opinion, a civil war has been going on for some time, regardless of the lack of coverage by the mainstream media. I have other words for it. No courage, no balls, no responsibility.”
“I personally don’t care if we call the violence in Iraq a civil war or not,” Alex Landi, of Dunsmuir, wrote in his e-mail. “I have no idea what to call that mess. Whatever the level of violence is, (it) won’t be changed by our debate over terminology … Bush’s opponents are pushing the ‘civil war’ designation, and the president is resisting it. Meanwhile, the dying continues.”
“Only now is the media saying what has been long self-evident,” maintained Paul D. Buck of Antelope. “Yes even now it is said with a tone of apology. I have this picture in my head where you are cringing in the corner as you make this as a tentative thought that you want to apologize for even suggesting. Are you guys afraid of this administration?”
Wrote Bob Walden of Redding in his e-mail: “Bottom line, no matter what you call it, people are killed, maimed, terrorized, exploited.
“That no one seems to care isn’t hard to comprehend. One, we are so far removed, so unaffected in our daily routines we can’t really be bothered by the semantics of war. Two, those who do care are so impotent to effect change, the feeling is ‘what’s the use?’ Three, it’s only what you do that counts; rhetoric is especially cheap these days, ever-widening the chasm between word and deed. You want to get people’s interest and dispatch American apathy? Bring back the draft.”
Rick Davis’ message was typical of several. The reader from Elk Grove said, “There is no dispute as to the noun: war. Iraq war, the war on terror, war in the Middle East — whatever it is called, the public already knows it is a ‘war’ and that people are beating each other up with some abandon over there.
“The news in this regard is so pervasive that the choice of adjective (‘civil’ or otherwise) becomes moot. Such angst regarding semantics seems a congenital preoccupation for media talking heads, editorial boards and White House spin-meisters. However, I suspect most people simply don’t care what we call it. Just get the (darn) job done!”
A few readers said it was wrong to label the conflict a civil war and that it was just another example of the media’s bias against Bush.
“There has been so much Bush bashing by the liberal media that people just accept it (the civil war label) as another ploy of the media to further its agenda, therefore they, too, are not going to question it,” said Ed Evans of Roseville. “I am of the opinion that McClatchy Newspapers got it wrong. I believe the war has evolved into a ‘sectarian war’ because of the many different factions fighting each other for control of Iraq. If you take the American troops out of the equation, that is exactly what it would be.”
And Tony Rohl of Grass Valley wrote: “When the American civil war began, southern representatives in Washington left to form a separate government, the Confederacy. In Iraq, the members of all the disparate parties are still represented in their (government), including Shiites, Sunnis and even Al Sadr’s Martyr Brigade. For that reason, the conflict in Iraq cannot be called a civil war. The requisites are not there, nor is the media’s awareness of the difference.”
As I said earlier, the responses did not lack for candor and strong opinion.
What I find heartening is that, when asked, The Bee’s readers are more than willing to respond to questions about what their newspaper is doing, good or bad. In this case, their initial silence was an illusion.
