A new front has opened in the linguistic battle over coverage of the war in Iraq. The debate centers on this question: Should the news media come right out and call it a “civil war”?
Over the last few months, the Los Angeles Times and Sacramento Bee have said yes. NBC did the same with an announcement in prime time. Others are sure to adopt the wording.
So I have been asked: Should The Chronicle? At first glance, the answer seems simple. Sure. Why not? Yet I’m resolutely ambivalent even though my fence-sitting has little to do with whether I think the war has devolved into widespread civil conflict.
Just about any neutral reading of just about any dictionary compels the conclusion that the attack-and-answer violence and deepening divisions in Iraq meet a definition of civil war. Consider the rapidly rising numbers of deaths among Shiites and Sunnis, not to mention injuries, intimidation and other signs of factionalism. Think of the words “Iraq” and “sectarian” — and the next one that comes to mind surely will be “violence.”
Chronicle staff writer Anna Badkhen addressed the issue as long as eight months ago.
“Heavily armed private militias routinely clash; suicide bombers kill civilians every day; each side sets fire to the other’s mosques, expels families from their homes, and slaughters each other; and the central government seems powerless to stop the violence,” she wrote on March 12. Several of the experts she consulted said that civil war had become a reality.
So today, with chaos spreading and death counts rising and no indication of a turnaround, why should The Chronicle not just call it that by default? I can think of a couple of reasons:
– It oversimplifies. The violence in Iraq has the hallmarks of civil war, but there’s more to it than that. In much of Iraq, the United States is seen as an occupier, a trigger for insurgency. In its report released Wednesday, the Iraq Study Group cited polling that says 61 percent of Iraqis approve of violence against U.S.-led forces. Further, in uncertain proportions, there are jihadists, criminals and foreign fighters.
– There’s danger in labels. When a newspaper uses shorthand to describe a situation, the message it intends to send isn’t always the message received. Ordinary terms, such as liberal and conservative have vastly different meanings depending on your political vantage. Likewise, “civil war” carries a lot of political baggage. President Bush avoids it because it implies Iraq isn’t the crucible of worldwide terrorism that he’d like you to think it is. Anti-war forces welcome the tag because it weakens the argument for American involvement — if it’s civil war, it’s an internal matter and the United States should just get out. Yet that cuts both ways: Calling it a civil war also can provide political cover for a military adventure that didn’t work out.
Managing Editor Robert J. Rosenthal said The Chronicle has no plans to label the war, but “to use as much detail as possible to inform readers of the situation there.”
On his blog, “The Ross Report,” Chronicle Executive Foreign and National Editor Andrew S. Ross wondered whether “civil war” was simply inadequate to describe the “carnage-filled hell” that is Iraq today.
His posting prompted 49 comments, many of them devoted to semantic debate over the meaning and implication of “civil war.”
(Read the blog at: www.sfgate.com)
Finally, readers don’t need The Chronicle to make the call. If academics, the military, the United Nations or even George W. Bush decide to call it civil war, that’s news and the paper should report it. Otherwise, let readers interpret for themselves.
In fact, Americans seem to have done just that without prompting from the media.
A Harris Poll of 2,429 U.S. adults conducted in mid-November found that 68 percent believed that Iraq was currently in a state of civil war. Fourteen percent disagreed, while 18 percent were unsure.
Chalk it up as a minor victory for the “give me the facts and let me decide for myself” view of journalism.
