MSNBC Classifies Civil War in Iraq

Not that I really care if they call it civil war or not, but who gave the right to MSNBC to classify wars and battles? Seems another stab by the media in thier belief that they are the self-appointed fourth wing of the government. Can't they get out of the politics of things and go back to reporting?

That's what irks about me in the media too. When I was waiting for a plane during my Fall Break, Headline News interviewed a soldier/analyst who said that Iraq is not going through a civil war because 4 out of the 18 provinces are claimed to be danger zones; the conflict wasn't big enough to result in something that catastrophic yet. I'm still leery about the prospects, but the media does take a minor issue and make it sound major. I just hate that tactic.

Btw, I still don't trust the news and still regard C-SPAN's Congress and Senate sessions as fair and balanced.

it seems to me that calling a spade a spade is actually good journalism.

just who gets to decided when this mess is a civil war, the Iraqi government, W?

i saw an interview with gen. abizaid last night. he said that iraq was as close to a civil war as you can get. i tend to believe abizaid.

EdelBrock wrote: Not that I really care if they call it civil war or not, but who gave the right to MSNBC to classify wars and battles? Seems another stab by the media in thier belief that they are the self-appointed fourth wing of the government. Can't they get out of the politics of things and go back to reporting?

Who should classify it then?

Nooligan /Comrade;

I have no issue calling a spade a spade, or good HONEST journalism, but this is not the case.

First, the call should be either on the Iraqi government -or- the UN.

Why? Because claiming "civil war" has alot more implications than simply stating a time of chaos in a country. It effects the trade and aide they recieve. It puts the governement of that country in question, and who wants to loan large amounts of money that has alarge possibility to collapse? It also gives the fighting guerrilas, insurgents, etc. notice for thier cause and recognises them as a formible force, giving more backing to thier cause. And there are far greater implications that I possibly can't comprehend.

It has LARGE political implications that simply MSNBC doesn't give two shits about. They are in it for the marketing, that they were the first to do it.....everyone is gearing up to be the next Walter Cronkite for the War in Iraq. "We were the ones to report to you first.....".

The media is getting more bold as time goes on, and in effect THEY are defining the country....not simply reporting on it. Worse off they don't put in any considerations in what aftermath they will create in reporting issues and how they report. It's the gross irresposiblity of the Press I'm upset about.

calling something other than what it is, is called propaganda and not journalism.

NOOLigan wrote: calling something other than what it is, is called propaganda and not journalism.

And since neither reigning authorities, the Iraqi government -or- the UN, have not stated this....propoganda is exactly what MSNBC is spreading.

Well, without putting too much thought into this, it seems to me that it might be in the interest of the Iraqi government to deny the on-the-ground reality. As far as the UN, I have no idea what the legalities are or are not necessary for declaring civil war, so I shouldn't comment on that, although what you're saying doesn't seem unreasonable.

But Kofi Annan is saying that Iraq is close to civil war...

And I do think it's reasonable for analysts-- even analysts employed by the media-- to give their opinions in their field of expertise (assuming their opinions are "professional opinion" and not "personal opinion.").

EdelBrock wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: calling something other than what it is, is called propaganda and not journalism.

And since neither reigning authorities, the Iraqi government -or- the UN, have not stated this....propoganda is exactly what MSNBC is spreading.

the denial of truth also is propaganda.

oh i give up. man you were there. you didn't happen to see the outbreak of peace between the Sunnies and Shiites?

believe what you want to.

those damn liberal media conspiracies, the bastards... the right wing would never use labels and play games

it pretty much is a civil war, thou neither group really is in charge but they see that things may change, and they are fighting for position... plus they fucking hate each other and they both hate the Americans, label it however it is pretty much a war of something or other

why can the right wing pundants use labels and rhetoric but if a more central news agency/ group tries to have an opinion it is some sort of dishonest ploy? if Fox can do their B.S., why can't MSNBC have their own take? I just don't follow this logic

And as it turns out, it is professional opinion...

NBC brands Iraq conflict 'civil war Pronouncement to increase public dismay over troop presence, analysts say Reuters Updated: 1:23 p.m. PT Nov 27, 2006

WASHINGTON - NBC News Monday branded the Iraq conflict a civil war — a decision that put it at odds with the White House and that analysts said would increase public disillusionment with the U.S. troop presence there.

NBC said the Iraqi government's inability to stop spiraling violence between rival factions fit its definition of civil war.

The Bush administration has for months declined to call the violence a civil war — although the U.S. general overseeing the Iraq operation said in August there was a risk — and a White House official Monday disputed NBC's assessment.

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said while the situation on the ground is serious, neither President Bush nor Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki believe it is a civil war.

Democrats used NBC's decision to accuse the White House of "splitting hairs."

"The American people want their leaders in Washington to tell the truth and find a solution to the problems in Iraq," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Stacie Paxton. "No amount of spin on the part of the Bush White House can prevent news organizations and independent observers from calling the war ... what it is: a civil war."

Several analysts said NBC's decision was important as the administration would face more pressure to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq if the U.S. public comes to view the conflict as a civil war.

The decision "certainly is a major milestone," said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "That does change the terminology and is likely to change the perspective of viewers, and one suspects other media outlets will sooner or later follow suit."

Public weariness with the conflict — which has has now lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II — helped Democrats take control of Congress from Bush's Republican Party in Nov. 7 elections.

Americans killed 'accidentally,' Iraqis 'on purpose' Analysts said Americans would not tolerate U.S. troops being used as referees between warring Iraqi factions.

"It almost looks as if the Americans who are getting killed are getting killed almost accidentally, while the Iraqis are getting killed on purpose," said Stephen Hess, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University.

Sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq has increased dramatically in the past week. Multiple bombings in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad on Thursday killed more than 200 people and drew reprisal attacks in Sunni neighborhoods.

Jordan's King Abdullah said on Sunday that civil war was looming in Iraq and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned Monday that the country was nearly in civil war.

Bush and Maliki are scheduled to meet in Jordan this week to discuss ways to stem the violence.

Experts differ on how to define a civil war and which conflicts fall into that category. While Shiites and Sunnis are not organized into formal armies, the rising level of sectarian violence has led many to conclude that a de facto civil war is under way.

"It's getting silly for the administration or anyone else to deny there's a civil war," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who said the February bombing of a Shiite shrine marked the transition from an anti-American insurgency to civil war.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, said he does not believe the country has yet descended into civil war because most of the population is not involved in the violence.

But he said: "The bottom line on the American role is it will leave if it feels it has to take sides in order to continue operating in Iraq."

Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. military operations in the Middle East, told Congress in August that "the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war." Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15921476/ © 2006 MSNBC.com

Also note that one of the analysts calling this a civil war is retired General Barry McCaffrey...

Ok, those are nice postings, but in the end it needs to be the Iraqi governement -or- the UN to state this. If Kofi Annan is already stating it's getting close to civil war, then it probably means he is close to officially stating it. There is no reason for the media to beat it to the punch; except to have the "I claimed it first" sticker.

This is pure irresponsibility of the Press which has no cares on the effects of thier announcement.

....and Pumped, this has nothing to do with left/right wing .....it's about the media.

EdelBrock wrote: Ok, those are nice postings, but in the end it needs to be the Iraqi governement -or- the UN to state this.

That's your personal opinion--as distinct from professional opinion-- not fact. The reason I posted the links is because you didn't, which made the premise of this thread misleading.

If Kofi Annan is already stating it's getting close to civil war, then it probably means he is close to officially stating it. There is no reason for the media to beat it to the punch; except to have the "I claimed it first" sticker.

This is pure irresponsibility of the Press which has no cares on the effects of thier announcement.

As they said in the article, the conflict in Iraq meets their definition of civil war, and is based on the professional judgment of their analysts, including General McCaffrey. The fact that it may not meet the White House definition of civil war doesn't invalidate it.

if you get hit run over by a car, did it only happen if you read about it in the paper?

Well, where do you draw the line if one news station has an analyst saying that we're not in a civil war and one that does? If there's an inconsistency in the way the news is reported, something fishy is going on... I think that there has to be at least a concensus in the international community, not just America.

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: Well, where do you draw the line if one news station has an analyst saying that we're not in a civil war and one that does?

It's a public debate then.... Which is what we should have had before we went to war in Iraq.

If there's an inconsistency in the way the news is reported, something fishy is going on... I think that there has to be at least a concensus in the international community, not just America.

Ah, but that's what the international community said before W invaded Iraq.

I've got a question... where's Hans Blix been?

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I've got a question... where's Hans Blix been?

i've got another question: who, exactly is the iraqi 'government'?

AgentWood wrote:

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I've got a question... where's Hans Blix been?

i've got another question: who, exactly is the iraqi 'government'?

Well if it's anything like the afghan govt, it'll be a bunch of ex-enron and oil company execs.

Doctor? wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I've got a question... where's Hans Blix been?

i've got another question: who, exactly is the iraqi 'government'?

Well if it's anything like the afghan govt, it'll be a bunch of ex-enron and oil company execs.

my ex what

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: That's what irks about me in the media too. When I was waiting for a plane during my Fall Break, Headline News interviewed a soldier/analyst who said that Iraq is not going through a civil war because 4 out of the 18 provinces are claimed to be danger zones; the conflict wasn't big enough to result in something that catastrophic yet. I'm still leery about the prospects, but the media does take a minor issue and make it sound major. I just hate that tactic.

Btw, I still don't trust the news and still regard C-SPAN's Congress and Senate sessions as fair and balanced.

the american civil war didn't take place in all states but was still call a civil war.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: The reason I posted the links is because you didn't, which made the premise of this thread misleading.

Understand your reasoning, and maybe I should have posted a news article. In my defense I saw it on CNN; Fox; and local news.

As they said in the article, the conflict in Iraq meets their definition of civil war, and is based on the professional judgment of their analysts, including General McCaffrey. The fact that it may not meet the White House definition of civil war doesn't invalidate it.

But who are they to make the announcement? They are a reporting agency, not a political agency. So it meets their definition....whoopdeedo.....they have credible analysts...and Annan doesn't?

Maybe there is a reason Annan and the rest of the UN hasn't stated that there is a civil war.....I trust thier judgement over the media.

(and where did the White house enter discussion? I never stated Bush should state whether or not it is a civil war)

EdelBrock wrote: Nooligan /Comrade;

I have no issue calling a spade a spade, or good HONEST journalism, but this is not the case.

First, the call should be either on the Iraqi government -or- the UN.

Come on, the Iraqi government hardly qualifies as an impartial judge! That would be like leaving it to Bush to decide if the US was politically divided, or for Blair to decide if the UK economy was doing well, etc. The Iraq government would be an active participant in any such civil war, if it existed (different factions being on different sides).

The UN isn't a whole lot better. Journalists are free to call it a civil war if that's what they think it is. Everyone else is free to decide based on the evidence. It's clearly a f***ing disaster, that's for sure.

Not that the media is perfect by any means, but I have just as much reason, if not more, to mistrust government authorities than I do the media.

The media's responsibility is not to repeat what the government says. Its responsibility is to report the truth the way journalists see it, whether it agrees with stated government policies or not. Seeing as there's not hard and fast rule defining when a conflict is a "civil war" it becomes a matter of who is reporting it. Apparently NBC's observations have led them to believe it's bad enough to call it that.

Like the above poster said... call a spade a spade. That's their job, and it's the only one they have. They have no responsibility to any government authorities, nor should they.

AgentWood wrote:

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I've got a question... where's Hans Blix been?

i've got another question: who, exactly is the iraqi 'government'?

I have yet another question: WHAT ON EARTH ARE THESE PUS-FILLED SORES ON MY BELL-END, AND WHICH IRRESPONSIBLE MEMBER OF THE MEDIA PUT THEM THERE?????

And also: WHY HAS CIVIL WAR BROKEN OUT ON MY SCROTUM???

Doctor Clayhead wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I've got a question... where's Hans Blix been?

i've got another question: who, exactly is the iraqi 'government'?

I have yet another question: WHAT ON EARTH ARE THESE PUS-FILLED SORES ON MY BELL-END, AND WHICH IRRESPONSIBLE MEMBER OF THE MEDIA PUT THEM THERE?????

And also: WHY HAS CIVIL WAR BROKEN OUT ON MY SCROTUM???

You ARE from STOKE,no?

ROCKET MICK wrote:

Doctor Clayhead wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

[magenta]shedmonite61[/magenta] wrote: I've got a question... where's Hans Blix been?

i've got another question: who, exactly is the iraqi 'government'?

I have yet another question: WHAT ON EARTH ARE THESE PUS-FILLED SORES ON MY BELL-END, AND WHICH IRRESPONSIBLE MEMBER OF THE MEDIA PUT THEM THERE?????

And also: WHY HAS CIVIL WAR BROKEN OUT ON MY SCROTUM???

You ARE from STOKE,no?

Good answer, Michael - that's 10 points and a bonus question:

IF MY POTTERIES-BASED GENITAL PROBLEMS ARE BAD, HOW MUCH WORSE WOULD THEY BE IF I WAS FROM CORBY?