DISPATCHES by Hank Kalet: A matter of language

What’s in a name? Apparently, quite a bit.

By: Hank Kalet
   It’s taken a while, but the language is catching up to the reality on the ground in Iraq.
   Several major news organizations said this week that they will begin using the phrase "civil war" to describe the sectarian violence that has thrown Iraq into chaos, contradicting the Bush administration and its six-year assault on what members of the Bush team have called "the reality-based community."
   Matt Lauer and Brian Williams on Monday announced that NBC news would now refer to the violence as a civil war, news that was followed later on Monday by The New York Times’ decision to begin using the phrase, along with several others, in connection to Iraq.
   The reason, Times Editor Bill Keller said in a statement issued Monday, is that it is "hard to argue that this war does not fit the generally accepted definition of civil war."
   Mr. Lauer offered a similar explanation:
   "For months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into civil war. And for the most part, news organizations, like NBC, have hesitated to characterize it as such," he said. "But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided the change in terminology is warranted — that the situation in Iraq, with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas, can now be characterized as civil war."
   The administration, of course, disagrees. It issued a statement on Monday disputing the characterization, saying "the violence is largely centered around Baghdad," adding that the president had planned to discuss "Baghdad security and the increased training of Iraqi security forces" when he met with the Iraqi prime minister Wednesday.
   The Washington Post continues to hold back, resisting the "civil war" label, though it has resorted to some verbal gymnastics to explain itself.
   Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, told Editor & Publisher that it has no policy.
   "We just describe what goes on everyday," he said. "We don’t have a policy about it. We are not making judgments one way or another. The language in the stories is very precise when dealing with it. At various times people say it is ‘close to a civil war,’ but we don’t have a policy about it."
   Even if, as Post reporter Dan Priest admitted to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" Monday, the "level of violence equals a civil war."
   Most of the news organizations covering Iraq had been using the same sort of arguments in avoiding the characterization, but the elaborate edifice began to crumble several months ago. The McClatchy Group newspapers — which includes The Philadelphia Inquirer — has been using the phrase "civil war" for several months, while The Los Angeles Times has come to the phrase a bit more recently.
   But none of the other news organizations created a stir quite like NBC’s announcement, which has been likened in news accounts, such as one Tuesday in The Boston Globe, to previous media turning points, such as "CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite’s declaration in 1968 that the United States was losing the Vietnam War — a pronouncement now considered a turning point in public opinion."
   Back in 1968, the public at large (as opposed to an antiwar movement made up primarily of college-age protesters) was just beginning to view the Vietnam War in a negative light. An assertion of that sort from someone like Mr. Cronkite — then the most trusted man on TV if not in America — had a tremendous impact on public opinion.
   This comparison is interesting on the surface, but not necessarily accurate. While Mr. Cronkite may have led the shift in outlook, NBC, the Times and the other organizations now using "civil war" are not leading but following.
   As far back as April, polls were starting to show that a majority of Americans believed Iraq was in civil war. And the numbers have been increasing: An April poll conducted by The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg poll found that 56 percent of respondents believed Iraq was already in a civil war, while 65 percent of respondents in a September CNN poll believed the same thing.
   A more tangible proof, of course, was the Nov. 7 election in which the party most responsible for the mess in Iraq was tossed out of its Congressional majority and replaced by a crew of candidates promising a new direction.
   It is the American public that has led on this issue, forcing a press corps that had been too willing to let the Bush administration set the terms of debate to finally look reality in the face.
Hank Kalet is managing editor of the South Brunswick Post and The Cranbury Press. He can be reached via e-mail, or through his weblog, Channel Surfing.