Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
In a move that was inevitable, NBC has now started to call the civil war in Iraq a civil war. On NBC News’ ”The Daily Nightly” Brian Williams writes, “We will also reference our decision today (after much consultation over the weekend with our colleagues, fellow journalists, historians, analysts and members of the military, both present and former) to describe the fighting in Iraq as a Civil War. We believe it is a more accurate reflection of what is happening there, and there was a fair amount of reaction to the decision today... even though a number of news organizations have already made a similar call.”
Monday night’s edition of NBC Nightly News lead with the story of even more violence in Iraq. Brian Williams started the newscast by saying, “Good evening. Tonight there are moving parts on several fronts, all related to the fighting in Iraq. This begins what may be a crucial week in determining future U.S. Involvement in what has become a civil war in that country.”
A report from NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell featured the following:
Mitchell: While Washington looks for answers, the violence in Iraq is out of control. NBC News joined other news organizations in calling it a civil war.Moments later Brian Williams spoke with Chief White House Correspondent David Gregory:Michael Beschloss (NBC News Presidential Historian): If you define a civil war as a country where a lot of groups are struggling for power, Iraq is in a civil war.
Mitchell: Today the administration objected strongly to news organizations calling it a civil war. Many experts say the white house has a huge incentive to avoid that term.
It could further erode public support for keeping U.S. Troops in Iraq.
Williams: David, the traveling White House is not as interested in what to call the conflict as they are leading up to Wednesday's talks.Kudos for NBC for finally calling civil war what it is. This represents a seed change in the national broadcast media's coverage. It isn’t quite Lyndon Johnson’s "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost the country" quite yet, but it could be the beginning of the end. Since it is television, we can expect the other networks to follow shortly.Gregory: That's right, the National Security Advisor to the President said whether it is a civil war or not, there are certainly a great deal of awareness in the United States and beyond that the sectarian violence is out of control, that there is not enough progress quickly enough for the President's satisfaction. He called it a new phase where the violence has sparked and reached new heights in Iraq. A new phase of that violence the President wants to address.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Matt Lauer made the "Civil War" announcement on the Today show at 7am yesterday. Bravo. It's about time. Now let's get out of there, please.
If it is a civil war, then how does that entitle us to leave? It's an embarrassing semantic defeat for Bush, but the occupation is being obviously mismanaged anyway - that's the real problem. So if we pack up and leave in the middle of this, is that any better than having left two years ago? Or leaving two years from now and still failing to stabilize the country?
Wait until the Baker report comes out before you all start congratulating yourselves on being better than Bush. I'd ask that the new Democratic leadership might actually try to fix the Iraq situation, too, but I know that's asking for a lot. Just stick to attacking the president, because after 6 years you're finally doing a heckuva job on that...
A seed change? What are we, gardening over there? Perhaps you mean a SEA CHANGE.
This global war needs to be referred to as the "100 year war"; WWIII.
#3 Cat: *A seed change? What are we, gardening over there? Perhaps you mean a SEA CHANGE.*
“Seed change” seems to make as much sense as “sea change” to some. The use of “seed” unscores a notion of starting over (from scratch) rather than a sweeping action of the sea.
OMG Civil War in Iraq! Everybody panic!
no, "seed change" is actually wrong, whether it makes sense in your head or not.
semantics my friend, semantics.
I used "seed change" as a bit of a linguistic device to show that a new idea has been planted and will hopefully take root. It was used with intent. If you look at the full context in the final paragraph, it makes sense.
"Seed change" is hardly a neologism.
The proper term is “sea change”. Please demonstrate that you have actually received an education.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-sea1.htm
This is CRAZY!
Whats next? Will they call the sky blue? Grass Green? Rosie O'Donnell fat?
Is Mexico in civil war right now? Are there two governments claiming to be the rightful Iraqi government fighting it out for control with armies on both sides? Iraq is NOT a civil war. It is violent, there is sectarian conflict, but you have to redefine the meaning of civil war to make what is happening in Iraq a civil war.
Finally---the MSM is calling a spade a spade! No, wait---that was Michael Richards. BTW, that "seed change" malaprop reminded me of Harry Knowles saying an idea coudn't "pass the mustard". LOL!
Now if we could only get NBC to refer to the Retard-in-Chief as the Retard-in-Chief we might get some honesty back into television reporting.
I know it's fashionable and easy to insist on proof through repetition, but it doesn't make what you are saying true. Rather, a bit of basic clarity helps where insistence fails. Iraq is not in a civil war. It is suffering through a proxy war between the US on one side and Iran/Syria on the other, with AlQaeda attempting to inflame sectarian violence within that setting. I realize it's hard to give up on seeming hope that Iraq will descend into civil war, but it's not helping anyone there or here to so thoroughly mislabel the conflict.