'Civil War' Campaign Against the Post

Yes, there are people who think the Post isn't negative enough about the war in Iraq, and as one example of persistence or obsession there's a campaign to force the paper to describe violence in Iraq as a "civil war." The goal being, of course, to undermine support for victory speak truth to power.

I can't tell you if the campaign is being conducted by a single person, a small group, or your generic Multicontinental Trilateral Masonic All-Seeing Eye. But I can tell you Woe Unto A Live Chat Host. In the last few days, every live chat I've checked that's remotely connected to the issue includes a commenter asking why the Post won't call sectarian violence a civil war.

To wit:

Post Politics Hour with Dan Balz, July 10 (11 a.m.):

Washington, D.C.: There is a horrifying story on The Post's front page from Post reporters Partlow and Izzi. They report on the emergence of sectarian death squads in Baghdad and the escalating religious violence.

Given the situation reported in today's Post is it now possible for political reporters to determine that there is a 'Civil War' going on in Iraq?

To this reader, it sure looks like a civil war, but I am not sure what is needed for the fourth estate to pin that label onto the Iraq situation.

What are your criteria? Does this need 'official spokesman certification?

Thanks in advance.

Critiquing the Press with Howard Kurtz, July 10 (1 p.m.)

Fairfax, Va.: Today's online Post headline refers to Sectarian Violence in Iraq, not Civil War violence. What is the meaning of Sectarian violence and how is it different from Civil War violence?

Post Politics Hour with John Harris, July 11 (11 a.m.):

Washington, D.C.: Thanks for taking my question.

There was a horrifying story on The Post's front page yesterday from Post reporters Partlow and Izzi. They report on the emergence of sectarian death squads in Baghdad and the escalating religious violence.

A telling statistic I heard on the radio yesterday put the annualized rate of killing in Baghdad at reached 16,000. If this isn't a 'Civil War' what is?

Given the situation in Iraq is it now possible for political reporters to determine that there is a 'Civil War' going on in Iraq and re-label it appropriately?

To this reader, it sure looks like a civil war, but I am not sure what is needed for the fourth estate to pin that label onto the Iraq situation.

What are your criteria? Does this need 'official spokesman certification?

Thanks in advance.

Opinion Focus with Eugene Robinson, July 11 (1 p.m.) and my personal favorite:

Richmond, Va.: I keep asking The Post political chatters to answer this question, but it doesn't get answered. Why is it so difficult for the MSM to label what is going on in Iraq now a civil war? The administration, of course, can't label it a civil war because it profoundly upends every reason we were supposedly were there in the first place, but surely this IS a civil war, and the MSM seems to follow the administration's desire not to label it as such rather than leading with the realities.

Post Politics Hour with Michael Abramowtiz, July 12:

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Out of curiosity, how would The Washington Post ever arrive at the conclusion that Iraq is in a civil war? Obviously, this is not how the Administration would want it described. However, with scholars and analysts calling it a civil war, noting that increasingly Iraqis are killing each other via sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing, it's getting difficult to figure out what else to call it.

and later in the same chat:

Fairfax, Va.: "...leave it to others to say what it adds up to" regarding why The Post is not using the term Civil War in its headlines. Who are the "others" you are talking about, your editors, headline writers? Isn't this more evidence that most of The Post political journalists are in fact the Administration lapdogs they are increasingly accused of being? God forbid you should tell things like they are and in the process help undermine the Administration's story that the Iraq occupation is a war on terror.

To paraphrase, the Posties' answers range from "What difference does it make" to "We report, you decide," so I won't include them here. But after this last one, Michael Abramowitz said:

I am getting a lot of questions on this, and I frankly am a bit mystified. The American press has done a great job describing conditions in Iraq. No one is under any illusions about the level of violence in Baghdad and the sectarian strife that is going on.

Don't be mystified my friend. The Civil War Collective will keep asking this question until somebody, or possibly everybody, answers it.

Hat tip to Newsbusters' Greg Sheffield, who quoted the Robinson chat and got me thinking.