David Carr, on the media’s increasing use of the term “civil war” to describe the situation in Iraq:
On closer inspection, what seems like a bold, transgressive step by the media is considerably less. It is not a coincidence that some members of the mainstream media were only willing to attempt to redefine the terms of the current debate after a massive electoral setback to the current administration.
. . .
The willingness to use âcivil warâ now is less a brave declaration than a wet, sensitive finger in the wind because mainstream media is much more likely to follow, than lead, political debate.
Carr’s own paper, the New York Times, isn’t quite there yet. Editor Bill Keller still has a moistened digit held out testing the air currents:
âI bristle at the way a low-grade semantic argument has become â at least among the partisan cud-chewers â a substitute for serious discussion of whatâs happening in Iraq and what to do about it. . . . maybe this argument is a symptom of intellectual fatigue in the punditocracy. Donât get me wrong, obviously I believe words matter. We try to choose them carefully. Sometimes our choices cause offense.â
Meanwhile, Kofi Annan says it’s a civil war, and worse than Lebanon was at its most chaotic.
