About That Iraq ‘Civil War’
05 December 2006 9:10 am by Taylor Marsh
About That Iraq “Civil War”
I got an email earlier this morning from Eric Boehlert, who wrote the amazing
“Lapdogs,” which is about the corporate media hack pack. When I read the attached
information all I could do was shake my head.
The boys and girls of the media have been quick to pounce on the recent pronouncement of an
Iraq “civil war,” as if it were their “Cronkite moment.” Nothing could
be further from the truth.
The reason it matters is because of what an Iraqi “civil war” would mean to the American presence in that country. It's also why no one had the courage to look at reality and call it what it is. That would mean as much to the American enterprise in Iraq as it would to the corporate press, whose abdication in speaking truth to power was complete.
Over the last two days, print and televised media have managed to work themselves
into a state of high dudgeon over NBC News' decision to call the violence
in Iraq a “civil war” — with some reporters trying to pinpoint
exactly when Iraq tipped toward this sad, ugly state of affairs. In the process,
Walter Cronkite's famous 1968 commentary about the Vietnam War being all but
lost has been dragged out repeatedly as the resonant analogy, no matter how
inapt. …Sorry folks, Matt Lauer telling Today Show viewers that NBC will now start
to use the term “civil war” hardly measures up to the power of Walter
Cronkite telling the nation that it should no longer believe its leaders when
it comes to Vietnam. Not even close. …
The moment Matt Lauer finally proclaimed Iraq was in the throes of a civil
war it was as if the Media Moses had come down from Corporate Mountain to deliver
The Truth. But as Eric points out in his post for Media Matters, NBC may want
to claim credit for their “civil war” proclamation, but they and every
other media outlet came very late to this stark realization.
“An invasion and occupation of Iraq could lead to a violent civil war.”
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, October 4, 2002.“Are the American people willing to take casualties if there is a civil
war in Iraq?” Sarah Lawrence College professor Fawaz Gerges, quoted in
The Journal News of Westchester County, New York, December 19, 2002.“If the Americans leave, there will be civil war. If they stay, there
will be civil war.” Iraqi Mohammed Hassan, quoted in the Los Angeles
Times, January 12, 2003.
“Not only do the people of Iraq face devastation by the US and UK aggression
on a scale not previously known to mankind, but they also face death and destruction
by another war — the civil war that would inevitably follow.” Burhan
al-Chalabi, chairman of the British Iraqi Foundation and a member of the Royal
Institute of International Affairs, writing in The Guardian of London, March
25, 2003.“The greatest danger remains that an attack into Baghdad would unleash
a civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims.” Robert Fisk, Middle East
correspondent for The Independent of London, April 4, 2003.“Jordan, Egypt Leaders To Meet Amid Concerns Over Civil War Risk in
Iraq,” Agence France Presse headline, April 13, 2003.
The talk of “civil war” began in 2002!
The “corporate scandal,” as Eric calls it, began at the same time.
It was at its base corporate cowardice and the subsequent kowtowing to a president
and his Administration the likes of which we haven't seen in our lifetime. When
you put the rubber stamp Republican Congress into the mix it becomes a moral
and professional abdication that proves why the Republicans were thrown out
of office across the country.
From the moment Judith Miller genuflected to Ahmad Chalabi and began to write
her cheerleading essays in The New York Times, to the rehabilitation
and rebranding of legendary reporter Bob Woodward, the U.S. press and corporate
media hack pack, including NPR, has taken a very long time to see the obvious.
Eric lays it out.
Here are some specifics. According to Nexis, The New York Times published
8,760 columns and articles between 2002 and 2003 that mentioned “Iraq”
three or more times, but only three of them mentioned “civil war”
three or more times and pertained to Iraq. At The Washington Post, the story
was virtually identical: 7,943 combined columns and articles about Iraq and
just one that examined the topic of civil war there in any detail. (It was
a George Will column, and the civil war references took up a total of three
sentences.) For the Associated Press, it was a total of 11,478 dispatches
from 2002 and 2003 with three or more “Iraq” references, but just
one with three or more “civil war” references dealing with Iraq.Things were just as dismal on the broadcast side. For instance, during the
key years of 2002 and 2003, National Public Radio broadcast 5,310 detailed
reports about Iraq, but just one examined in-depth the ramifications of a
possible civil war there. The networks? Please. ABC: 3,507 Iraq reports, and
none about civil war. CBS: 4,405, and none about civil war. NBC: 4,163, none
about civil war.Meanwhile, the all-news cable channels did their best to keep the civil-war
story dark. At CNN, the channel aired 9,104 Iraq reports, and of those, just
three included three or more references to civil war inside Iraq. That, according
to Nexis. MSNBC: 1,838 Iraq reports, and none about civil war. Fox News: 3,428
Iraq reports, and just two that addressed civil war. (The actual number of
Iraq reports from MSNBC and Fox News was no doubt higher because MSNBC transcripts
are grouped by entire show, not individual reports, while not all of Fox News'
shows are cataloged by Nexis.)'Civil war'
and the real press scandal
by Eric Boehlert
Read Eric's piece. It won't make you happy, but it will educate you on a few
things. First, it will illustrate why newspapers are shutting down across this
country. Second, it will prove why the American people are turning to the progressive
blogosphere in droves. We've been telling the truth about Iraq for a very long
time. We stood up against naysayers and doubters to take many a blow, but we
were right. It's the corporate media hack pack that lagged so far behind.
