Moody on “civil war”
FNC’s John Moody a comment about the term “civil war” with regards to Iraq. (tip courtesy of Johnny Dollar)
“Some are using the term [civil war] to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but of US policy in Iraq. We’re unwilling to fall into that tender trap. We’re not using the term because there are non-Iraqis in the fray, and that makes it something different.”
UPDATE: This was an editorial stance that was discussed on Special Report with Brit Hume. To avoid confusion about whether this was some sort of official PR release from FNC, which it obviously wasn’t, I’m rewording the entry…
US foreign policy is a failure and the war in Iraq is a disaster. The news anchors like to tell us about the latest Al-Q in Iraq web posting, which is never authenticated. I’ve heard Al-Q is responsible from anywhere between 3-10% of the violence in Iraq. Perhaps its time we were told who exactly is causing the other 90%.
Comment by Terance — November 30, 2006 @ 8:24 am
I suggest you look to OUR civil war, Terance, to understand FNC’s statement. NBC’s “decision” was purely political; FNC’s statement was objective, not subjective. If you’ve watched any Fox News this week, you may have noticed at least two of the “Big 7″ anchors using “civil war” when describing the violence in Iraq. FNC’s statement was just that: a statement. FNC doesn’t feel the need to tell it’s people which terms to use or not use. NBC/MSNBC feels it needs to have policies about what to call a war. I would rather they try to crack down on some of the profane language they let get by them.
Comment by erljr — November 30, 2006 @ 9:37 am
**** I’ve heard Al-Q is responsible from anywhere between 3-10% of the violence in Iraq.****
What bat*#$% source said that? Is the part where Al Qaeda is taking responsibility for a good bit of the violence too difficult to comprehend or do they simply report falisities on the blue blogs?
****Perhaps its time we were told who exactly is causing the other 90%.****
A good bit is via those crossing from Iran. My nephew just got back & Iran & the Syrians are feeding a lot of the frenzy. Sadly, folks only get news about violence when it comes from US forces (gee, wonder why? Sorry, that was rhetorical) & so they’re ignorant of the facts.
Comment by RW — November 30, 2006 @ 9:49 am
Erljr, why is NBC’s statement purely political? Because they were the first US channel to openly call this war for what it is? Everyone else in the world knew this was a “civil war” or worse. Yet the US media refused to tell the truth, that is until someone (NBC) stepped up to the plate. Personally I don’t know NBC’s real reasoning behind this revelation.. But, if they did do it for “politics” at least the uninformed will know there is a serious problem going on with no end in sight. I don’t see us invading North Korea, who has nuclear weapons… Yet, no WMD’s in Iraq and we have 20,000+ soldiers maimed, 3000+ dead, and over 150,000+ Iraqis snuffed out. And for what? Oil? Pipelines?
Comment by Terance — November 30, 2006 @ 10:02 am
I truly love how libs arrogantly consider anyone who doesn’t agree with them as “uninformed”.
Comment by spiffo — November 30, 2006 @ 10:14 am
Spiffo, I love how republican hacks assume people are liberals and spin the story. I’m an independent which gives me the ability to say both parties are full of crooks and perverts. And the sad part is both of them are responsible for our eroding constitution.
Comment by Terance — November 30, 2006 @ 10:20 am
Spiffo - I don’t consider the ‘cons’ who refuse to recognize the reality on the ground ‘uninformed’. I consider them variously ‘liars’ or ‘pathologically in denial’.
Comment by Arthur — November 30, 2006 @ 10:36 am
I would hardly describe Fox as ‘objective’ in their decision making, and they do themselves have a record of telling their anchors how to phrase situations in order to fit their agenda. Isn’t this the same organisation that decided the term ’suicide bomber’ was inappropriate and they would switch to calling them ‘homicide bombers’?
Comment by Mr A — November 30, 2006 @ 10:58 am
“Isn’t this the same organisation that decided the term ’suicide bomber’ was inappropriate and they would switch to calling them ‘homicide bombers’?”
Which is ambiguous on the face of it. Timothy McVeigh was a ‘homocide bomber’. Any bomber who succeeds in killing others is a homocide bomber.
Comment by Arthur — November 30, 2006 @ 11:00 am
You may be the one who is uninformed Terance. I actually watched MSNBC during the day on Monday; and the top story at the top and the bottom of every hour was not the Iraq War; it was NBC/MSNBC’s decision. It was not objective. It was self promotion pure and simple. A few of the anchors were rolling their eyes at having to spend 5 minutes of every half hour repeating the non-story all over again. What blew me away was that NBC/MSNBC had an actual policy that said their reporters couldn’t say “civil” when refering to Iraq. None of the other networks micromanage their reporters that way. It must be hell to work there. How many other policies do they have? And now they HAVE TO say “civil” EVERY time the war is brought up; IT’S A POLICY!!! I can think of at least three correspondents at the other networks who have been saying the formerly forbidden word - unchallenged - for months!
For the record, I believe the “civil” war has been in full swing since Zarqawi was killed. And it’s a REAL civil war. But there are also foreign fighters in Iraq. And the civil war is partly, just partly, a proxy war between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Then there are the coalition forces who can’t do much about any of it without doubling in number; and who thinks that will happen?
Do you think I’m spinning?
Comment by erljr — November 30, 2006 @ 11:02 am
RW - “sadly, folks only get news about violence when it comes from US forces (gee, wonder why? Sorry, that was rhetorical) & so they’re ignorant of the facts.”
This is simply untrue. Pretty much ALL the violence in Iraq now is Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, and you certainly can’t say the news hasn’t been covering it.
Of course some news outlets would prefer you to believe that ALL the Iraqis fighting at all are ‘al Qaeda’. Why they would then be FIGHTING against themselves is left unsaid.
Comment by Arthur — November 30, 2006 @ 11:05 am
You gotta love the real reporters at Fox like Jennifer Griffin who obviously think what this guy Moody says is crap. Example, she calls them suicide bombers, not homicide bombers. She’s clearly thumbing her nose at the man whose news judgment is clouded and impaired.
Comment by Peter — November 30, 2006 @ 11:05 am
Homicide bombers? Sorry Mr. A, FNC says suicide. I’ve heard homicide from the BBC, Sky news, and CNNI, but I don’t think they have policies about this, as they also say suicide.
Comment by erljr — November 30, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Arthur - it has become very clear in the past week or two that al Qaeda in Iraq is fighting Hezbollah in Iraq; and Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, along with Muqtada al-Sadr, is now very much involved in Iraq.
Comment by erljr — November 30, 2006 @ 11:30 am
Erljr, thanks for the explanation on how MSNBC’s been handling the civil war thing.
A while ago FNC stopped using the term “suicide bomber” i’m not sure when they started back.
Comment by Terance — November 30, 2006 @ 11:46 am
erljr - there are also clearly Iraqi homegrown groups with agendas of their own, either acting alone or forming shifting alliances with other groups. The fact that neighbors are getting involved doesn’t make it any less of a civil war.
Comment by Arthur — November 30, 2006 @ 11:47 am
FNC still uses the term “suicide bomber” but also uses “homicide bomber” as the two terms can connote very different things. Someone who places an IED on the side of a road is a “homicide bomber” as the explosive kills others but not the perpetrator. When referring to someone who intentionally kills himself as well as others in an explosion, FNC does use the term “suicide bomber” although the person could accurately be described as a “homicide bomber.” It simply a matter of accuracy, not some nefarious political plot.
Comment by Caufield — November 30, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
#17 Do you smell burning rubber? The fact is FNC DID stop using the term “suicide bomber” for a period of time.
Comment by Terance — November 30, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
Caufield - try readig a newspaper every now and again, its helpful when trying to make a point.
USA Today, 11/28
“Matthew Felling, spokesman for the Washington-based Center for Media and Public Affairs, said that “not since Fox News Channel decided to stop saying ’suicide bombers’ and start saying ‘homicide bombers’ has there been a starker linguistic stance taken by a news organization.” The network began using that terminology in April 2002, shortly after the White House did.”
Comment by Pete — November 30, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
Pretty much ALL the violence in Iraq now is Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence
Really?
Those crossing over from Iran & Syria would be shocked to learn that they’re Iraqi.
Then again, one of the first posts said that 3-10 percent was Al Qaeda & you’re saying that “pretty much all” is Iraqi.
Makes one wonder how it’s all Bush’s fault. [no, it doesn’t. Everything is. - ed.]
Comment by RW — November 30, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
Pete- Just because it’s in a newspaper doesn’t make it a fact. The Center for Media and Public Affairs is a partisan spin group. Matthew Felling is a spin agent. There are plenty of spin agents who post here; but there are plenty of them who give quotes to newspapers as well. They’re also called “commentators. Caufield’s explanation (#17) above checks out. You can’t call someone a suicide bomber if they didn’t commit suicide. You are trying to tell us that from April 2002 to last week, FNC hasn’t said “suicide bomber.” I have countless shows recorded, on DVD or tape during that period from all of the news channels where they use the term. You can - right now - go to foxnews.com and play video clips or see transcripts where they say “suicide bomber.”
Arthur(#16)-I agree with what you said. It’s not any less of a civil war; it’s more.
Comment by erljr — November 30, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
Erljr, How long have you been watching FNC? All you have to do is google “fox news suicide homicide bomber”. Just because a partisan website reports something doesn’t necessarily mean its biased. I mean, does it matter if Hannity or Colmes says there is a snow storm outside? Its still a snow storm.
Comment by Terance — November 30, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
A Fox executive told AP in April 2002 about using the term “homicide” bombings instead of “suicide” bombings. That’s what the Felling fellow is quoting. The Associated Press, for cryig out loud!
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/04/13/news_pf/Worldandnation/Mideast_notebook.shtml
Comment by TT — November 30, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
Read it again TT. It says when the attacker doesn’t die, they are going to call it “homicide.” They continued to call it “suicide” when the attacker blew himself up along with others. I refered to Caufield’s post(#17) above:
““FNC still uses the term “suicide bomber” but also uses “homicide bomber””
Thanks for the link to prove I was right.
Comment by erljr — December 1, 2006 @ 4:50 pm