New York Times Gives Go-Ahead For Reporters To Call Iraq "Civil War," As They Deem Appropriate

Which should be like every three or four lines.

Spruiell writes:

Let's cut right to what this "civil war" fanfare in the media is really all about: It has nothing to do with the ongoing violence in Iraq, and everything to do with the fact that these media organizations, which are struggling to maintain their relevance in a rapidly changing industry, feel the need to assert themselves and remind the public of their importance, and what better way than by calling the war for the insurgents and starting a push to solidify public opinion in favor of immediate withdrawal?

Indeed. And with their influence greatly diminished, they have to resort to more transparent stunts and shrilly partisan "announcements" to push their agenda.

If no one's paying attention to you, scream louder.

I don't know if that will work. People tend to tune out shrieking after a time.

More: Newsbuster's notes the MSM's failure to "consult experts" in order to officially deem Hezbollah a "terrorist" group.

Guess the jury's still out on that one.

posted by Ace at 05:06 PM

| Access Comments