Earlier on Tuesday, the following note was sent to staff throughout Reuters. I thought readers might also be interested in our style on so important an issue.
“Last week, a decision by the American TV network NBC to begin calling the conflict in Iraq a civil war led to a lively debate over the language the media should use in its reporting on Iraq. At Reuters, the political and general news editors have again reviewed our style. We ask all journalists to avoid using labels and instead describe what is happening in Iraq accurately, fairly and dispassionately. Civil war may be used when it is attributed to a named source but should not be used without such attribution. In general, bureaus should take their cue from the language used in stories from Iraq.
Whether or not what is happening in Iraq is civil war is in dispute — among supporters and opponents of U.S. policy in Iraq, among academics and within the general public. Some argue that the conflict in Iraq is not yet a civil war, others that it has already gone beyond civil war. It is a complex conflict, with elements of an insurgency, terrorism, sectarian conflict, intra-confessional fighting, banditry and warlordism. We will not assist readers in their understanding of what is happening by resorting to easy labels or by decreeing that specific boilerplate background needs to be included in every story.
The term civil war has also become an emotive phrase and a highly charged political issue in the context of Iraq. Reuters policy has long been to avoid using contentious labels and to take special care in the interests of objectivity in the case of words with emotional significance. It is also our policy not to take sides in any conflict or dispute. We should be mindful of these principles when writing about Iraq and describing events there. The use of language in our reporting about Iraq will remain under review and will be subject to change as the situation changes. Your comments are welcome.”
Paul Holmes is the Political & General News Editor at Reuters
Blogs navigation
Just another Blogs.reuters.com weblog
Reuters style on the conflict in Iraq
Posted by: Paul Holmes
Tags: Uncategorized
TrackbackPost Your Comment
House Rules:
- We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information
- We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous information.
5 comments so far
When you find dead bodies in the street with bullet holes in the head every morning, and no attempt to find out who did it, what do you call the situation? I call it ANARCHY. Picture yourself living in that city where they find these bodies every morning! Face reality, there is no effectivr government in Iraq now. What there is os a state of anarchy. The so-called government is a sham!
- Posted by Harry Gilbert[...] Earlier today, the following memo was released to Reuters staff Last week, a decision by the American TV network NBC to begin calling the conflict in Iraq a civil war led to a lively debate over the language the media should use in its reporting on Iraq. At Reuters, the political and general news editors have again reviewed our style. We ask all journalists to avoid using labels and instead describe what is happening in Iraq accurately, fairly and dispassionately. Civil war may be used when it is attributed to a named source but should not be used without such attribution. In general, bureaus should take their cue from the language used in stories from Iraq. [...]
- Posted by Iraq is in a Civil War « drinking with Keith OlbermannI agree with Harry with the exception that when dealing with people who would rather kill and be killed than debate or discuss, it would appear that no effective government is possible.
I have a cousin who did two tours in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan and even though he has said many times that the people in both countries claimed to be happy that the U.S. Military had removed Saadam and the Taliban, they were still not understandable when it came to their beliefs in the sanctity of life. You cannot win when you are fighting people who WANT to die. You cannot govern a people who don’t feel bad about killing female family members. You can’t help a starving people who would stab the person bringing the bread.
The biggest problem we face are reprisals if we now completely pull out. We did that to the Kurds in the early ’90s and now they don’t trust us. If we do it again to those in Iraq and Afghanistan who are actually trying to make things right there, we will never be trusted again and I fear that those who support U.S. efforts would unite with those who only want to bring about the West’s complete distruction.
- Posted by Nancy EngelNow I know why I’ve been favoring Reuters to the exclusion of AP for my news. Paul Holmes’ policy note to staff encompasses the principles of good journalism. Something that I’ve found missing in too many other news organizations.
- Posted by Margaret PrattWhen you write about Iraq as a “complex conflict” and describe it as having “elements” of an insurgency, terrorism, etc, should you not also talk of “occupation” by the US and UK forces as one of the elements adding to the complexity of the conflict?
Moving towards the usage “civil war” is a way of first blinding a person and then labelling the person as blind. The same goes with first occupying or invading a sovereign country and then describing the conflict as “civil war”.
I am glad Reuters refrains from the “civil war” usage, but what about occupation in the first place since 2003?
- Posted by Joseph Pinto