Fox News VP Attempts to instill Doubt In 'Civil War' Frame
Wag of the Finger
Fox News VP John Moody
Fox’s Senior Vice President John Moody — whose infamous politically-slanted internal memos have gained notoriety — said in a statement that “some are using the term civil war to indicate failure, not inside Iraq, but on U.S. 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.”
Is this not just like the global warming debate? All the experts say one thing, and the conservatives say another. I think the fact that Fox News is unwilling to frame the conflict in terms of a civil war speaks volumes, and in fact he explains why he refuses to use the term-- they don't want to admit defeat. The very fact that we are debating what to call the conflict speaks to the awareness of power framing has. For a counterpoint to Fox, here is Colin Powell himself admiting it is a civil war....
http://www.cnn.com/[…]/index.html
stealth framing
I think Evan really identifies the larger point from DavidP's fine nomination ... the debate over whether Iraq is in a civil war. As a writer and editor and non-practicing attorney, I have a deep appreciation for the power of words. However, most everyone I know grows impatient when hearing about the "civil war" debate. "Who cares what they call it? People are dying all the same," is the general refrain. Well, guess what? We all care very much what "they" call it, even when we don't realize that (thus, stealth framing). I don't applaud NBC for announcing their language preference, but if it gets the concept of framing out to more people, hallelujah! As a matter of fact, I have explained framing to a couple of people by using the "civil war" example. Pointing out how the phrases we hear in the media seep into our brains and become our lexicon ...
New! Interesting point about this debate
It may also be worth considering why several media outlets other than Fox News have chosen this time to begin using the term "civil war." According to an article in the New York Times, scholars generally define a civil war by two criteria:
"The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/world/middleeast/26war.html
These criteria appear to have been met long ago. The fact that foreigners are also fighting in Iraq does not negate the fact that there are warring groups of Iraqis.
At the same time, the civil war frame omits some things that the occupation frame explains. You can read what Rockridge published on that topic at:
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/occupation
I have also taken the liberty of correcting a typo in your title.
Evan