The Blogmedia

'Civil War' And The Real Press Scandal

The press back in 2002 and 2003 completely boycotted in-depth examinations about the possibility, let alone the likelihood, of civil war.
Open Image Modal
By 

Senior Fellow, Media Matters for America

Senior Fellow, Media Matters for America
|
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

It revolves around how the media uniformly avoided using the phrase "civil war" prior to the invasion, as well as during its early stages. Meaning, news consumers today who are shocked that the country we were supposed to liberate has fallen into complete disrepair -- a killing field of sorts -- are shocked only because the press back in 2002 and 2003, when the invasion was supposedly being debated in the media, completely boycotted in-depth examinations about the possibility, let alone the likelihood, of civil war consuming parts of Iraq.

Looking back, it's breathtaking to see how the press consistently boycotted the obvious news angle.

Read the full Media Matters column here.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost
Suggest a correction
|
Submit a tip