"There's a tendency on the part of the mainstream media to defer to the basic definitions of the administration, and I think that's what happened here," says Chris Hanson, who teaches journalism at the University of Maryland.

The press, in an almost unconscious way, did not want to be drawn into a situation where it might be blamed for the outcome, and so has danced around flat assertions that Iraq is in civil war, he says.

"There's a nervousness about appearing to make a political decision, when in fact it should be based on reality rather than political," says Bill Kovach, a counselor at the Project for Excellence in Journalism. "But explaining all that is too difficult for most news organizations, or has been."

Since the start of the war, news organizations have preferred to describe events on the ground, rather than applying labels. But now, a growing number of news organizations are willing to change their approach, and explain why. On Monday, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller released a statement on the paper's decision to allow news reporters and editors to describe Iraq as being in "civil war" when they see fit.

"We expect to use the phrase sparingly and carefully, not to the exclusion of other formulations, not for dramatic effect," Mr. Keller wrote. "The main shortcoming of 'civil war' is that, like other labels, it fails to capture the complexity of what is happening on the ground. The war in Iraq is, in addition to being a civil war, an occupation, a Baathist insurgency, a sectarian conflict, a front in a war against terrorists, a scene of criminal gangsterism and a cycle of vengeance. We believe 'civil war' should not become reductionist shorthand for a war that is colossally complicated."

Similarly, The Christian Science Monitor has used a wide number of terms. Two of its news articles out of Iraq this week referred to the nation's "deepening civil war" and to "driving Iraq further into civil war." "We try to give our reporters a reasonable amount of analytical freedom to describe what they find in plain language, but not to force conclusions on readers," says Managing Editor Marshall Ingwerson. "In the end, I think our language has shifted as gradually as the situation in Iraq has evolved."

Some observers believe President Bush should accede to growing public perception and agree that Iraq is in a state of civil war – and then explain what he proposes to do. Perceptions of a "credibility gap" on Iraq have dogged the administration, and an acceptance of the public's view could help bring the public along with next steps.

"They'd be better off acknowledging the reality that it is a civil war, and then say, 'Let me tell you why we still need to stay here and fight and here's why it's still an important mission,' says Chris Gelpi, an expert on war and public opinion at Duke University.

An important aspect of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's forthcoming recommendations will be whether the group refers to Iraq as being in civil war, says Gergen.

Page: 1 | 2