NYT: Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia
If you are a reader of the New York Times, you have probably seen this strange reference to “Al Qaeda in Iraq” as “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia”. My assumption is/was that they refuse to acknowledge that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, so they use this historical reference to blur the line. Last Thursday night I sent to the Public Editor of the New York Times the following email:
Mr. Hoyt,
Can you explain why the New York Times uses “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” instead of the more explicit “Al Qaeda in Iraq”? Most news organizations use the modern common name for the country instead of the original historical name (which I believe hasn’t been used since the 19th century). To bring it into perspective, does that mean that the New York Times will be referring to Mayor Bloomberg of New Amsterdam in future editions of the New Amsterdam Times? So please, explain why the term is used.
Thank you for your time,
Neall Alcott
Sure I was being a wise-ass, but I wanted to know. Yesterday I got this reply:
Dear Mr. Alcott,
Thank you for writing. I raised your question with an editor on the Foreign Desk who said that the issue is one of translation. The purest translation of the name the group gives itself is “Al Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers,” the rivers being the Tigris and the Euphrates. While there are different translations and The Times acknowledges that the U.S. military and State Department uses “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” the paper goes with the translation it does because the group drew on the more poetic usage for its name.
I hope this helps.
Michael McElroy
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
Hmmm… OK. So I forwarded their email to the Wall Street Journal (who has also been puzzled by the Mesopotamia reference) and they published it in their OpinionJournal (it’s under the heading Take Me To The River). If you scroll to the bottom of the article, you’ll see where they thanked me.
Wall Street Journal - Opinion Journal - Best of the Web
Heh.
