Following Politico clarification, will the media eschew "slow-bleed" when reporting Dem's Iraq policy?

As documented by Media Matters for America, a February 14 article by Politico congressional bureau chief John Bresnahan used the charged label "slow-bleed" to characterize the Democrats' strategy in dealing with the administration on Iraq -- a characterization that was immediately adopted by the Republican National Committee, which cited Bresnahan's article to falsely claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) call the Democrats' strategy "their 'slow-bleed' plan." Media Matters noted that Bresnahan's article did not attribute the characterization to anyone and did not put it in quotation marks, suggesting that the characterization was his own.

Conservative bloggers also latched onto The Politico's "slow-bleed" characterization. For instance, a February 14 entry on Michelle Malkin's Hot Air weblog stated: "If they do what they're apparently planning to do, 'slow bleed' will be a very apt description. Those doing the bleeding, slowly, will be US troops."

In a February 16 article, Bresnahan made clear that the term "slow-bleed" was indeed The Politico's "characteriz[ation]," and that it "was not a term used by any Democrats or the anti-war groups supporting their efforts." The February 16 article also noted that "[t]he RNC, however, attributed the phrase to Democrats, and it was used in their e-mail alert."

Now that The Politico has confirmed that the term "slow-bleed" was its own description of the Democratic plan, will the media refrain from using this controversial term when reporting on the Democratic strategy for Iraq?

—S.S.M.