When the Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr reemerged from seclusion in the spring to give a sermon denouncing the U.S. presence, reporters struggled as always for shorthand ways to describe this complex man. While the militant cleric has instigated two insurgencies with a simple command, he is also a political powerbroker, whose support in parliament is critical. In speeches, the firebrand Sadr denounces the U.S. presence; he has called America “the great Satan.” But he has also quietly backed the U.S. troop surge and even allowed American forces to set up base inside his stronghold neighborhood Sadr City.

“I think there are two or three, or possibly six, Muqtada al-Sadrs,” says John F. Burns, the senior foreign correspondent for The New York Times, but “to simply define him as a ‘Shiite cleric’ without qualifiers is inadequate.”

But which qualifier? Ever since Sadr emerged on the scene in 2003, most reporters have chosen to use some adjective in first reference to this young cleric, who derives much of his influence from the fact that Saddam martyred both his father and uncle. “Editors in New York are uneasy with some of the adjectives,” admits Burns.

An analysis of first-reference descriptors since 2003 shows radical to be the most popular, used in more than a quarter of all references to Sadr. But, “I think radical—although I admit I’ve used it myself—is a meaningless term,” says Burns. Terms like firebrand and militant are used about half as often as they were in 2003, while rebel went from 19 percent of all first references in newspapers in 2004 to 1 percent this year.

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who runs a popular blog on Iraq and was one of the first to note Sadr’s influence, says he no longer uses the term...

Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.