Comments on: Media reporting of terrorism

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:01:36 +0000

max wrote: “Pipes says the press generally avoids the word terrorist, and sets Beslan as an example. The fact that news outlets almost never uses the T-word is not new, and the fact that it takes hundreds of murdered children to make them use it says plenty.” Yes Pipes makes a general accusation. “The press, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms.” Yes, seems to say Beslan coverage is an example of what he’s complaining about. “Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on September 3. Journalists have delved deep into their thesauruses, finding at least twenty euphemisms for terrorists: “Assailants – National Public Radio. Attackers – the Economist. Bombers – the Guardian. Captors – the Associated Press.” Etc, etc. But is Beslan in fact an example a larger phenomenon, that is “ the press…generally sh[ying] away from the word terrorist, [and] preferring euphemisms.” To support this claim Pipes would have to offer evidence from non-Beslan coverage. He doesn’t. How can we conclude that the press is generally avoiding the T- words if all we have are articles written around the same time and about the same incident? We can’t. If one wished to determine the climate in a certain location-Dublin, Sidney, Bosrah, Tashkent-one could go on line and check the location’s current weather conditions. Pipes “argument” is based on that kind of logic. max: “The fact that news outlets almost never uses the T-word is not new.” I have formed the opposite impression. On what do you base your statement?

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:41:06 +0000

Descriptions of the killers of children in terms that suggest that what they did was noble or justified are simply wrong and definite indicators of a lack of moral clarity. I too disagree that any description posted above suggests that the atrocity was noble or justified. However, lack of moral clarity is exactly what I expect from a news report. I’d like to see total absence of moral clarity, just bare facts accompanied by factual background. If I want moral judgment I’ll read an opinion piece.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:39:51 +0000

By: ruralsaturday

ruralsaturday — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:18:13 +0000

“…you can’t argue with such absurdities.” No, but you can calmly and reasonably refute them, as you did, and as Chris Bertram did, just above you there. These are inspirational gestures, and commendable. Thanks.

By: mona

mona — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:53:00 +0000

How could any word ever “suggest that what they did was noble or justified” when what they did is killing, torturing, kidnapping, beheading, etc.? How could those acts ever be interpreted as noble even if you called their perpetrators pink fluffy bunnies? You’d have to be an overt fanatical supporter of terrorism to call it noble and justified, and no amount of analysis to attempt some sort of understanding of what those acts may be motivated by, or to put them in the context of a long ongoing ethnic, religious, political conflict (ie. Chechenya) – which is what the media also do, try and explain things by context – comes close to apology or overt support for terrorism, or inciting the same in the presumably completely idiot audiences, sorry. It’s just nonsense. But I give up, you can’t argue with such absurdities.

By: mona

mona — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:40:55 +0000

Does anyone actually watch the BBC? From regional news to the BBC world, BBC News 24, etc., any of the tv news programmes? If so, how can you even claim they don’t use the word? Unless I had visual and auditory hallucinations, I must have heard – and seen, in the CAPITAL WHITE ON RED headlines on the bottom of the screen – the word “terrorist attack”, “terrorists”, “terrorism”, a million times in the past few years. Just like in all tv news outlets, CNN, Sky, CBS, CNBC, etc. So, ok, it’s established that Reuters has a policy to avoid the word, the BBC website may have a policy to refrain from using it unless in quotes by others, but that’s rather poor ground to generalise about “the media”. Especially when one means all the media in the whole wide world. Most people get their news from tv, or radio. The word “terrorism” today is used about as often as “bread”, you’ve got to be living in another planet to complain there’s a reticence to use it.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:13:00 +0000

Language is important. How the media describes events, people and places impacts public opinion. Descriptions of the killers of children in terms that suggest that what they did was noble or justified are simply wrong and definite indicators of a lack of moral clarity.

By: max

max — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:03:26 +0000

"Further comment seems superfluous." Some comments: You say: " Today he gets prominence on Arts and Letters Daily for this piece which claims that journalists have shied away from using the word “terrorist” in connection with the terrorist murders at Beslan." Then you quote Pipes: "The press, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms. Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on September 3." Pipes says the press generally avoids the word terrorist, and sets Beslan as an example. The fact that news outlets almost never uses the T-word is not new, and the fact that it takes hundreds of murdered children to make them use it says plenty. You distort Pipe's claim to nitpick on some examples of edited stories. I followed those stories when his piece was published as well and all the examples he provided are correct. I also checked recently updated stories for instance: NPR (8 sep) suspected Chechen separatists. Grauniad (6 sep) Bombers' justification: Russians are killing our children, so we are here to kill yours. More: "Details began to emerge yesterday as to what may have driven the school siege militants (as in mutant ninja turtles)..."Witnesses reported that the hostage-takers had attempted to justify their brutality by claiming it was an act of revenge"..Blah blah..Let's justify them please. AFP (4 sep the one reffered here) Au moins 322 personnes, dont 155 enfants, ont יtי tuיes outre les membres du commando) Note how AFP reports the number killed and wounded while bothering to mention that the commandos are'nt included in the death toll. How sensitive. WaPo (9 sep) After overtaking the school, the guerrillas began unloading guns and explosives..."Officials said 32 guerrillas took part in the raid on School No. 1" ..."The captured guerrilla..".. The Australian (9 sep) Hostage takers, gunmen and militants, more militants. But today's headline: Terrorists attack on Australia's door. Hypocrites. NY Post (9 sep) militants, attacker..Terrorists only inside " ". Reuters (9 sep) At least 326 hostages -- half of them children -- died in last Friday's chaotic storming of School Number One in Beslan, southern Russia, after it was seized by gunmen demanding Chechen independence..Well put. No mitigating there. No. So called bbc (9 sep)"Russia blamed the mass hostage-taking in Beslan on Chechen rebels backed by foreign Muslim militants". Sure. They blamed militants. So what? Does it mean that No-one should treat you as a reliable source of opinion?

By: Jack Lecou

Jack Lecou — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:26:27 +0000

[Natalie Solent] I can’t think of any other reason for making this change other than a wish to avoid value judgements. You at Crooked Timber do not act in general as though you wish to avoid value judgements.

Crooked Timber is a very good place for value judgements. Consider that maybe wire reports aren’t…

[...] a lot of the comments to this post are straw men. There is no widespread suggestion from those like me who oppose policies avoiding the T-word that literally every mention of terrorism should use the word…

Actually, this does seem to be exactly what Mr. Pipes was suggesting (that’s the more charitable interpretation, the other being that he’s just making shit up and hoping nobody checks). Certainly everyone on CT seems to be at least marginally less daft.

…nor that the media should constantly emote, nor that all guerillas, rebels or insurgents are necessarily terrorists.

Of course not. I am fully aware that Reuters/CBC/BBC/whatever COULD accurately use the word terrorist from time to time. However, what nobody has thus far been able to tell me is whether there is any compelling reason they SHOULD. Really, what is the scenario?

NEWSPAPER: “Militants cut the head off a civilian hostage in Iraq yesterday.”

READER: “Well, that’s a relief, at least they’re not terrorists.”

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:56:01 +0000

Natalie, Just for the sake of avoiding misunderstanding let me make clear that my post at Crooked Timber was very narrowly focused (notwithstanding the way the comments thread went afterwards). Pipes claimed that journalist in general were reluctant to use the word “terrorist” (etc.) in connection with the murders at Beslan. He cited 20 articles to support this claim (only one of which was from the BBC). I showed that many of the articles did, in fact, use the word or related words and that therefore the evidence Pipes adduced in support of his claim didn’t support it. On the specific question of the BBC, I agreed that the article on the BBC website that Pipes pointed do did not use the word and that this was one piece of evidence that supported his claims. However, I also noticed that I had heard BBC journalists on Radio 5 (I pricked up my ears because I was fact-checking Pipes at the time) use the word “terrorists” about the Beslan murderers. You are correct, as far as I can tell, about the BBC website. As I said, I focused on the narrow issue of whether Pipes’s evidence supported his claims (it didn’t). There’s also the broader question of what policy news organizations should have. I didn’t touch on this. I think that I would simply say this: that while I think it quite correct to describe the Beslan murderers as terrorists, the problem for news organizations arises partly from the attempt by states to stigmatize all and any armed opposition as “terrorist”. I’d be more sympathetic to critics of journalistic reluctance to use the words if those same critics aslo expressed their disapproval of over-expansive use of those words by states and and other political actors.

By: Natalie Solent

Natalie Solent — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 23:04:14 +0000

I looked at all the instances of the word terrorism/terrorist I found in an archive search of the BBC website since the beginning of the month. Results here. I could find no example of the BBC clearly calling the Beslan killers terrorists in its own voice. It calls them rebels, hostage-takers etc. This is the BBC’s normal practice. After having spent a couple of years looking specifically at that issue, and with an alert commentariat pointing out excitedly every rare time the BBC does use the word terrorist in its own voice, I am really quite sure about it. I can’t be remotely as sure about other outlets (though an employee of Reuters told me that it is Reuters policy to avoid the word) – but am not in any serious doubt. Type “militant” into Google News and you will even see those who behead hostages on camera so described. Yet ten or even five years ago “militant” meant obstreperous trade unionists. I can’t think of any other reason for making this change other than a wish to avoid value judgements. You at Crooked Timber do not act in general as though you wish to avoid value judgements. By the way, a lot of the comments to this post are straw men. There is no widespread suggestion from those like me who oppose policies avoiding the T-word that literally every mention of terrorism should use the word, nor that the media should constantly emote, nor that all guerillas, rebels or insurgents are necessarily terrorists.

By: mona

mona — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:27:12 +0000

I have to add, after going through the rest of the comments, I am finally convinced, journalists are really showing too much sympathy for perpetrators of beheadings, kidnappings, child killing, lynchings and bombings. In fact, the one thing where Pipes is wrong is that the word “terrorism” is, too, alas, very very weak and not descriptive enough of said acts. People need to know that killing and bombing and kidnapping people is very bad, and I’m afraid not even “terrorism” conveys the ferocity of the above said acts. Think of the million of people lying in utter ignorance and moral chaos because of Reuters! I would suggest that, since images have a lot more impact than words, journalists substitute every single occurrence of whatever word they use to refer to terrorists with a high resolution photo depicting, in all the gruesome details, the acts being referred to. Where was the last time we saw some blood? They never ever show us people getting killed, that’s how terrorist-apologist the media are. Enough with this girly restraint about showing cruelty for what it is. The masses need to see the horror, to be rescued from the abysmal pool of moral incertitude that the Terrorist-Enabling Liberal Media have created. Granted, it’s a bit costly to print colour photographs instead of words recurring at least 20 times in one article, but I’m sure Mr Pipes will devolve some funds to the project, just like he has with his other endeavours. Because he cares, he cares so much about making the world a better place, and no amount of blasphemous venom from terror-friendly islamo-communist weblogs like this will detract from his mission of Moral Truth. Poor Daniel, like all brave prophets, so grossly reviled and misunderstood.

By: Jack Lecou

Jack Lecou — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:18:45 +0000

As to why “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a spurious rationale, let’s begin with the fact that it doesn’t account for all us who believe that a freedom fighter can never be a terrorist and a terrorist can never be a freedom fighter, that when you resort to terror you have given up your right to be called a freedom fighter. Unlike the CBC ombudsman many of us are able to recognize that a political movement might have legitimacy at the same time that its most extremist adherents practice terrorism.

I think, perhaps, Ann doesn’t quite follow the difference between a policy she doesn’t agree with, and a rationale that is actually spurious. A truly spurious rationale would be something like “my astrologer told me to”. Reuters and CBC, on the other hand, have a perfectly legitimate rationale, one that is not best summarised as “one man’s…”, despite Ann’s repetitions to the contrary. It is not simply that the words have “different meanings to different people”, instead it is that using the word ‘terrorist’ makes a moral judgmement, in a way that an alternative phrase like ‘militant’ does not. Reuters and CBC prefer to play it safe and avoid voicing such judgments. What Pipes and Ann seem to be arguing is that news agencies must make such explicit moral pronouncements, or readers will somehow fail to understand “the extent of the threat”. This I find rather hard to believe. Sebastian: You have examples of news pieces declaring social injustice, in the writer’s voice?

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:10:54 +0000

Newsweek did a whopping 1/4 page coverage of the Russian school massacre (1 photo and 3 sentences), including the lene “Fighters had seized students, parents and teachers…” Dave, that sounds pretty bad but I’d have to say that this piece of information is probably going to be put to better use in a letter to the editors of Newsweek than 92 comments down a Crooked Timber thread.

By: ruralsaturday

ruralsaturday — Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:46:40 +0000

Terrorists- oil – Islam. There’s another term in that equation, but I keep forgetting what it is.