The t-word and the BBC

Via AndrewSullivan:

Early on Friday morning another BBC webpage headlined “Testing the underground mood,” spoke of “the worst terrorist atrocity Britain has seen.” But at 12:08 GMT, while the rest of the article was left untouched, those words were replaced by “the worst peacetime bomb attacks Britain has seen.”… In its round-up of world reactions, BBC online was also quick to highlight the views of conspiracy theorists. The very first article listed by the BBC started by quoting Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani saying Israel was behind the London attacks. It was followed by a commentary on Iranian state radio explicitly blaming the Mossad.

yes, yes, I don’t like the usual suspects any more than you do.

but: the BBC policy is silly. Yes, some people use the word “terrorist” in an inconsistent and policy-driven way. The solution to this is pick one definition and stick to it consistently. It isn’t that hard to do.

Plenty of U.S. news organizations, for example, are pretty scrupulous in talking about “terrorists” in Iraq in cases where there is deliberate targetting of civilians, and “militants” or “insurgents” when it is not clear.

I mean, what’s next, are they going to decide “genocide” is no good?

The usual version is:
–not a government–there are other names for the awful things governments do
–hopes to accomplish political goals through fear instilled by deliberately attacking civilians

Sebastian Holsclaw, quoting Andrew Sullivan quoting The Jerusalem Post: In its round-up of world reactions, BBC online was also quick to highlight the views of conspiracy theorists.

Any truth in this? At the moment, the World Reactions page has quotes from Kofi Annan, George W. Bush, Jacques Chirac etc.

To be consistent with the dropping of the value-laden word ‘terrorist’, surely they would also have to cease using such disputable words as ‘occupation’, ‘war’, ‘president’, ‘state’, ‘government’, ‘election’, ‘democracy’, ‘legal’, ‘judge’ and ‘policeman’?

soru

Those heroic, hard-bitten folks over at Testy Copy Editors have had a number of interesting discussions about media use of the word “terrorist”. If you’re feeling queasy after reading Melanie Phillips, take it as an emetic:

http://209.35.198.168/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2858&highlight=terrorist+insurgent

I wish they’d drop ‘democracy’, though.

Elections with a single candidate to vote up or down they call ‘dictatorship’, elections with two very similar candidates to choose from – ‘democracy’. Proportional representation with two dozen parties to choose from – also ‘democracy’. Constitutional monarchy with a parliament is sometimes a ‘democracy’, sometimes not.

There’s gotta be a better way to describe and rate various powersharing arrangements and electoral systems.

Mr East, you clearly believe unlike most lexicographers that “terrorist” has only one meaning and that it is correctly defined by the Britannica: “the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.”

Answer me this. Air Marshall Arthur Harris, head of Bomber Command in WWII, who destroyed the strategically unimportant city of Dresden. Terrorist?

“the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.”

So “shock and awe” counts as terrorism? Fallujah counts as terrorism? Hiroshima and Nagasaki count as terrorism? You see the problem.

Ray: actually I’d classify Hiroshima as terrorism.

Well, I don’t see the problem. Chris said,”If terrorism means anything, it means the deliberate use of violence against non-combatants to pursue political ends. That is something governments also do.” I agree. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were particularly extreme forms of terrorism. What is “problematic” about describing them that way? Fallujah I don’t know enough about, and I doubt many other people do either. Much of the allied bombing campaign was as clear a case of terrorism as one could hope for. (Did anyone else feel slightly sick at the report that a *Lancaster* dropped a million poppies at the recent WW2 commemoration? It was a bit like using a machete to cut the ribbon at the ‘New Directions for Rwanda’ pageant.)

Sebastian, what, exactly, is the problem with the BBC highlighting the ravings of an Iranian state newspaper?

They provide samples of a number of regional media outlets. The Iranian rant is placed in contrast next to more reasonable statements.

Should they have chosen a passage from the Iranian paper which was not so over the top?

I suspect that, if the BBC had not included that bit, they would be slammed for whitewashing the Iranians by concealing the Iranian anti-Semitism.

Do you really want to be informed? Or do you want the unpleasantness hidden from view? Or do you want the BBC to add redundant editorial commentary saying what we already know, that it’s a nasty, irrational, anti-Semitic rant.

It’s really a pretty stupid criticism.

I don’t see why different definitions of the word “terrorism” are a reason for not using the word. People have different definitions of words like “war crime,” “torture” and “abuse,” too. Was Bomber Harris a “war criminal”? What about Harry Truman? Is the wearing of short skirts by prison guards “abuse” or “torture”? How about wrapping someone in the Israeli flag? The fact that people disagree on these questions doesn’t stop the BBC, or anyone else, from using those words.

y81:

“Was Bomber Harris a “war criminal”?”

Yes.

“What about Harry Truman?”

Yes.

There has been no charge for this enlightenment service.

Fair enough, Hiroshima and Dresden happened during a war, that’s a good excuse.

“Cuba has probably been the target of more international terrorism than the rest of the world combined and, therefore, in the American ideological system it is regarded as the source of international terrorism, exactly as Orwell would have predicted.” — Noam Chomsky

_a BBC news report that referred to any contemporary regime as “fascist”_

That would be bad, even though I would agree with Paxton that Milosovic’s regime was ‘something very like fascism’.

Orwell’s essay ‘politics and the english language’ (http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html) comes to the conclusion ‘Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous’.

Hard to imagine a phrase that did more violence to the english language than ‘peacetime bomb attack’.

soru

John East: not “should”. Each of us _already_ has a personal language; it’s just that some parts of our personal languages happen to be the same. You’ll agree that there’s a difference between “is” and “should”, and right now it’s a case of “is”.

John Hayter,
Your list of pairings such as Gerry Adams: freedom fighter and Bomber Harris: terrorist did cause me some concern, not because my political standpoint was offended, but because I would try to avoid the use of a phrase like “freedom fighter”. This is consistent with my pleas above that “terrorist” should be used as a noun, and not as a fluidly defined term of abuse. “Freedom fighter” beggars the question, “Freedom from what?”, and requires a value judgement or a mutual understanding of the context.
Would it not be better to say something like, “Bomber Harris the Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command whose actions should be condemned”, or “Bomber Harris the Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command whose actions should be commended.” Hey presto, we could then stop arguing about semantics and begin to address the real argument for or against what Bomber Harris actually did.

Chris,

You talk as though not using the term terrorist is a neutral position. How can it be?

There are very few people who would not characterise last Thursday’s bombings as acts of terror. Acts of terror are carried out by terrorists.

Although the “freedom fighter” or “terrorist” argument may stand in relation to more ambigious groups, particularly in 1980s Cold War politics, there is no sizable section in the UK population, or I would argue worldwide, who would consider last week’s bombers to be freedom fighters and therefore it is hard to see how the word terrorist can either offensive or ambigious.

You’ll not be surprised to learn I’m with Norman Geras on this one.

Anthony: It’s not a neutral position? If you don’t use the word “terrorist”, suddenly you’re a fan of Osama bin Laden? Oh please.

Anthony: It’s not a neutral position? If you don’t use the word “terrorist”, suddenly you’re a fan of Osama bin Laden?

It would help your argument if you did not invent a position I did not articulate. While you may enjoy making strawmen, I do not waste time playing with them.

So, when the vile Uzbek regime said the protesters were terrorists, and as such could be mowed down in the streets, should the BBC have used “terrorist”?

“Well we’re in trouble right away then Katherine. If terrorism means anything, it means the deliberate use of violence against non-combatants to pursue political ends. That is something governments also do. I can see, though, why many of those who are keen to push for news organizations to employ this language are also keen to promote a state-exempting definition.”

No. That is false. Terms are descriptive as well as carrying moral baggage. “Terrorism” has a meaning, it is a useful term. Insisting it must apply equally to governmental groups, although that is not what the traditional definition has been, is the leftish equivalent of Fox’s insistence on calling them “homicide bombers” instead of “suicide bombers.” There are other words that we have when governments target civilians. Massacres. War crimes. Atrocities. Genocide, in some cases.

It’s both descriptive and condemnatory, but lots of terms are both descriptive and condemnatory.

I mean, how would you feel if the NY Times refused to use the word “torture” because “one man’s torture is another’s coercive interrogation”, or what not?

I don’t have a huge wish that terrorism be defined to exclude governments. But, I think that while targetting civilians is one part of its definition, there are other parts too.

“soru: that just shifts the question to how “non-military” should be defined. No go.”

Such a deeply stupid response that only an intellectual could buy. If you are going to play that game the question just shifts to how any words that you put between the quotes should be defined.

This is a classic definitional problem. The fuzziness of definitional borders most certainly does not render words like “terrorist” empty of useful reporting value nor does it void the utility of exploring the definitional borders. If a news organization doesn’t want to get caught up in emotional value disputes on the borderline cases (does the PLO engage in insurgency or terrorism) fine, but to ban the words in the clear cases foolish. Only moral idiots can’t understand that intentionally blowing up a subway for people going to work in London by a small non-state group is terrorism. If you don’t want to get into a big discussion of whether or not wartime air-bombing counts as terrorism, fine, but to fail to call the clear cases terrorism is a value-laden judgement that the BBC does not bother to be so careful about when pushing other ideological agendas.

The fact that there is disagreement on the close definitional questions doesn’t excuse you on the clear cases. That is why the popularized versions of post-modernist analysis end up like such crap. It is a perfectly legitimate crticism to note that people use words slightly differently or have different views of the delineating borders. It is awful analysis to use that to conclude that clear cases don’t exist or that there is no clear understanding by a huge majority of people that certain things really are “terrorist”. The BBC goes too far in the crap-analysis side of things–though not as far as some on this board.

John, even if we all agree that last Thursday’s bombers can be described as ‘terrorists’ (which I think is accurate), the problem the BBC has is that there are plenty of actors that some people think should be described as terrorists, and others think should be described as something else – states, freedom fighters, whatever. Using the word ‘terrorist’ only when all agree that it is appropriate would place the BBC, unwillingly, on a particular side of those debates. (And using the word when some don’t agree that it is appropriate would lead to those sterile debates)
Why is it so important to you that the BBC uses that word and not another?

“Terrorism” has a meaning, it is a useful term. Insisting it must apply equally to governmental groups, although that is not what the traditional definition has been, is the leftish equivalent of Fox’s insistence on calling them “homicide bombers” instead of “suicide bombers.”

If we are concerned with traditional definitions, there is a much longer tradition of using the term to describe the use of terror by those in power to intimidate their opponents. AFAIK the term “terrorist” was coined to describe those who organised the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France.

Sorry:

did become a mouthpiece for the Uzbek regime.

should read:

did not become a mouthpiece for the Uzbek regime.

Interestingly, Allawi spent a little time in the nineties trying to plant bombs on buses and such in Baghdad. So should the headlines about Allawi’s appointment as head of Iraq last year bee: U.S. SUPPORTS TERRORIST FOR IRAQI POST? And should he have been reported as a terrorist in headlines like: SENATE APPLAUDS CHIEF IRAQI TERRORIST?

Admitttedly, headlines like that could themselves be construed as terrorist acts, as they would operate to increase mortally the blood pressure of the hammier belligerants (Phillips, Hitchens, the Washington Post editorial board, etc.).

“Such a deeply stupid response that only an intellectual could buy.

Ignorance is strength, eh Sebastian?”

It takes an intellectual to weave such complicated lies to himself that he can get trapped in them. Some have even accused me of that. Non-intellectuals seem to be taken in by other types of lies. The statement is not inherently self-contradictory.

soru writes: “As it is, it can be hard to tell from BBC reports whether they genuinely don’t know what’s going on, or simply are being deliberately euphemistic.”

Maybe it’s simply because their reporters regularly have to deal with people on both sides of various conflicts.

I mean, it’s easy for Andrew Sullivan to sit in P-town and declare things to be terrorism. But he’s not a reporter in Kashmir talking to people who he described as terrorists last week. Or people who supported said act of terrorism and thought it justified. That’s a good way to get killed, or at least fail to get the story.

I submit that the BBC maybe can’t afford to get tunnel vision focused on Al Qaeda, like American pundits and networks that purport to do international news.

Katherine,
It’s worth noting, I think, that one official defition of “terrorist organization” and “terrorist activity”, that found in the INA (INA section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii))has no mention that the activity must be non-military or non-state. Assasination, for example, falls under the rules, but assasinations are often military opperations. Such an action would fall pretty clearly under the definition of terrorism in the INA even if one were part of a military team on an officail mission. You’re probably right about the paradigm case of terrorism, but that’s certainly not part of the definition of the term, nor the way it’s used in the laws.

_ That’s a good way to get killed, or at least fail to get the story._

If they are operating under those kind of constraints, surely they should have a presenter give a disclaimer before the piece-to-camera?

soru

I have to wholeheartedly agree with Katherine (which I will admit doesn’t happen enough). Just because there are definitional issues on the hard cases doesn’t get you off the hook on the easy cases. If you can’t report shocking someone’s genitals as torture, if you can’t report Dafur as genocide and you can’t report bombing the tube in London as terrorism you aren’t being a good reporter. And that holds true even though there are questions about exactly where the line between torture and rough treatment might be found, despite the fact that the Bush administration sometimes tries to call torture “interrogation”, despite the fact that no-one commiting genocide calls it that, the fact that the EU didn’t want to call the killings in Dafur genocide, and despite the fact that some people would prefer not to call the PLO a terrorist organization. None of those disagreements excuse you in the clear cases of torture, genocide, and terrorist activity.

Chris, I’d still be interested in what you have to say to Katherine’s #58. If the Israelis and others have used the word “terrorist” to stigmatise people who aren’t in fact terrorists, how on earth does that supply a reason for the BBC to stop using the word, as opposed to being careful about *how* they use it? I don’t see how that even *looks* like a reason. It certainly doesn’t show that there can’t still be a perfectly clear definition (as clear as most of the terms that get used in these contexts) that could be stuck to consistently.

Jimmy, you can say: “the US military bombed Fallujah” and “such and such bombed the London tube”. Or you can say: “Terrorist US government bombed Fallujah” and “Islamic terrorists bombed the London tube”. Which one do you prefer?

_I take it by “can’t” you mean “don’t” Sebastian._

It would seem to mean “can’t”, as the original reporters wrote it the other way and had their words changed.

soru

as I said, as an immediate description “shocking someone’s genitals” or “blowing up a subway full of people on their way to work” is, actually, preferable–more specific is more informative than more general. But there are followup stories, and in those you need to use shorthand. “Terrorist” is a useful term that is more specific and more descriptive than many of the terms that the BBC uses instead.

I don’t spend much time worrying about this, normally. I am as annoyed as you by everyone who gets into a huff because the BBC or Reuters said “attack” or “bombing” instead of “act of terrorism”–there are better things to do. But the BBC has better things to do than edit this word out of their stories, and when people use scare quotes around terrorism–not the BBC, I’ve encountered this most in academic writing–it drives me batty. I think the BBC’s concerns are needless, and I am very prickly indeed about journalists who think that calling things what they are is biased. (this manifests itself in other, far more destructive forms in the United States.)

One point in defence of the BBC’s policy in this particular instance, which no one seems to have made: “Terrorist” is a word which makes poeple frightened and angry. In the circumstances of a terrorist attack, neither emotion is helpful.

“The BBC can say all it needs to say by spelling out the unvarnished facts (see my reply to Sebastian #78). Since it can do so, there is not need to have a specially nuanced policy on the correct use of “terrorist” just to appease the people for whom use of that word has immense symbolic significance.”

The value laden choice to excise the perfectly useful word terrorist is a political choice reflected in the fact that the BBC is perfectly happy to use all sorts of value-laden words with disputed meanings in other venues. Their choice not to do so in this very limited subset of cases instead of having a precise definition of a charged word and their seeming interest in excising it even after it has been PROPERLY used suggests that there is more going on–which of course you don’t want to look at for even a moment.

Sebastian Holsclaw: let me repeat what I said.

Anthony, you’re a language fascist. Yes, that’s an accurate term.

Melanie Phillips’ blog is a good example of how certain columnists really do depend upon their subeditors. As the friend of a former Daily Mail subeditor, I already knew this quite well…

Maybe either Sebastian or Katherine could go throught this, say, and point out where exactly they believe the article might be made more accurate, if they were allowed to carry out the political correctness policing which they favour.

It says “Anti-Terrorist officers”.

I assume that should be changed to anti-bomber officers, lest the BBC be seen to be supporting the government’s position by using their terminology.

Anthony – You’re just wrong there. That’s not what the policy requires.

This is utterly pointless, you have a fixed position, and further debate has no purpose.

If you wish bi, you can chalk this up as a victory over a fascist. That’ll make you happy.

Have a good night.

Engels,

It was a joke strawman, similar in nature to some of those offered to me as “arguments”.

Night.

The former also target civilian Iraqis indiscriminately, and the latter blow the legs and arms off customers in Israelis restaurants.

Which highlights the problem with Katherine’s proposal. In an arena where some acts qualify as terrorism on her definition and some do not, the reports would refer to terrorists in one case and militants in another. A further complication is that some militant groups use terror, some don’t; the reporter doesn’t always know which group is responsible for the latest killing, or even whether all the victims were civilians. To me it seems clear that Katherine’s approach is unworkable. In every case where the word might have been used, but wasn’t, there would be complaints.

Would you shudder at them being called terrorists in those circumstances?

Are you trying to make a point of some sort? Looking at your other comments I suspect this is just an attempt at sarcasm.

I also note with amusement that Katherine is being treated as some kind of right-wing apologist here which if you look at the tagline on about 95% of these articles you would find that she rather decidedly is not.

of course there would always be complaints. I am well aware that certain people will never stop kvetching about the BBC, and I would pay a fair bit of money to get it broadcast here instead of our crap. and as I said, if you’re not sure that the definition applies in a given case, you could simply use a term that you’re certain is accurate.

I’m rather wary of wading into this this late and probably going over ground that has already been covered but, Katherine, as far as I can see from the above, your preferred definition of “terrorism” is organised violence against civilians for political ends. Have you therefore accepted that the BBC should refer to certain actions by the armed forces and governments of the US and the UK as “terrorist” acts? If you do believe this is the most honest policy, don’t you think it would be a politically fraught course to follow?

(I do count Dresden and Hiroshima as deliberately targetting civilians btw. I’m not aware of comparable bombings in Iraq. Fallujah, you may say, but that was less clearly a civilian target, and I just don’t know enough about what’s been proven to say civilians were targetted.

Once again, people should realize: “terrorism” carries evil connotations, but it does not have to cover all possible evil behavior to be a useful term that an objective journalist could use in good conscience.)

“If not, on what basis do you draw the distinction?”

Deliberate targetting of civilians. Both cases you cite were insurgents fighting against the army, in the first case the Nicaraguan army and in the second case the Russian army. I’m not asking that all of what goes on in Iraq be labelled ‘terrorist’.

I’m asking that the obviously terrorist acts like London or 9/11 or Madrid be called ‘terrorist’. It really isn’t that tricky of a distinction. Most non-college graduates could easily grasp it. If you think some things are too close to call, fine. But not EVERYTHING is too close to call.

Deliberate targetting of civilians.

The contras in Nicaragua most unquestionably did just that, on numerous occasions. If they were not a “terrorist organization,” they were at the very least committing acts of terrorism with the full knowledge, cooperation, and support of the US government. It’s not even remotely “too close to call.”

Edgar Chamorro, a contra PR official whose duties included bribing Honduran journalists, received praise from his CIA handlers when he lied to U.S. reporters about the goals of the contras. But he was read the riot act on those rare occasions when he let the truth slip out, either about real goals or the routine nature of contra atrocities. Sickened by the atrocities and his role as a paid deceiver, Chamorro resigned and told his story in a sworn affadavit to the World Court in 1985.

In a letter published in the Jan. 9, 1986 New York Times, he described the end results of one particular policy countenanced by the Reagan-CIA-Negroponte crowd: “During my four years as a ‘contra’ director, it was premeditated policy to terrorize civilian noncombatants to prevent them from cooperating with the [Sandinista] Government. Hundreds of civilian murders, tortures and rapes were committed in pursuit of this policy, of which the contra leaders and their CIA superiors were well aware.”

Sebastian,

I’m well aware Katherine isn’t a right-wing apologist. Given your stance on torture I can hardly regard you as one either. The left-right classification doesn’t make a lot of sense these days, what with people who call themselves conservatives defending spendthrift fiscal policies, dismissing IR realists as reactionaries, complaining that their opponents don’t have enough revolutionary ideas etc.

Ah, but the BBC does use ‘insurgent’ so your analysis rather dramatically breaks down.

Nothing I said was based on a premise that the BBC doesn’t refer to insurgents as insurgents. Of course it does. The BBC refrains from saying which insurgents are terrorists and which ones aren’t. As to the London attacks, like practically everyone else I consider terrorism a perfectly accurate description but I understand the reasons for avoiding the word in news bulletins. For the reasons given I think that’s a sound policy.

Katherine,

…if you’re not sure that the definition applies in a given case, you could simply use a term that you’re certain is accurate.

That wouldn’t solve the problem. It isn’t just a matter of tiresome complaints. The complaints would frequently be justified because the biases of individual reporters would inevitably affect their decisions. There are too many borderline cases. The targets could be soldiers, off-duty reservists, would-be recruits. Suppose, for example, a bomb goes off at a bus-stop; was it terrorism, or was the bomber planning to approach a soldier before setting off the bomb? There aren’t enough hours in the day to deal with the arguments that a busy newsroom would have to consider. Once you admit that state actors can be terrorists it gets even more complicated, since they don’t usually announce that they are using terror. They may say that particular segments of the population “don’t get it” and leave it up to the rest of us to figure out whether the claims about avoiding civilian casualties are sincere. The “if you’re not sure” clause introduces a bias there. You won’t be sure until the files are opened many years from now and old soldiers publish their memoirs.

Katherine / Sebastian,

With regard to your efforts to combat torture etc., I should have added, more power to you both.

I just spent more than ten minutes of my life looking at this utterly useless thread.

You guys are arguing about whether some media company ought to use particular words. You’re arguing about tiny details of the slant of the media.

Meanwhile we have a crisis. We’re approaching 2000 troops dead and many more wounded. We’re having a lot of troops that aren’t re-enlisting and not being replaced. The war effort is in danger, and there’s no evidence of any effective planning toward a successful completion.

We depend on training iraqi forces to replace the US forces that will have to leave, and how are we training them? We’re training them to use the same tactics that have worked so well for us so far?

And you guys are arguing about the choices of wording for the news.

How about this — somebody suggest to the british media and the american media and so on that they report political news using Basic English. If you can’t say it with an 800 word vocabulary then there’s probably something you’re trying not to say.

They could report the casualties in iraq as “killing by coalition forces”, “killing by iraqi government forces” and “killing by unknown persons”. Then if necessary they can speculate about the motives of the unknown persons.

Sheesh.

Putting aside the arguments about what various third parties ought to have done, what result do we want from the war?

I personally am undecided. Here is one possible scenario that I think would be in some ways nearly as good as we could get:

It becomes more and more obvious to the american public that we’re losing in iraq. But the republicans keep insisting that we’re winning. In 2006 the democrats win seats but not enough to actually win any paricular battles against the highly-regimented republican legislators. So the war continues, worsening with unchanged tactics but cosmetic improvements, for two more years. Democrats say it isn’t working and some alternative is needed repubicans say there is no alternative and insist that we’re doing well. Just before the 2008 elections various republican legislative candidates start talking about withdrawal with honor, Then the republican presidential candidate talks that way, but he’s real mealy-mouthed, he says he has a plan for victorious withdrawal but it’s a secret and it doesn’t have a timetable. Masses of registered republicans vote libertarian, to the point that in one single election the GOP becomes a third party, and voting republican rather than libertarian means you’re throwing your vote away. Remaining republicans change the name of the party to the National Religious Party.

In 2010 the libertarians get enough seats to be a serious threat to democrats and we get a real two-party system going. Meanwhile we withdraw from iraq under fire, and spend the next 50 years arguing about whose fault it was.

That doesn’t seem very good to me, but it might be the best we could do.

Here’s an alternative: In early 2007 we impeach Bush and Cheney and the next guy in line arranges a military withdrawal. We give money and military supplies and so on to the iraqi government even though they insult us and make a big show that they’re independent of us. Maybe without our soldiers there they’d get enough support to take over the country. Democrats don’t get credit for it, and republicans do pretty well at the polls in 2008. Our military comes out considerably better than they would with an extra year holding decaying positions. The economy comes out considerably better. I tend to think that’s worth more than destroying the republican party. But some days I’m not sure.

as far as the contras i’d say: it would be appropriate use “terrorist attack” in articles about attacks on churches and otherwise targetting civilians, and not about attacks on the Nicaraguan army.

interesting that they use “terrorism” and not “terrorists”. “Terrorism” is the more necessary word, as not a whole lot is lost in the use of “bombers”, “shooters,” “kidnappers”, etc. I just hate the idea that you can’t use these words accurately because politicians use them inaccurately, or that anything that will cause anyone to criticize you is not objective and must be avoided. (Granted, they probably get more crap for not using “terrorist” than using it.)

BTW, what definition does the British Anti-Terrorism Act use?

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Terrorism_Act_2000

(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

Of course, a legal clause makes a poor dictionary definition – taken in isolation, and literally, it would seem to fit, say, pro-smoking campaigners like ASH.

soru

“You might say that there are other words available, but the term terrorism, I think, usually carries a stronger degree of condemnation than the alternatives.”

Than massacre?

A massacre is an act, not an individual or a tactic. Regardless of the degree, it is often not even appropriate – you can have acts of terrorism which are not massacres, if they don’t kill large numbers of people.

I really don’t think you will get very far with this, since if the alternatives are equivalent, you won’t have anything to complain to the BBC about to begin with.

What I don’t get is that the BBC bans the T word in the name of neutrality but journalistic neutrality can only be achieved through accurately reporting the news. Replacing the only word in English that means “targeting innocent people on purpose” with words that mean something else makes it impossible for a BBC report of an attack on innocent people to be accurate.

And so you come full circle: in the name of neutrality the BBC has made neutrality impossible to achieve. Whenever it reports on terrorism without using the T word it has produced a biased report.

“Whenever it reports on terrorism without using the T word it has produced a biased report.”

i’m having difficulty locating anything that could be called “bias” in any article to do with the london bombing on the bbc website. notwithstanding your bold claim that it is impossible to “accurately report[] the news” without using the word “terrorist”, i’ve managed to figure out that the attack involved “targeting innocent people on purpose”, notwithstanding my reliance on the bbc’s reporting.

Shalom Beck’s theory of the BBC, developed by reading through the old four volume Collected Essays, Letters, and Journalism of the late BBC staffer George Orwell

1. The BBC is a tax-funded agency of a democratic state. Its reporting decisions should, on the whole, advance the interests of that state. This means:

A. The BBC is a political educator, providing a democratic political education.

B. The BBC advances British foreign policy by propogandizing non-Brits

2. However, as agents the BBC staff have their own interests. In particular, they have a personal interest in career advancement, which to some extent conflicts with their duties as employees of the BBC.

3. The BBC staff also have personal political views, which may conflict with the interests of the British state or with their own professional interests.

To use the word “terrorist,” today, is in the global war between Islam and the Jews to take a decision to side against those who deliberately set out to kill Jews. Motives that I would categorize under 1B, 2, and 3 make BBC staffers reluctant to use the word, therefore.

But the interesting question, I think, is whether the BBC’s role as a democratic educator is furthered or compromised by this reluctance.

” – Shalom Beck, reporting from Belfast.”

I know that this a devastating criticism, but I don’t understand it.

I know that this a devastating criticism, but I don’t understand it.

If you don’t understand it, how can you know what it is? It’s not an especially subtle point. BBC editorial staff have been reporting on terrorism for many, many years, sometimes at uncomfortably close range. For the most part their experience was not gained in a “global conflict” between Muslims and Jews, but in a strictly local conflict between (mostly Catholic) Irish nationalists and (mostly Protestant) Unionists.

The fact that you refer to a “global conflict” suggests it looms large in your mind. Not everyone sees it that way. For many US soldiers it will be over when their tour of duty ends. For many Iraqis it is mostly a conflict with other Iraqis. For many millions of people in Europe, Africa, South America and Asia it hits the news bulletins now and then, scarcely affecting their lives at all.

This does not purport to be a devastating criticism of anything. I merely suggest that you consider the background to the BBC’s policy before drawing conclusions about it. You will usually arrive at better conclusions that way.

I have been reading Mel Phillips, and wonder if the wider topic of a reformation within Islam should be under consideration by moderate Muslims

BTW, as we are in favour of calling of calling a spade a spade here, could we also petition the beeb to refer to Miss Phillips as a “stark raving loon” since, on any reasonable definition, she is one?

whatever people’s view of Mel Phillips,let’s focus on the need for a reformation within Islam

kentresident,

There have been lots of Reformations within Islam, these two, for instance.

If you mean that it would be nice if all Muslims became cuddly agnostics instead, I suggest you look closely at the blood soaked activities of Luther and Calvin before you call for a Reformation.

Sorry – I should have said that I hd to go to the Guardian website to get the full text of blair’s statement on Monday.

Chris Bertram

On Monday afternoon and evening the BBC website did NOT carry the full text of Blair’s statement.

How do I know ? Because I emailed the main BBC report which excised the T word and therefore distorted what Blair was saying to M Phillips and others and also posted it at various blogsites. These emails/postings also gave the URL of the full texdt t the Guardian website – this was the only place I could find it.

In any event, the man in the street does not normlly read the full text of public statements such as this – they read the media reports which are BASED on the statement. The Page 1 version headlined version. Any full text would not be carried on Page 1 – it would typically be on a subsequent page – “buried inside”. On Monday afternoon evening I could not find the full text on the BBC site.

Further, I submit that it actually immaterial whether the full statement was present somewhere else on the website. What matters in this case is that the BBC excised nearly all the instances of the T word in their main report. Including Blair’s clear statement, dramatic at the time, that ascribed the actions on 7/7 were by “Islamist extremist TERRORISTS”.

So I say again the whole thrust of your post is wrong.

So, Mr Bertram

Were you wrong or were you wrong ?