– watching the BBC 10 O’Clock News just now the main story is the tragic and barbaric murder of Eugene Armstrong, one of the Americans kidnapped along with another American and a Briton in Baghdad recently. To their credit, the 10 O’Clock News (in the forms of Huw Edwards, Nicholas Witchell and another correspondent whose name escapes me) was unequivocal in describing this latest atrocity as a murder (all three reporters) and the people who did it as terrorists (Edwards). It is a welcome change from the insipid moral equivalence of terms like ‘killed’, ‘executed’, ‘militants’, etc., although I truly wish this had come about under other circumstances. I hope that other BBC news programmes and News Online follow suit.
Saddened and appalled, but thankful for the BBC’s honesty
Bookmark the permalink.
Let’s hope that it’s a start on a new policy. The one that galls me most is ‘executed’. It gives a legal patina to something that’s plainly murder.
“…thankful for the BBC’s honesty.” For doing what’s supposed to be their job? Are we to praise water for being wet?
Thanks, but no thanks.
Prediction: Hawley won’t go near this one.
I commented a couple of weeks ago that I made a (yet another) complaint to the BBC over its use of militant/gunmen/hostage-takers etc in its reporting of the Beslan massacre, placing this in the context of its reporting of terrorist atrocities generally.
I had a reply from a named person. The justification is as follows:
“The BBC gives a great deal of thought to the language used in reporting atrocities. The most important thing is not whether groups are given particular labels, but that BBC audiences receive clear and accurate reports of what has happened and understand how people have been affected by acts of great violence and brutality.”
So … the most important thing is not whether groups are given particular labels …
I also saw the 10 O’Clock News and nearly had a coughing fit when I heard the word ‘terrorist’ used. Lets hope our efforts are beginning to have some effect. Not holding out for a permanent change of heart on their behalf though.
It is not to “their credit” that BBC staff, in this isolated instance, described things as they occurred.
It is the minimum that one should expoect on all occasions. Bloggers shoud not have to do the oversight funtion of the BBC (for free) – this is the role of the fabulously well paid Tessa Jowell (Culture Minister); and the governors. Both have failed miserably. In fact, Tessa should resign under the doctrine of ministerial responsiblity.
‘Our’ ABC hasn’t gone all wet like the Beeb. Even the most heinous dogs remain just ‘militants’. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1203856.htm
I’ve seen ‘your’ abc, stevo and they make ‘our’ cbs look almost honest. I hope you have alternatives.
What’s holding every American back…Maybe they need to know that they have to unite in order to win this terrorist war!
Colin – can we have that in English?
I find it extremely contradictory that while this weblog claims to document the alleged bias (definition: A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgement) of BBC’s journalism, neutral terms like “militants” are condemned to be “insipid”. However hard I try, I certainly don’t see journalism as a form of entertainment meant to keep audiences from finding it “insipid”.
One fundamental argument underlying this debate on language used in journalism, especially the reporting of news (I see news as something vastly different from editorials, commentaries and needless to say, blogging) is the principles of journalism in reporting news.
Obviously, being biased indicates a preference, whether it’s towards a certain ideology, political thought, etc. Such bias inevitably show themselves in the language used in describing events in news.
Thus, if you wish BBC to be unbiased, then you would want the terms used to depict non-preference for any particular judgement or stand. Using neutral terms like “militant” thereby logically follows from this.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. How you interpret a person depends on your stand. Since we are talking about bias, all forms of interpretation should be removed in the language used in news reporting unless a particular situation is extremely clear. As such, I don’t see any cause for alarm in this supposed bias, whatever strange conception of bias you might possess. Of course, if you feel that your thinking / ideology / stand isn’t reflected in the news, perhaps it’s not surprising at all that people are kicking such a huge fuss over this alleged little piece of bias you’ve gleaned. What matters is that the words fit the action and not a particular side.
As for “moral equivalence”, again, the same reasoning holds. Do you wish the news to be some sort of brainwashing material to be propagated to the masses? Or do you allow people to judge for themselves what is what?
These are questions worth considering before you jump in, pointing your finger and start accusing this and that to be biased with no standards and guidelines backed by arguments to go by. My suggestion is to:
1. Calm down.
2. Start by reading the policies of the BBC which is conveniently provided on its website to understand the rationale behind their journalism.
Re definitions, I read somewhere that freedom fighters are always trying to build something up, whereas terrorists are trying to destroy regardless and without anything constructive in mind. Anyhow ……… last night at around 10 pm I phoned the BBC Complaints number ( 0870 0100222, a 24 hour number) spoke with a gentleman named Steve who took my complaint. “I see you’re still calling those vicious murderers who have just chopped off someone’s head, militants in your caption. Don’t you think that is horrible for their family to see, on the BBC website.” Steve who sounded either half asleep, stoned or inebriated, attempted to argue with me but then agreed to write down my complaint and pass it on to the relevant people.
And Greg Dyke, in his pathetic cheapskate channel 4 obsessive whinge last Sunday, has the cheek to remark, on entering the BBC building, “well of course we’ve had to beef up security because of the terrorist threat” !!!!!!
I suggest reading up more on journalistic principles. Also, _context_ is important. Just because a particular news organisation uses the word “milliant” in one of their reports, that does NOT mean they are forever condemned not to use the word “terrorist” in other contexts – I know nothing more ridiculous than this method of judging bias.
Just to illustrate one example, journalists, when quoting their sources, would of course use the word “terrorist” when the sources themselves (e.g. the spokesman, government official, etc) used it when interviewed. This is different from that when the reporter is writing in his/her words.
Also, I don’t see the relevance of bringing the victim’s family into this. A news organisation’s role is not to appease any specific groups of people; that is if impartiality is valued. In fact, I think it’s perfectly all right to use either “militant” or “terrorist” depending on the contexts. Besides, I don’t see how changing the labels can make any difference to the reality that an act of violence has already been committed. We can argue all day and all night about the terms used, but it will not change the fact that these victims are dead. We would do better to transfer our energy towards understanding why such acts are continually being committed and coming up with solutions to change the situation.
Another crucial point is, the example you gave about Greg Dyke on Channel 4 is flawed.
Greg Dyke is an individual free to possess any views on whatever matters. He was not, at that point in time, a journalist reporting the news and therefore obliged to be unbiased. Therefore, he is free to call it “terrorist” or what terms he wishes.
Aside from that, it has to be emphasised that news reporting is different from writing editorials or even writing on your weblog – these days, they tend to be called “journalism” as well, when they’re not.
Kovach and Rosenstiel’s book, The Elements of Journalism, puts it succinctly: “The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.”
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Let’s say, for example, that a person climbs onto a bus in a place like Tel Aviv and then blows themselves plus eleven others into smithereens. That person is a terrorist:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=terrorist
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=terrorism
The word “terrorist” should therefore be used by those reporting this event, because it meets the definition given in the links above.
Now, some primal savages in some parts might applaud this action and call the individual a “freedom fighter”, but the BBC (and others) shouldn’t be delving into its Thesaurus to try and find alternative terms to downplay the atrocity.
Kovach and Rosenstiel’s book, The Elements of Journalism, puts it succinctly: “The essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.”
Sounds like this book should be on the reading list of Andrew Gilligan, Piers Morgan, Dan Rather.
Lets say the Israeli army fires a missile into a crowd under the pretext that there might be terrorists amongst them, or bulldozes Palestinian houses. Radical acts intended to cause terror for the political motive of quelling violent dissent. I suspect you’d hear a lot of squealing if they were described as terrorist acts on the BBC though.
“Lets say the Israeli army fires a missile into a crowd under the pretext that there might be terrorists amongst them, or bulldozes Palestinian houses.”
Israel is a fully democratic state. The Israeli Defence Forces target terrorists not civilians. Innocent bystanders have been killed by the IDF, but that has not been their goal. Contrast that with Hamas who try and kill as many civilians as they can • there is no such thing as “collateral damage” in the Hamas lexicon.
Neither is the demolition of terrorist homes and havens “terrorism”.
You are absolutely correct: there would be a lot of squealing if the BBC described this as terrorist acts, especially given their past equivocation to Hamas violence.
“Neither is the demolition of terrorist homes and havens “terrorism”. It’s good job all those terrorists live in straight line then, or that big wall would be zigzagging all over place.
Ah, the fence. What a shame it was ever necessary to build it.
But, it has played a major role in the reduction of suicide bombings. Compare the 2002 rate with 2004 for example.
The fence has saved lives. Well worth some zig-zagging.
A secondary benefit is the reduction in news coverage from Israel which means we get to see less of the repellent Orla Goering.
“The fence has saved lives. Well worth some zig-zagging.” Probably. Does this mean we can knock your house and build an anti-Al Qaeda fence?
“Does this mean we can knock your house and build an anti-Al Qaeda fence?”
How is the al-Qaeda threat in this country in any way analogous to the pre-fence threat Israel had to contend with, with suicide bombers strolling over from a different jurisdiction (Palestinian Authority) into Israeli towns and cities before immolating themselves (and sadly others as well)?
The fence is an appropriate response to the threat of suicide bombers from the West Bank.
As I said before, I only wish it hadn’t been necessary to build it.
Downplay the atrocity? Step back for a moment, discard your allegiances or prejudices in favour of either side (Israeli and Palestinian), and take a look at this study.
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/60769/
To paste it here:
As for the term “freedom fighter”, it’s obvious you would view these people who have nothing better to do than to blow themselves up for a certain cause as freedom fighters if people are oppressed and there is injustice, which unsurprisingly is what certain groups of Palestinians feel. Besides which, there have been many reports of innocent Palestinians being targeted against of which the Israeli side have not given explanations for and the fact remains that far more Palestinians have been killed in such conflicts than Israelis (3 times if I’m not wrong).
Cindy dear, you are quite late to the party. We’ve already exhaustively debated the Glasgow Media Studies “report” extensively quite simply months ago and determined that it was a bunch of statist, collectivist hogwash designed to support the anti-Israel status quo over at the dear old Beeb. Really do you think you are re-inventing the wheel here by bringing posting this warmed-over Chomskyite balderdash?
In terms of the barrier, the best option would be to force Israel to place it inside its’ own borders leaving the settlers where they are. Give all existing settlers Palestinian citizenship, thus forcing the Palestinians to protect them under their own laws. Their taxes can be used to compensate any locals forced off their land. If the Palestinian government fails to offer sufficient protection it’ll meet the definition of genocide and the government should be forcibly replaced with international troops stationed there indefinitely.
How’s that for genious? I should be named head of the UN immediately.
Hi Cindy. Thank you for your lengthy and earnest contributions. To any sane, reasonable (British) person someone, who, for example, takes hostages and then cuts off their heads or detonates explosives and shrapnel in amongst crowds of civilians is a terrorist, regardless of their cause.
The bias that we complain of in this case is that many journalists, in particular those at the BBC, seem to think that they should refrain from using the term terrorist, and instead use terms like militant.
The problems with this are:
1) it is biased away from normal, sane, British terminology/usage (and, hey, we are paying for it, and we want news, not washed down leftie-propaganda).
2) the word militant has many other current uses, thus to use it for terrorists downplays the actions, intent and effects of terrorists.