Here we go again on “militants” – this time in Afghanistan:
‘A high-ranking Afghan government official, who did not want to be named, told the BBC that any reduction in the number of US troops would affect morale in the country.
“This will help the Taleban and will have a negative impact on security,” the official said.’
Notwithstanding the official’s description, the BBC staff writer (who wrote this, presumably after speaking to “the BBC’s Andrew North in Kabul”) insists on calling them “militants”. An impartial broadcaster would call them “Taliban and al-qaeda fighters/militants” (which would be accurate), but we all know where that would lead the reader, given their pretty poor “branding” in the west (although it would appear “al-qaeda” can sometimes be used – I would like to see the style guide on this however)…
Update Why couldn’t this headline be “Hamas leader shot dead“? “Militant” is so clumsy.
Interesting point about the style guide. What BBBC ought to do is get hold of the guide (under FOI if necessary) and see what the advice to journalists really is.
Ironic that in Afghanistan, a reduction in US forces will encourage the Taliban, but in Iraq, the presence of US forces encourages the “resistance”, supposedly a reduction in US forces will thus discourage the “resistance” in Iraq? Yeah right. It is a beautiful damned if you do damned if you don’t for the US. Continued US military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq means that those countries are under occupation, but a reduction in forces would be destabilizing