What is the problem that the BBC has with using the term “terrorist”? Take this report headed “1970’s radical freed from jail”. It concerns a woman who spent 24 years on the run before pleading guilty to a 1975 attempted police car bombing, and who has been released after a seven-year jail term. Sara Jane Olson, formerly known as Kathleen Soliah, was a member of the terrorist group the so-called Symbionese Liberation Army. The group became famous for kidnapping newspaper heiress Patty Hearst in 1974. Olson also pleaded guilty to the second degree murder of a woman during a 1975 bank raid. This woman is NOT radical, she is a terrorist. Would the BBC please explain WHY the euphemism “radical” is employed rather than than the correct term “terrorist”? Moral relativism got their tongues?
A RADICAL VOCABULARY.
Bookmark the permalink.
JR
“A kind of ‘attitude’ point occurs to me – but it’s merely speculative:
maybe when a terrorist atrocity takes place in the UK, most people think of it as a ‘crime’; whereas when such things happen in the ME they’re regarded by Brits as being part of a ‘war'”
This may very well be true.
Unfortunately, that’s not how Ayman Al Zawahiri looks at it. Here’s what he had to say about the 7/7 bombings–In Ayman Al-Zawahiri’s taped message he refered to the 7/7
bombings, and I quote from Al-Jazeera.net
(http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/081F5547-A5A6-429B-A53D-080568E5
2A5A.htm): ‘
He claimed responsibility for London’s July attacks saying that the
British policy in Iraq and Palestine, and its hostility to Islam,
justified what happened in London.'”
So if the perpetrators of these attacks in Israel consider them an act of “resistance” in the context of “war”, and the perpetrators of identical types of attacks in Britain consider them acts of “resistance” in the context of “war”, shouldn’t the attacks be characterized in the identical way?
JR–
Have you wondered why folks who espouse a pro-Palestinian point of view don’t appear on this blog to complain about BBC bias against the Palestinian position? Perhaps you would say they wouldn’t feel welcome here. So have they formed their own “Biased BBC” blog to complain about about BBC bias against the Palestinian position? I don’t think so. And I don’t believe it’s for lack of passion about their cause. I believe it’s because, by and large, they feel the BBC presents an “objective viewpoint”. That alone should indicate that there may be a problem with “balance.”
Simon
Check out some of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Media_Watch
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080303_israels_illegal_assault.php
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/04/should_medialens_be_allowed_no.html
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3724.shtml
“The use of the words can imply judgement where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups”
“In other words the rationale, for the BBC, as to whether to descibe an event as terrorism or not seems to be dependant not on the action itself but on the legitimacy of the perpetrator. I would contend that this has only one meaning – that the BBC considers that some acts of terrorism are acceptable.”
No, you’ve missed the key nuance – where there is no clear consensus. The BBC expects other people to consider some acts of terror acceptable. The BBC withholds its own judgement when it expects controversy.
“One area where the BBC gets it totally wrong is where they change quoted speech. If an eyewitness, or a senior policeman, or an Israeli general uses the word “terrorist” then to quote his words but change the ‘T’ word is plain dishonest.”
This is true, though it is the exception rather than the rule and could just as likely be slap-dash editing behind it as with the 1.6km howler.
“However, I think Simon (11.02) has it right and I pose the same question – what’s so hard to understand.”
With examples as clear-cut as Simon’s, nothing. It’s hard to understand once a mixture of military and civilian targets are involved, as with the Pentagon. A lot of people would claim that attacks on a military target, even with enormous “collateral damage”, do not constitute terrorism but practically no-one would dispute that the Pentagon attack on 9-11 was terrorism. This is where it gets complicated – we stretch the definition more by association and less by logic.
“I can see no reason why a comprehensive definition of terrorism could not include this concept – such that attacks on military/legitimate targets would be treated as tantamount to terrorism if the attacker displayed depraved indifference.”
I can. A great many armies would suddenly find themselves getting even more accusations of terrorism than they already are. As long as you have the fig-leaf of one combatant among the civilian casualties it’s currently not terrorism.
Now if I may refer you back to Hillhunt’s master-work of condescending sarcasm, what does a BBC report actually lose by not using the t-word? Who reads a report on a mass-murderer, sees ‘militant’ or ‘radical’ or ‘insurgent’ and thinks “Oh, they must be an alright kinda guy”? If all the facts which led you B-Beeboids to a ‘terrorist’ verdict are presented, then what need is there for the BBC to add its own value-judgement?
“Have you wondered why folks who espouse a pro-Palestinian point of view don’t appear on this blog to complain about BBC bias against the Palestinian position?”
It would seem rather out of place, this being primarily a right-wing anti-Palestinian blog discussing the left-wing, pro-Palestinian bias of the BBC.
“Perhaps you would say they wouldn’t feel welcome here. So have they formed their own “Biased BBC” blog to complain about about BBC bias against the Palestinian position? I don’t think so.”
http://www.medialens.org/
Headline in the Guardian:
After five days of freedom, 1970s terrorist is sent back to prison
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/24/usa.humanrights
Take J.R.’s good advice and follow the electronic intifada link.
Tim Llewellyn interviewed by Victor Kattan, The Electronic Intifada, 29 March 2005
It seems Tim was not a great fan of the Beeb either. Poor Beeb. Can’t win it seems.
“The BBC really ought to have more reporting from the Palestinian side. I’ve suggested it to the BBC. You really must have people living with the Palestinians – to explain what is actually happening there – ”
Good job Alan Johnston took Llewellyn’s advice.
One explanation as to why the western media is so biased against the poor Palestinians and for the Israelis.
“But I mean there is still this kind of idea that the Arabs are other; are different, and wild and irresponsible, and emotional and some how lack authority”
while of the beastly Israelis
“they’ve got a democracy, and they look like us more or less, and they shop at Wall Mart, and have baby buggies and they drive Fiat Pandas”.
I love the ‘more or less.’ (apart from the horns)
It’s hard to understand once a mixture of military and civilian targets are involved
Alex. if you read my previous post I conceded the point that there might indeed be some ‘grey ‘ areas. However these are very few and far between and does not excuse the effective blanket prohibition by the BBC in describing terrorist incidents as terrorist.
The BBC expects other people to consider some acts of terror acceptable. The BBC withholds its own judgement when it expects controversy.
I disagree with you, the BBC, as far as I can see, does not follow this logic in any other area other than terrorism. From their treatment of climate change, through racism and paedophilia to political correctness in all its forms. As I said in one of my earlier posts If it follows its own logic about using loaded words when the motivation is unknown or unclear then the BBC will also have to resile on the words blackmail, fraud, theft assault and many others which describe actions without implying motivation.
“From their treatment of climate change, through racism and paedophilia to political correctness in all its forms.
These are separate issues. If you, like many here, think the BBC is taking sides on climate change, or if you are worried paedophiles are getting a bad rap, then that is a case of the BBC failing to stick to its own guidelines, not sticking to them too much as you claim here.
“As I said in one of my earlier posts If it follows its own logic about using loaded words when the motivation is unknown or unclear then the BBC will also have to resile on the words blackmail, fraud, theft assault and many others which describe actions without implying motivation.”
There are two differences. The first is that, apart from maybe blackmail, all the words you have given are generally words you will get printed on your criminal conviction (at which point the ‘alleged’ can be dropped). Terrorists get (I think) “conspiracy to commit murder”, “conspiracy to cause explosions” and of course “murder”, “criminal damage” and so on. The second is that these words tend to be involved in isolated criminal cases, whereas ‘terrorism’ (outside of Keanu Reeves films) is almost always part of a wider political situation.
By analogy, take the word ‘murderer’. The BBC is quite happy to apply this word to Ian Huntley, whose murders were personally motivated. However, even though some would consider it accurate due to the war in Iraq and his application of the death penalty as Governor of Texas, the BBC generally avoids calling George W. Bush a murderer.
These are separate issues Indeed they are, but the fundamental issue is the same. You said The BBC withholds its own judgement when it expects controversy I merely pointed out to you a number of areas where the BBC does not do so. Why should it choose to do so just on the issue of terrorism? I repeat my point that the BBC considers that some acts of terrorism are acceptable and thus wishes to avoid using the word in case it is required to label as ‘terrorism’ acts which it thinks are justified.
all the words you have given are generally words you will get printed on your criminal conviction This also applies to the T word if your conviction is under the Terroism Act 2000.
these words tend to be involved in isolated criminal cases, whereas ‘terrorism’ (outside of Keanu Reeves films) is almost always part of a wider political situation. I fail to see the significance there are probably more blackmailers and thieves than there are terrorists.
By analogy, take the word ‘murderer’ I deliberately refrained from using the word murder since it already has connotations of motivation as do many other words connected with taking a human life.
“This also applies to the T word if your conviction is under the Terroism Act 2000”
Has anyone actually been convicted of terrorism under the Terrorism Act? Preparation of, possession of materials useful for etc. But has it actually found any terrorists yet?
Except this daft biddy of course: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084801.stm
“I fail to see the significance there are probably more blackmailers and thieves than there are terrorists.”
What political debates would be tipped one way or another by referring to a thief or blackmailer as such?
John Reith,
I’m honestly curious as to your response to my suggestion at 1:07 a.m. 23.3.08, regarding you bringing up the issue at the BBC once again, given your apparent agreement with Arthur’s rationale, which seems to trump the logic of the Beeb’s current reasoning.
Also, interested in your reaction to my comment at 1:23 a.m. 23.3.08, in which Al Zawahiri maintains the same rationale for the 7/7 attacks, that is, “resistance” against “occupation” (British occupation in Iraq) as is used to perpetrate suicide bombings in Israel, hence from the perpetrators’ point of view both acts are acts in the midst of “war”, not random or idle “criminal” activity.
Also, I saw the links you sent to pro-Palestinian media watchdogs–thank you. On the other hand, I’ve seen numerous examples of thanks given to the BBC by Arab groups or organizations, some based in the Middle East, in particular, for their “balanced” coverage on the Middle East. Can’t say I’ve ever seen any Jewish organization, from across the political spectrum, anywhere in the world, do something like that…
But the BBC is heavily islamicised and the term ‘innocent’ does not apply to civilians (unless they are muslims), therefore an act of aggression against any non-muslim civilians cannot be an act of terror because no ‘innocents’ were killed or maimed. That is why the term ‘terrorist’ is not applied to attacks in western countries, (NB that this includes Israel) especially when perpetrated by muslims. It is consistent, and it does reveal what is happening within the BBC.
Allan@Oslo | 23.03.08 – 6:06 pm
That is really putting it in a nutshell. The more we look, the more it is becoming evident that this is what is happening to the BBC. Take note, John Reith. You should be fighting this with everything you have, instead of excusing it.
John Reith | 23.03.08 – 11:17 am,
I will get back to you on this.
John Reith | 23.03.08 – 9:29 pm
On very rare occasions the ‘T’ word is heard on BBC radio and TV in connection with a terrorist attack on Israelis but it is immediately edited out of existence. When the report on the atrocity is next updated, the ‘T’ word has always disappeared. And I don’t believe I have heard it at all on the World Service.
The BBC has not banned the word, true, but it touches it gingerly and with a very long pole, especially careful not to apply it to Palestinian terror attacks. The point has also often been made, and made again on this thread that the BBC doesn’t even use the word when quoting others who have distinctly used it. This is sheer dishonesty for purposes of propaganda – in order to paint as rosy a picture of terrorists as possible and minimise the impact of their evil deeds.
On the other hand, I’ve seen numerous examples of thanks given to the BBC by Arab groups or organizations, some based in the Middle East, in particular, for their “balanced” coverage on the Middle East.
This was particularly apparent during Alan Johnston’s kidnapping. The HYS on Johnston quickly turned into a hero-worshipping session and was flooded with supportive, even adoring comments, many from Palestinians and other Arabs expressing their appreciation of Johnston’s support for the Palestinians and calling him a “true friend.”
Some comments even described him as an “objective reporter” and a “friend of the Palestinians” in the same breath.
There is no doubt whatsoever about where the BBC’s heart lies in this conflict.
Bryan | 24.03.08 – 11:51 pm
There is no doubt whatsoever about where the BBC’s heart lies in this conflict.
What heart? 🙂
You are John Reith?? Can’t be.