“Seriously, can you please point to some sources were the people who detonated themselves in Pizza restaurants, or at wedding parties or on the London underground were called “militants” by the liberal media (your term) and not terrorist.”
OK, I will.
Pizza restaurants first. Here are are some BBC stories about the attack on the Sbarro pizza restaurant.
Link 1. “Hamas, the hard-line Palestinian militant group, said one of its members had been the bomber.
Link 2. It starts, “With Palestinian militants continuing to carry out suicide attacks in Israel…”
Later, happy Palestinians staged the Sbarro show – no mention of terrorists there in the BBC’s own voice either. Why don’t you google through bbc.co.uk for Sbarro and look for the word “terrorist” in the BBC’s own voice, rather than in quotes?
Incidentally, the father of a 15 year old girl murdered at Sbarro, commented on this blog here.
Now for a wedding party. Here are some BBC stories about the 2005 suicide bombing of a wedding in Amman, Jordan.
Link 1 – “At least several hundred people have marched through Amman to denounce the bombers and show loyalty to King Abdullah II. “Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” they chanted, referring to the Jordanian-born militant believed to lead al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
Link 2 It refers to “bombers”, but not terrorists. Again, why don’t you have a look through the BBC website for stories regarding this crime and see if you can find the bombers described as terrorists in the BBC’s own voice?
Finally, here’s something about the London Underground. In the immediate aftermath of the “7/7” London bombings of 2005 certain BBC staff did use the word terrorist several times. “Terrorist atrocity”, even. As in the case of Beslan, it looked for a moment like a change of heart. But this indelicacy contradicted policy. So the BBC went back through the stories and changed “terrorist” to “bomber”.
For proof, Harry’s Place got screenshots. This story was discussed in the Telegraph, which named the BBC official responsible as Helen Boaden. She was worried the word terrorist might offend the World Service customers.
(Links to old Biased BBC posts take you to the relevant month. You may have to scroll down to see the relevant post.)
Gunnar,
There were over 130 suicide bombing attacks on civilians in Israel during the second intifada.
In not ONE of those cases did the BBC website refer to the attack, without attribution, as terrorist attacks.
However, the BBC did refer to the 3 most prominent recent attacks in the UK as acts of terror, without attribution, including the 7/7 attacks, the Glasgow attack, and the attempted car bomb attack in Picadilly Circus.
Pure, demonstrable bias, period.
what are the Hebrew words for ‘militant’, ‘gunman’, ‘paramilitary’, ‘bomber’ (suicide and standard), ‘activist’ and any other words the BBC uses for ‘מחבל’?
Alex | Homepage | 20.04.08 – 6:27 pm
The dictionary that comes with my word processor provides the following translations milhamti(militant), ekdahan(gunman), kedem zvai(paramilitary), mfatzitz(bomber), mithabed(suicide), and activist :-)(activist). Clearly none sounds like mehabel (terrorist).
I have deliberately transliterated for the benefit of the non Hebrew, Yiddish and Ladino readers.
The point that is clearly being is missed is that Knesset and IDF spokesmen deliberately and consciously use the word for terrorist in Hebrew and English. When the BBC translates that in direct speech as ‘militant’ it is deliberately misleading, if coming from the Hebrew and false and against their own guidelines if the statement was made as it usually is – in English. I suggest you check the IDF spokesman’s site. Dozens of links to the word ‘terrorist’ and none to the word ‘militant’.
Jeremy Bowen won a well-deserved award for verbal gymnastics in 2007, for this classic. “There is no dialogue with those murderous terrorists,” Mr Abbas said, referring to Hamas militants”.
Gunnar,
Here are three BBC website articles on different aspects of the Netanya Passover massacre in which a suicide bomber detonated himself at a Passover Seder, killing 30, including elderly holocaust survivors, and wounding hundreds.
In not one of these articles does the site use the term “terror” or “terrorism” or “terrorist attack.”
In pictures: Netanya Bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4499380.stm
Eyewitness: Netanya Bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1897940.stm
Netanya bomb mastermind convicted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4270882.stm
Here are the links to the uses of the term “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, in the three most prominent cases of attacks in Britain in recent years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne…ews/ 6252276.stm ? The attempted car bombing at Picadilly circus, in which NO ONE was killed, was referred to, without quotes, by the BBC, as a terrorist plot. See the middle of the article. Here’s a direct quote from yet another BBC article, on the Glasgow airport attack: “A badly burned man detained after the suspected terror attack at Glasgow Airport has died in a Glasgow hospital.” ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne…est/ 6928854.stm ) Here’s another direct quote from the Glasgow airport attack at the BBC online: “Passengers used their cameras and mobile phones to record how an off-duty policeman used a fire extinguisher to try to save the terror suspect after he drove a second-hand Jeep packed with propane gas canisters into a doorway.” ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne…est/ 6928854.stm ) ”Terror suspect”, no quotes. Two mentions of the t-word in one article.
Still don’t see the bias?
“The dictionary that comes with my word processor provides the following translations milhamti(militant), ekdahan(gunman), kedem zvai(paramilitary), mfatzitz(bomber), mithabed(suicide), and activist (activist). Clearly none sounds like mehabel (terrorist).” –
and none is 100% correct, and some not even 5% correct 😉
‘milhamti’ (which is an adjective) is more ‘war-like’ than ‘militant’. I’ll have to do some more research, but I suspect that there is nothing better than ‘militanti’ (still an adj.) for ‘militant’.
‘ekdahan’ means someone who totes a revolver, so will only work when applied to Robert Ryan, Randolph Scott et al.
Kedem tzvai = PRE-military.
Bomber = maftzitz (note sp.), and means a bombing plane.
Suicide (i.e. a person) = mitabed (note sp.).
Suicide bomber = suicide terorist (although I prefer to call them homicide terrorists) = mehabel mitabed.
Hi Simon,
Many thanks for those links. I agree that the BBC did not mention the “terrorist” word.
However, does the word “suicide bomber” not mean terrorism? Doesn’t this word say it all?
What I was challenging in the first place was David’s:
“So little time, so many “militants.” I was reading this story on the BBC about Basra “militants” and then this story about Hamas “militants.” Each time Islamic inspired terrorists seek to bring death and destruction upon the innocent, the BBC trots out this “militant” euphemism. What’s the problem with using the correct word – TERRORIST? Oh I know the liberal media, including the BBC, sprint away from making any moral judgement about those scum that detonate themselves in Pizza restaurants, or at wedding parties, or even on London underground trains but all this does, in my view, is demonstrate their own innate moral relativism and cowardly failure to call things as they are.”
The BBC does not call them “militants”. They tend to call them “suicide bombers” or “bombers”. OK, the BBC does not call them “scum” as David does. But if you look closely at what David has written, you will see my bone of contention.
Read David’s entry closely again. When you do, you will see a lot of hot air but no real evidence. The same is true to other entries he posts here. Lots of emotion, little substance.
Here another example:
“Yes, there has been the odd bit of bother here and there but let us be clear; overall crime has NOT risen despite this massive increase of eastern Europeans – those Romanians and Bulgarians are a law-abiding lot apparently – from the moment they hit these shores.”
He is stating, that Romanians and Bulgarians are not law abiding. What else does his words mean? Perhaps he was not precise with his language. This can happen at times. However, if David complains about the use of language by the BBC, then he should make sure that his own use of language is water-tight. Unless he means that all Romanians and Bulgarians coming to the UK are criminals. And I am kind to David with this interpretation.
“However, does the word “suicide bomber” not mean terrorism? Doesn’t this word say it all?”
No the word(s) “suicide bomber” mean just that,what you are struggling to enunciate is “terrorist bomber”.
My apologies if someone has already commented on this but I just read this inexcusable piece of horse shit from Alex and I had to scroll down to the form straight away:
And you would like the BBC to be more forthcoming about who the goodies are and who the baddies are. Silly me, I always assumed “Biased BBC” was the complaint rather than the demand.
This is a classic example of the brain-dead moral relativism of the left. To make an objective judgment of morality counts as “bias”?
Alex, get out of here. You’re flogging a dead horse – the same old tired, dog-eared, moth-eaten leftism of the kind that always brings to mind the image of a seven year old child trying in vain to pull the wool over his parents eyes.
Making a clear moral judgment about the inherent evil of terrorist attacks is “bias” ONLY IF you accept that there is a case to be heard which says that they are NOT inherently evil. It is clear that you have made this acceptance.
Taking a definition of terrorism from the writer Michael Burleigh in his book “Blood and Rage – a Cultural History of Terrorism”:
Terrorism is a tactic primarily used by non-state actors, who can be an acephalous entity as well as a hierarchical organisation, to create a psychological climate of fear in order to compensate for the legitimate political power they do not posess”
So what problem, exactly, does the BBC have in using the term? Why their preference for the term “militants”? Because a “militant” is simply a person engaged in warfare or combat, a definition which leaves the door open as to whether or not they’re acting in legitimate self-defense or not. And the BBC would quite clearly like to leave that door firmly ajar.
Jason,
That was the best and clearest deconstruction of a leftists obfuscation and misrepresention of the facts I have read in a long time!
This is why B-BBC is so important?
B-BBC is a democratic forum that recieves no state aid and yet it manages to show a multi billion pound monolith up for the grubby and dishonest propaganda mouthpiece it is!
I in my usual clumsy way have been trying to put the same argument to the leftists and I am very pleased that you have nailed it where I fell short.
Nice one!
Gunnar,
Do you really believe the tripe you post?
David posts hot air”? I think it is you that is guilty of that little chestnut!
OK, let me be clear, the term Overall crime is a dishonest way of spreading and averaging out real increases in crime so they do not show an increase. The whole point of the report was to start with an answer that was required and then manipulate it to fit the BBC agenda. The rate of crime has increased markedly where immigrants have settled and the rate has been artificially lowered by including areas that have no immigrant population!
There is a growing problem with the way government is starting with a required answer and then making up a survey to prove its required conclusion! That is dishonest and will lead to all sorts of problems, but the leftists seem to revel in dishonest practices and it seems to have become the only way the leftists can opperate now.
For the record Gunnar, stop mis quoting and mis representing DV OK? its dishonest and we see through it and if you lie like this we will not trust you when you speak the truth! Peter and the wolf?
Jason’s post is exactly right, and I think it would be helpful if the Burleigh definition was bannered (is that the word?) on this site as a constant reminder to think and speak accurately.
I recall from Solzhenitsyn’s ‘August 1914’ that pre-war group calling itself ‘The Communist Terror Organization’ claimed responsibility for various attacks in Russia. (Of course, 1914 was before 1984.)
‘milhamti’ is indeed an adjective (not a gerundive, which is vocalised differently) derived from the Hebrew ‘milhamah’, which means ‘war’, so ‘war-like’ or ‘belligerent’ (adj.) might render it in English. But as I’ve said before, ‘militant’ is from Latin ‘miles, militis’, a soldier. ‘kedem zvai’ means ‘paramilitary’, which is how the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland were described by the BBC.
Since the Hamas ‘fighters’ proudly call themselves JIHADIS, the BBC should take them at their word and describe them thus (as they do for the Afghan mujahidin).
Gunnar,
Thanks for responding.
David’s somewhat emotional posting aside (and believe me, one can empathize with how he feels) this site is dedicated to pointing out instances, as well as patterns, of bias in BBC reporting.
Look at the issue from another perspective: The BBC does refer routinely to Hamas “militants”. The term “militant” pre-dates its use to describe the activities of organizations like Hamas. It has been used for a long time to characterize irate feminist activists, angry PETA activists, and even the occasional teacher’s union member. In none of these uses does the word connote anything remotely resembling the use of physical violence for these activists to achieve their goals, let alone the use of human bombs intended to kill the maximum number of innocents. So to use the term “militant” to describe the activities of Hamas in the same breath as using it to describe the activities of some vocal feminists is to dilute the usage of the term to the point where it has little definitional value.
Hence the need for a more accurate way to characterize the methodology of a group like Hamas as distinct from the methodologies of groups like the teachers’ union or Greenpeace, or PETA.
Terrorism, the intentional use of murderous violence against civilians for political purposes, should be referred to as just that. Now the BBC may say that folks such as the Israelis have diluted and discredited the use of the term by referring to every stone-throwing Palestinian as a “terrorist” (which, by the way, they have not) and therefore we must be careful not to employ such “emotive terms” when describing events which might call for the use of the term. But regardless of whether or not the Israeli media have devalued the term, that doesn’t change the fact that by any objective standard the term OUGHT to be applied in cases where innocent civilians are deliberately targeted for murder for political purposes. The methodology, not the ideology, as Arthur Dent has pointed out, is what should provide the guidepost for when to use the term. In fact, the Israelis are among the ONLY ones who use this approach in a consistent way to determine when to use the term—witness the use of the term “Jewish terrorists” by the Israeli media and government leadership to describe the (very few) cases in which the methodology employed by a Jewish attacker was to kill innocent Arab civilians for political purposes. By deliberately blurring the line and therefore conflating the actions of vocal feminist activists with those of suicide bomb-plotting Hamas members, the BBC creates a sort of reverse bias against militant feminists and other activists–lumping them in the same category as murderous terrorists. That is an obliteration of the truth–and isn’t the truth what the BBC is supposed to strive to report?
Making a clear moral judgment about the inherent evil of terrorist attacks is “bias” ONLY IF you accept that there is a case to be heard which says that they are NOT inherently evil. It is clear that you have made this acceptance.
Jason | 21.04.08 – 3:30 am
The blustering defence the BBC, and John Reith, its main representative here, incessantly come up with is that the BBC is not meant to make moral judgements, but to be impartial and that impartiality means they have to excise words like “terrorism” from the English language in their hunt for the imaginary middle ground between the terrorist and his victim.
However, there is no middle ground between the two and it is a gross insult to the victim to assume that there is. What is even more of an insult is the fact that the BBC actually sympathises with the terrorist rather than the terror victim, especially when the terrorists are Hamas or Islamic Jihad and the victims Israeli. Anyone who doubts this need only look at the way the BBC legitimises Hamas terror, not simply by equating it with Israeli defence against it, but by going one step further and portraying the Israelis as at fault in the conflict.
The only valid reason, of course, for avoiding the word “terrorism” in reporting on current events would be if terrorism no longer existed. Since it is actually rife, the BBC has failed utterly in its obligation to inform the public as to what is really going on here.
This is not naive political correctness or ideological blindness. The BBC has made a conscious choice to throw its considerable weight behind Islamic terrorists in this conflict. So we see the BBC cuddling up to Hamas and spurning Fatah since Fatah is selling out in the BBC’s eyes by leaning towards negotiations with Israel.
The BBC has become an evil organisation, riddled with sponsors of Islamic terror. It needs to be put out of its misery.
Still lying and distorting the facts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7356370.stm
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Damascus
…
On the prisoner exchange – which would include the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Hamas in Gaza nearly two years ago – it has demanded the release of several hundred Palestinian detainees held by Israel.
Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by Hamas in Israel, NOT in Gaza.
Of course lies like this reinforce the Hamas “narrative” that they are “resisting” an “occupation”.
On discussions with Hamas and ceasefires:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. ”
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:
Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.
Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:
Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. “Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.”
Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?
“But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah.” (The Cow – verse 120).
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:
“The people of Syria are Allah’s lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation.”
Libertus, kedem is pre-, not para- (although I dare say people misuse it to mean para-, if you say that you have found such instances).
Brilliant posts by Simon and Bryan.
What annoys me is Helen Boaden’s defence that the BBC’s use of the word terrorist “might offend World Service Customers”. “Customers” Helen? Do they pay for the service? No, that’d be us – we, however, are merely “Viewers” or “Listeners” – who can be imprisoned for deciding not to pay for it.
Cassandra | 21.04.08 – 7:10 am
Overall crime is a dishonest way of spreading and averaging out real increases in crime so they do not show an increase. The whole point of the report was to start with an answer that was required and then manipulate it to fit the BBC agenda. The rate of crime has increased markedly where immigrants have settled and the rate has been artificially lowered by including areas that have no immigrant population!
But that’s not at all what the ACPO report did.
It was a comparative study of ‘offending rates’ among migrants from Eastern Europe and the general population.
The writers concluded that there were not significantly more criminals ‘per thousand migrants’ than there were ‘per thousand of the general population’.
This should not be surprising given the fact that the populations under study included Poles, Lithuanians and Slovaks • whose societies are traditionally Catholic and whose school systems are strongly influenced by the Church to instil distinctions of right and wrong.
If ACPO did a study of Somali immigrants, it might come to quite a different conclusion.
But on East Europeans it got it right • the only ‘surprises’ being Bulgarians and Romanians, who have been characterized in the press as thieving gypsies. But this wouldn’t be the first time the tabloids got something wrong.
Dead and wounded Israelis are easily forgotten, while Arab “martyrs” live on.
Hamas wants peace, according to Dhimmi Carter, while Israel just keeps on killing…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7358188.stm
Former US President Jimmy Carter has said that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to “live as a neighbour next door in peace”.
After meeting Hamas leaders last week in Syria, he said it was a problem the US and Israel would not meet the group.
His comments came as the Israeli army launched a formal investigation into the death of a Reuters cameraman killed in the Gaza Strip last week.
And two Palestinians died in Israeli air strikes in the territory.
Monday’s strikes killed one Palestinian in the southern city of Rafah and a Hamas militant at Beit Hanoun, a border town from where rockets are often fired at Israel.
Bottom line:
Meanwhile Israel said it would investigate the death of Palestinian Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana, who died with several other civilians in Gaza last Wednesday.
New York-based Human Rights Watch says it has evidence an Israeli tank team fired either recklessly or deliberately at Mr Shana.
The final footage taken by Mr Shana – and released by Reuters – shows the tank firing in his direction. The Israeli army denies deliberately targeting civilians.
The BBC: Blaming Israel for defending herself while not even telling us what she’s defending herself against!
His comments came as the Israeli army launched a formal investigation into the death of a Reuters cameraman killed in the Gaza Strip last week.
Why not say, “His comments came after a week in which Hamas carried out several attacks on Israeli soil in which two Israeli civilians were murdered in cold blood, three IDF soldiers were killed, and more than a dozen wounded in cross-border incursions. Meanwhile rockets continue to rain down on Sderot and Ashkelon.
Hamas says it’s not bound by any referendum on peace with Israel
Hamas says it won’t necessarily accept the results of any Palestinian referendum on peace with Israel.
Earlier Monday, former US President Jimmy Carter said Hamas wouldn’t undermine Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum.
However Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Carter’s comments “do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.”
Carter’s spoke in Jerusalem after meeting with top Hamas leaders in Syria last week.
Brilliant posts by Simon and Bryan.
Nearly Oxfordian | 21.04.08 – 9:11 am
Thanks for that, I appreciate it.
So bear with me while we look again at precisely what he said: “It’s not surprising that they get bitter, that they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
In Britain, such sentiments about working-class people are expressed every day by politicians of all parties. They are the common currency of the patronising Left-wing snobbery that pours out of every orifice of the BBC.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/21/do2101.xml
o/t I know, but wheres the open thread?
Titus | 21.04.08 – 9:34 am : “What annoys me is Helen Boaden’s defence that the BBC’s use of the word terrorist “might offend World Service Customers”. “Customers” Helen? Do they pay for the service? No, that’d be us – we, however, are merely “Viewers” or “Listeners” – who can be imprisoned for deciding not to pay for it.”
Titus, I believe BBC World is a commercial enterprise. Boaden is right; it caters for its customers, a big group of them in the Arab and Muslim world.
Now the real question is how does this commercial service affect BBC home broadcasting? Do they use on home channels programmes or news items originally made for their commercial World service? If so, you are forced to pay for something designed for others, who pay more.
.
Anat
One could also wonder what price the BBC has to pay, in terms of objectivity, for its wormhole through the Great Firewall of China?
Perhaps ’tis the other way round, Anat: mayhap we are subsidising output which is then sold by the BBC at full market price. After all, they have to generate sufficient income to finance the hundred quid lunches of their dozens of parasitical top staff.
Nearly Oxfordian | 21.04.08 – 1:14 pm : “Perhaps ’tis the other way round, Anat: mayhap we are subsidising output which is then sold by the BBC at full market price. After all, they have to generate sufficient income to finance the hundred quid lunches of their dozens of parasitical top staff.”
Maybe, but this does not contradict my point, which is that the interests of a commercial market abroad determine what kind of world news is given in Britain. In this sense the BBC is worse than any commercial operator, because British viewers are led to believe, falsely, that they get impartial news, whereas in fact they get a choice of news dictated by a foreign market and even a hostile one.
See for comparison a discussion of AP television news (APTN), here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22055
|
Once again this seems like a good time to remind people of what the BBC’s policies actually are on the use of the word “terrorist”, as opposed to what various people on this blog say they are.
See these links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/war/mandatoryreferr.shtml#4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/terrorismlanguage/background.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/terrorismlanguage/ourapproach.shtml
In particular this quote is relevant:
“Accepting that there are some actions which most people would recognise as a terrorist act- the hand grenade thrown into a crèche, the airport queue machine-gunned – we should still avoid the word. In the first place, our audience is as perceptive as we are, and can make up their own minds without being provided with labels. In the second place, there are actions which are not quite so clearly terrorism, and we should not be forced into the position of having to make value judgements on each event.
On a breaking news story, ask yourself, first of all, is the use of the word “terrorist” accurate? Do we know, or do we suspect? It may be better to talk about an apparent act of terror or terrorism than label individuals or a group.
As the facts become clearer we will also wish to describe what has happened as accurately and as clearly as possible. Give as much information as possible. “Bomb attack” conveys more information more quickly than “terrorist attack”, similarly “suicide bomber”, “bomber”, “assassin”, “gun man” help fill in the picture.
We also need to ask ourselves whether by using “terrorist” we are taking a political position, or certainly one that may be seen as such.”
We also need to ask ourselves whether by using “terrorist” we are taking a political position, or certainly one that may be seen as such.”
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 21.04.08 – 2:01 pm
You really need to ask yourselves whether by NOT using “terrorist” you (the BBC) are taking a political position, or certainly one that may be seen as such.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/terrorismlanguage/background.shtml
Moreover, we don’t change the word “terrorist” when quoting other people…
Yes you do.
Tony Blair’s speech following 7/7 is one example. Many other instances of misquoting Israeli politicians and spokespersons have been chronicled by this blog.
Nick, you may think that we are all idiots whom you can patronise without fear of contradiction; but I am really sorry – we are not, and like all beeboids you simply have no clue.
First of all, see the comment above which all on its tods blows your mealy-mouthed nonsense out of the water.
Secondly, we despise not just the way you bend your ‘policies’ when it suits you, day in day out (and then lie about it): we despise your policies, because they embody Al Beeb’s bias.
Anat, I wasn’t disagreeing with your original point (I was merely adding to it), and I don’t disagree with your latest post 😉
“Once again this seems like a good time to remind people of what the BBC’s policies actually are on the use of the word “terrorist”, as opposed to what various people on this blog say they are.”
Change the guidelines,this isn’t the Ten Commandments.”(For clarification see religious broadcasting dept”
“Accepting that there are some actions which most people would recognise as a terrorist act- the hand grenade thrown into a crèche, the airport queue machine-gunned – we should still avoid the word.”
What follows are weasel words ,the BBC is appears morally bankrupt,cowardly or must have an agenda.
“We also need to ask ourselves whether by using “terrorist” we are taking a political position, or certainly one that may be seen as such.”
Terrorism is a tactic,a technique.You may as well apply your rules to the word broadcasting.
Frankly,the whole BBC stance reeks of “We are only obeying orders”.
Nick, nice to see you back. I assume from your comments that you have not been following this debate which has continued for several weeks in a number of threads.
We do NOT need reminding what the BBC guideline says John Reith provided chapter and verse several weeks ago. However we fundamentally disagree with the statements in that guidance which betray an objectionable mindset.
I won’t go over all the ground again, if you really are interested in commenting on this issue (and I hope you are) please go back and read through some of the posts.
The key point is that terrorism is not an ideology but a methodology and you cannot infer anything about the justness or otherwise of a cause by whether or not its followers use terrorism as a tactic. However, terrorism itself is always reprehensible and to be condemned, one of the reasons that it is outlawed under the Geneva Conventions.
I believe, and have not seen any conter arguments, that the BBC abjures the use of the word because some (many?) of its staff actually believe that terrorism can be justified in some circumstances. I do not and I consider that any member of the BBC who does to have opted out of civilised society.
Hear, hear!
Nick Reynolds,
Arthur Dent has it right. And none of the BBC explanations ever explain why using the term “terrorist” is a political judgment
Let’s just get it out in the open. Since by the BBC’s own admission “terrorist” has negative connotations, you have chosen to severely restrict your usage of the term for fear of offending people who support the causes for which “terrorism” is used. Is it the case, then, that the BBC does not care about offending people who might have supported, well, various things about which the your colleagues are overtly critical. On air. The mindset behind the attitude towards using the term “terrorist” has much wider ramifications.
The main problem with the BBC position is that you seem to take the sensitivities of people who support the causes for which terrorism is used as more important than your responsibilities to the license fee payers. This is in violation of your Charter. Yes, even BBC World (and all subsidiaries) must adhere to the Charter.
Your editorial policy regarding certain conflicts and political struggles is in direct violation.
Nick,
Thanks for the reminder. Here are examples in which the BBC overtly violates the policy you describe (from my earlier post):
“Here are the links to the uses of the term “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, in the three most prominent cases of attacks in Britain in recent years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne…ews/ 6252276.stm ? The attempted car bombing at Picadilly circus, in which NO ONE was killed, was referred to, without quotes, by the BBC, as a terrorist plot. See the middle of the article. Here’s a direct quote from yet another BBC article, on the Glasgow airport attack: “A badly burned man detained after the suspected terror attack at Glasgow Airport has died in a Glasgow hospital.” ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne…est/ 6928854.stm ) Here’s another direct quote from the Glasgow airport attack at the BBC online: “Passengers used their cameras and mobile phones to record how an off-duty policeman used a fire extinguisher to try to save the terror suspect after he drove a second-hand Jeep packed with propane gas canisters into a doorway.” ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne…est/ 6928854.stm ) ”Terror suspect”, no quotes. Two mentions of the t-word in one article. ”
Moreover, the BBC appears to apply a clear and demonstrable double standard, by using the term “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, in attacks which have occurred in the UK, directed against British civilians, while refusing to employ the term in MORE SEVERE attacks which have occurred in Israel, against Israeli civilians (for eg: here: ” In pictures: Netanya Bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pi…res/ 4499380.stm
Eyewitness: Netanya Bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl…ast/ 1897940.stm
Netanya bomb mastermind convicted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl…ast/ 4270882.stm ” )
In fact, while the BBC appears to have used the term “terror” or “terrorism”, unattributed, to describe the three most prominent attacks on British soil in the last 3 years, it has never once used the term to describe the 130+ suicide bombings that have occurred in Israel in the last 8.
That strikes me as an overt double standard. And your colleague “John Reith” has admitted as much on a previous thread, truly perplexed at why this would be the case. In fact, he speculated that perhaps British reporters view the attacks in Israel as being in the context of a low grade “war” (even though innocent civilians in pizza parlours are being targeted), while those in Britain as assaults on innocent civilians with no stake in “war.”
So rather than use the methodogical definition of terrorism to decide when to apply the term, the BBC decides unilaterally, based on ideological considerations, whether to use it. For if you ask Ayman Al Zawahiri about the causes of the 7/7 bombing, he will tell you it is because of “war”–a “war” against then-British occupation in Iraq–as much a “war” as the “war” against “Israeli occupation” in the West Bank. Here’s the link and explanation: ( (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.’ By stating unequivocally that
Britain is not innocent, from his perspective, and that its occupation
of Iraq and policies regarding Palestine make it a just target for
heinous attack , Zawahiri undercuts the BBC’s hypocritical distinctions
between the actions of Islamic Jihad and Hamas on the one hand, and Al
Qaeda on the other. From Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad’s point of view,
the suicide bombings in London were just as justified as the ones in Tel
Aviv. If the BBC insists that the term ‘terror’ is in the eye of the
beholder and that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist,
then either NEVER USE THE TERM, or better still, USE IT WHENEVER
INNOCENT PEOPLE are INTENTIONALLY targeted for murder for political
purposes–make THAT your litmus test, not whether the BBC believes the
attackers have more, or less, justification in launching them based on the degree to
which their enemies ‘oppressed’ them. But to make these semantic
distinctions which imply strongly that the deaths of innocent Israelis
in suicide bombings are slightly more justified than the deaths of
Britons in London suicide bombings is a slippery slope of moral
relativism that disgraces a national institution.
That was meant for Nick Reynolds.
Nick Reynolds:
You need to explain why the 4 pm and 5 pm news on R4 on Sunday 20 April 2008, on the pope’s visit, referred to ‘terrorists’ who killed the people in the WTC but this was changed in the 6 pm edition.
Did you (or your superiors) order a change in wording? Since you people know the word, why did you change it?
Your staff completely fail to grasp the point that is made above – that terrorism is a METHODOLOGY, not an IDEOLOGY. Anyone – Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, marxist, fascist – is capable of using Terrorist Methods; and when they do (see Burleigh’s definition), it should be named as such.
What do you call the murder of the yeshiva kids? Terorrism.
Baruch Goldstein’s murder of Muslims in Hebron? Terrorism.
Timothy McVeigh’s bombing? Terrorism.
Shankill Road, Enniskillen, Harrods, Hyde Park, Omagh, 7/7, Glasgow Airport raid etc etc…?
‘Militants’? Do you want an Orwell Award?
Won’t comment much except to apologise to Nearly Oxfordian for underestimating his interest in and knowledge of translation difficulties, thank him and deegee for bolstering my Hebrew vocab, and point out to Biodegradable that I approached Yiddish as a career Germanist and not just someone who watched ‘Blazing Saddles’ too many times.
Thanks, Alex, much appreciated.
Thanks also to Simon for yet another masterly analysis that tears the BBC’s weasely, mendacious and utterly cowardly excuses to shreds.
libertus,
Reynolds and his colleagues secretly understand the difference between methodology and ideology. Their problem lies in the difference between inference and implication.
Their whole logical moebius strip is evidence that they share our definition of terrorism. The problem is that it’s an emotion-based term, and so has emotional connotations, negative ones in this case. That’s why they try to avoid using it: it is a pejorative. They know that those who support the terrorist’s ideology will infer criticism of that ideology. The hypocrisy is that they are always telling us that Islamo-fascist violence is just a tiny, microscopic minority of Muslims in the world, and that terrorist mass murder is against Islam, and that all those moderates out there don’t support it. Yet out of the other side of their mouths they tell us that calling a terrorist a terrorist can be taken as being critical of the ideology of Islamo-fascist violence, and they want to avoid giving that impression. And I say it’s not because they think that only a tiny minority of Muslims support that ideology.
But that is where they fail in their responsibility to uphold the Charter. The BBC is supposed to represent the values of the UK, and its ideals. Perhaps I’m just an ignorant United Statesian, but as far as I was aware, acts of terror (as defined in these pages) are not compatible with UK values. They are frowned on, even. This contradicts the Beeboids’ stated position that they need to be sensitive to certain viewers. This has been the standard defense given by so many Beeboids, both here and in public. BBC World must equally adhere to the Charter, yet they fail in this regard constantly. They even wonder openly, most recently regarding the China/Tibet fiasco, if their primary concern should be to increase the BBC World audience, or to keep the British Public informed. Says it all, really.
They can’t admit it openly, but they no longer care about upholding the original ideals of the Charter. They believe that social cohesion works in one direction only, and their international audience is at least as important as the UK viewers. Thus, they will continue to refrain from calling a terrorist a terrorist, because not only do they not give a damn about the Charter, but they are more afraid of the consequences of appearing critical in any way of a Mohammedan (not even the religion itself) than they are of misinforming or offending everyone else.
“Their whole logical moebius strip is evidence that they share our definition of terrorism. The problem is that it’s an emotion-based term, and so has emotional connotations, negative ones in this case. That’s why they try to avoid using it: it is a pejorative. They know that those who support the terrorist’s ideology will infer criticism of that ideology.”
Pretty much what I would say. But are you really claiming that the BBC should be using what it knows to be pejorative terms in the name of impartiality?
“But that is where they fail in their responsibility to uphold the Charter. The BBC is supposed to represent the values of the UK, and its ideals.”
This is fair comment and as far as I’m concerned, a fair enough thing to demand (though a tricky one considering how confused Britain is about its “values” at the moment). But it’s ludicrous to claim that refusing to endorse a set of values is bias.
Alex | Homepage | 21.04.08 – 9:37 pm |
But it’s ludicrous to claim that refusing to endorse a set of values is bias.
No, it’s ludicrous to selectively refuse to endorse a set of values and pretend to be a proper broadcaster, while laying claim to being the official national broadcaster of the UK..
David Preiser,
Thank you for your comment and analysis, with which I agree. Yes, ‘terrorist’ does have negative connotations- and so it should, just as ‘murderer’ has. Yet each word has objective content: a soldier can be a soldier, or he can be a murderer, and we have objective ways of determining that fact. Because Nick Reynolds and the BBC will refuse to do so with reference to Hamas attacks on Israel, it can only be because they secretly sympathise with these attacks or because they don’t want to alienate that considerable body of Muslims, both in the UK and abroad (upwards of 10%), who sympathise with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Look at the rather absurd and effete figure of Alan Johnston, who was played a complete – and complaisant – patsy by an Islamist group in Gaza. The BBC danced like a marionette to that sickening tune. Now just imagine if he’d been kidnapped in Israel! What would the BBC have said?
So you are right in saying that they no longer support the values of the BBC Charter (which were once, in fact, not only British but explicitly Christian – that’s why programmes like The Daily Service, Thought for the Day etc were devised).
So here’s a question for Nick Reynolds: why do we have (and pay for) a ‘BBC World Service’ if it doesn’t support and propagate British values? The nations of Africa and Asia don’t need British radio – they have plenty of stations of their own, in their own languages.
pejorative terms
Of course terrorism is a pejorative term, terrorism and the terrorists who perpetrate it are despicable and the BBC should be proud to say so.
Calling a terrorist act a militant act is to make a value judgement that implies approval of the act. It does not however relate to the morality, or otherwise, of the underlying cause. That is why it is inane to glibly parrot the phrase taht “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” This is an utterly false comparison. Terrorism is a methodology that has nothing to do with the cause for which people are fighting. Freedom fighters do not have to indulge in terrorism, the French Resistance did not go around shooting German civilians although they blew up railways and shot German soldiers.
“But it’s ludicrous to claim that refusing to endorse a set of values is bias.”
“No, it’s ludicrous to selectively refuse to endorse a set of values and pretend to be a proper broadcaster, while laying claim to being the official national broadcaster of the UK..”
Exactly right – I generally dislike the Guardian’s view of the world, but since I never buy it, they can say what they like. I’m a true liberal.
Alex – you’re starting to catch on. Let the light in. ‘Terrorism’ is only pejorative in the way that ‘murder’ is – it objectively describes an objectively foul act.
Libertus–
Good point about the Guardian. At least it wears its leanings on its sleeves, and isn’t pretending to be some scientifically objective news entity that it’s not.
When you read the Guardian you can read it through the filter of its proclaimed leanings. You know what you are going to get.
The BBC, on the other, hand engages in the deceptive practice of claiming to be impartial while in actual fact oozing partiality on many issues.
From 2006
“Israel has vowed to take “extreme action” if the soldier captured in Gaza, Cpl Gilad Shalit, is not released.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5125256.stm
to 2008
“Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Hamas in Gaza nearly two years ago”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7356370.stm
the BBC have been lying about where Gilad Shalit was captured. I have complained a number of times pointing out this lie (and again today), yet they still seem to want to perpetuate this myth. The latest story linked to is by their Middle East correspondent Jim Muir, who must be fully aware that Gilad Shalit was captured in Israel. I wonder why he chooses to lie like this?
(following on from Biodegradable (Banned) | 21.04.08 – 8:56 am)
“it’s ludicrous to selectively refuse to endorse a set of values and pretend to be a proper broadcaster, while laying claim to being the official national broadcaster of the UK.”
Absolutely nothing to do with bias.
In fact, if the BBC is, as claimed, constantly endorsing the PC New Labour values of the government, then surely it’s doing is exactly what you want.
Arthur Dent–
There is a strain in Western academia that tries to justify Palestinian “resistance” as the right of the occupied, even if that includes suicide bombings. See Richard Falk of Princeton, for example.
They fail to mention that, like your example of the French resistance, even the few resisting Jews in World War 2, whose plight was infinitely worse than anything the Palestinians have ever undergone, never once attacked German civilians. They maintained the moral high ground even in the darkest days of human history. That the BBC can’t see fit to characterize acts or terrorism as what they are is a disgrace.