BBC prefers 'bombers' to 'terrorists'

[EC]

BBC prefers 'bombers' to 'terrorists'

http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-tedit13.html

The people who attacked the London Underground weren't "terrorists," they were "bombers," according to the BBC.

The British TV network is making a distinction between the two on its Web site, according to the London Daily Telegraph.

The BBC edited articles to eliminate descriptions of the attackers as "terrorists," the Telegraph said. The articles reportedly were changed to call the attackers "bombers."

<snip>

But BBC guidelines say the term should be avoided, the Telegraph reported. Carelessly using words that carry value judgments erodes credibility, the guidelines are quoted as saying, and "terrorist" can get in the way of understanding.

[ET Awful]

1. Well, using that logic, the folks that flew planes into buildings weren't

"terrorists," they were "pilots."

Right?

[CJCRANE]

16. "terrible pilots" n/t

[candy]

2. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

[moggie]

3. I'm with the BBC on this

I hate news media which load every story with emotion, even when it's emotion which I agree with (for the record, I regard these bombers as terrorists). Such reporting feels to me like an insult to my intelligence, like they think I'm not capable of reaching my own conclusions and have to be told how to feel. Just the facts, ma'am. Of course, that's an ideal, and every story contains bias, but I'm glad that the BBC goes further than most in striving for neutrality. There's a reason it's still regarded worldwide as a generally credible news organisation.

[liberalfriend]

5. fact is....

these guys are terrorists, and if you want to be specific they are probably jihadists.

[manic expression]

6. Then news stations should describe Iraq like this

"A complacent pawn of an unjustified occupation was killed by a fighter for justice and freedom in Iraq by the only device Iraqis have to fight such oppression, or commonly known as an IED yesterday."

Like it now?

[liberalfriend]

21. What are you smoking? (Can I have some?)

look these guys are fucking murderers! It is one thing for a government to do this but an individual taking lives of innocent civilians is another. I can see your point that the US could be considered a murdering government and if you believe that (i don't really) that's fine. But you should treat these guys with the same amount of disgust that we do towards * and his cronies. Look at it this way... what do these muslim extremist fighting against? They find liberalism to be an affront to their religious beliefs. Do you honestly think these Muslim extremists are ok with gay marriage? Or how about just homosexuality in general? What about freedom of expression like type one sees in the "How Berkley can you be Parade"? Now I don't trust * as far as I can throw him (and I haven't been to the gym in a while) but I feel that this is true. It truly scares me that we are so quick to judge are government leaders (which we should!) yet we gives these guys a pass hell you said fighting for justice! What is just about committing suicide in order to kill children as well? It happened today. On a tangent, have you guys seen those beheading videos? If you haven't take a look. It will completely disturb you for a few days. If you have maybe you can see from my perspective on this. I know it isn't the most fashionable thing to say here, and it does sound a lot like something a right winger might say...but Jesus Christ just watch those things and tell me you don't feel like taking a shower afterwords.

[formernaderite]

23. you have to understand that one humans terrorist is anothers

freedom fighter. Arguably when humans fight, there are always humans who die. I don't get the term terrorist...only because I imagine all murder to be terrible and terror filled.

[liberalfriend]

25. ok...

then explain to me what zarqawi is fighting for in Iraq? What are the freedoms he is looking for? Don't say end the occupation because that will end eventually (i think). What do these people plan to do if and when we leave? Impose Shari'a law? If so that isn't freedom. I can see the relativism argument about who is and isn't terrorist. But like I said in my previous post, hunt down those videos and see them for yourself. (if you haven't already) and then tell me if that is something a freedom fighter would do.

[formernaderite]

27. I can't...and I'm not defending what they're doing..

in Zarqawi's fucked up religious zealot of a mind, I'm sure he feels perfectly righteous. I'm not saying these guys have a good reason, but murderers in general, don't usually practice sanity.

[liberalfriend]

32. true that.

And would you say that our main enemy as we speak in Iraq is Zarqawi and his band of thugs? And if you do how should we carry on getting him, granted the war was waged under dubious if not insidious reasons but hey it is nothing we can change now. What do we do to solve this problem.

PS if your wondering those videos have made an extreme impact on my view of the war and support for Bush on this. I feel that though I don't like him in office we might as well try and force his hand in a way that will make him do his best to ending the occupation and the murder that is taking place there. I can understand that you may not like to support Bush (and why should you) but this has to stop and frankly the only way for that to happen is if we push the administration in a way....well I'm not entirely sure, how do most people here reconcile their beliefs in order to stop something were the only option given to us is to fight. I don't know but I really think something has to be done and our current direction may be less helpful. If that pisses everyone off I understand.

[formernaderite]

45. I happen to be a pacifist....

but I don't spend time hating anyone, including Bush. I'm also very glad that I don't have to make the difficult decisions that many in political offices have to make. I'm also not a conspiracy nut, and although it's fun at times to paint the Bush admin with broad strokes, it tends to avoid solutions. I tend towards avoiding conflict in the first place. I chose not to view any of those videos available on the web, because selfishly perhaps...I don't think they'd bring me peace.

[liberalfriend]

26. ok...

then explain to me what zarqawi is fighting for in Iraq? What are the freedoms he is looking for? Don't say end the occupation because that will end eventually (i think). What do these people plan to do if and when we leave? Impose Shari'a law? If so that isn't freedom. I can see the relativism argument about who is and isn't terrorist. But like I said in my previous post, hunt down those videos and see them for yourself. (if you haven't already) and then tell me if that is something a freedom fighter would do.

[Igel]

44. Every once in a while one should make a moral judgment, if

only to keep the faculty exercised.

Else "One man's murdering dictator is another man's heroic leader" can be equally applied to Castro as to Stalin, to Mao and Hitler as well as to Washington and Churchill.

All had people that mourned their deaths when they died (except Castro, and that's because he's not yet drawn his last breath).

[bobbieinok]

24. Nicholas Berg beheading video--there is some discussion that this

was done in AbuG prison......similar background, chairs, Berg's clothing, etc

IOW, there's some info out there that questions whether this was done by Iraqi insurgents

also the timing of the video ---at the time of the first release of AbuG torture pictures....ie, to take attn away from what was going on at AbuG

[liberalfriend]

28. hhhmmm

ok even if that one is in question, what about all of the other ones, plus I assume you have seen the video. I'm not sure an american could do that a fellow country man, no matter how evil they are. It takes a certain mindset where the person killed isn't really human in that person's eyes, there is no way that who ever killed Berg or any of the others had any sort of compassion. Also where on DU did that discussion take place, meaning was there a thread that discussed this? It is an idea I've never heard of before and I'd be interested in seeing the potential evidence.

[bobbieinok]

31. there was a very voluminous discussion in DU about the video at the

time

as I remember, there were even some media links questioning this

I don't have the DU links; probably someone here does

I think I'll start a thread requesting any DU links, etc

[liberalfriend]

33. good idea

Thats a good call, thanks for the info.

[bobbieinok]

34. see links here.....to posts 31and 28

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1927115&mesg_id=1927120

[liberalfriend]

35. wow.

I' ve never heard of this stuff before, granted I'm new to DU but even in my casual observation of the news I've never heard of it before. Why would this not be front page news? If abu ghraib was bad this blows it out of the water!

[manic expression]

36. How is one murder

so much worse than another? Think about the countless innocents the US has killed for NO reason. Just because I feel that US Soldiers are carrying out injustice doesn't mean they should be referred to as such in a news story.

I was referring to the Iraqi resistance fighters, who are completely different from "terrorists". However, I was demonstrating that using a term like "terrorist" undermines a lot of perspective, and using the example of American soldiers should show you that looking at something in such a way is really unwarranted in a news story. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with the view expressed in that post, it was a satirical writing.

All I want is for people to stop using a term that creates unnecessary fear, confusion and loss of clear vision. Have your opinions, but keep them out of news.

[moggie]

39. "Fucking murderers"

Do you want to see that in a BBC report? That's what we're talking about here, remember, not what you or I think of the people who carried out Thursday's attacks, but how they get reported. If I want to read a report which rants about "murderous scum" or something similar, perhaps because I'm too fucking dumb to make up my own mind, or because I see the news media as entertainment and want my daily dose of invigorating bile, then I already have plenty of sources to choose from. But I'm thankful for serious-minded news sources which try to present the unvarnished facts as dispassionately as possible. You don't want that? That's fine, you know where to find Fox.

[liberalfriend]

42. you know what

Maybe they fucking should. I hear a lot of comments about the tone that is taken with Bush and his cronies in the media here, concerning how they should be much harsher on these guys. Zarqawi and his ilk are fucking murderers! Look at BTK we don't try sugar coat his actions or him. The press doesn't refer to him as a "misguided soul" or anything like that. They call him a BRUTAL KILLER, which he is. Look I really don't mean it to be as harsh, maybe "fucking murderers" is a little slanted but lets be a little more accurate! Zarqawi is NOT a freedom fighter nor are his kind. Yes he is distinct from the internal effort of Iraqi's wanting the US out of their country, but he is also the one causing most of the problems over there, (which keeps our men and women over there, thus prolonging the occupation issue) and that guy is a terrorist and a jihadist (although I doubt this guy follows any real tennants of jihad, rather he just uses it as an excuse). I can understand the desire for a dispassionate account of the news but since that is not ever going to happen it might as well not bullshit with what these people are. Lastly this rant does not condone that type of journalistic license on a regular basis, I feel that like the government the media should have its feet held to the fire as much as possible. Rant off....

[EC]

14. How do you know this as a definite fact

as you are stating? Is the investigation finished? Do you know the motives? Has this been Proven?

[liberalfriend]

22. Not entirely, no

I'll admit that my statement may have jumped the gun a little bit so I agree that a wait and see approach is a much better attitude to take.

[manic expression]

4. I support this

If we start using the name terrorist like we have, it then takes on a role that allows for unwarranted fear, suspicion and hatred, resulting in a loss of clear vision. The Nazis called people they didn't like "Bolsheviks", McCarthy shouted "Communist" at anyone who questioned him. The same thing is happening with "Terrorist", and it needs to stop. Note that the base actions of the US in the past few years has been given false justification using the general label of "terrorism"; not to mention causing the ignorant mindset that has inflicted our country and been exploited for ill aims.

To use a more concise and accurate term gives more understanding and perspective, as well as minimizing delusion and generalizations.

[Maple]

10. I agree

Everyone has been labelled a 'terrorist' now....even Basques and the IRA and Tamil separatists...and while they all may use 'terror' as a tactic, they only operate in specific countries, and have nothing to do with 911. Nor are they interested in attacking the US.

By calling everyone a terrorist, you connect them all to Al Qaeda..and they simply aren't.

This works to Bush's advantage you know...it makes the problem seem larger than it is.... when actually 90% of the 'bombers' in the world have nothing to do with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Iraq or Jihadism...but are just local disputes.

[moggie]

12. That's a very US-centric viewpoint

It almost sounds like you think that terrorism didn't exist before 9/11, and that it's not really terrorism unless Americans are hurt. "Even Basques and the IRA"? I lived through the IRA's bombing campaign, and I have no hesitation in saying that, yes, they were a terrorist organisation. "Even" doesn't come into it. But there's a difference between an individual making that judgement and a news organisation doing so.

The BBC's guidelines exist so that its reporters and editors don't need to make difficult judgement calls about such things. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that the bombers were terrorists, but there are plenty of less clear-cut cases.

[manic expression]

15. However,

the term "terrorist" itself has now become a convenient label for generalizing and demonizing anything and anyone. 9/11 is significant because afterwards, the idea and notion of "terrorism" was used by the US to achieve its aims. Also, when Americans use "terrorist", they almost always mean "al Qaeda", so now if people refer to the Tamil Tigers as "terrorists", the connotations of 9/11 immediately jump into the ignorant American mind, and this is not accurate.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. Buy a dictionary. PLEASE.

"By calling them terrorists, you simply connect them to Al-Qaida" is an AMAZINGLY ignorant statement.

The Basque separatists are terrorists. The Provos were terrorists (although they've disarmed since the Good Friday Agreement). The Tamil Tigers are terrorists. And so were the Front de libération du Québec, and plenty of others who were, oddly enough, not Muslim "jihadists".

Terrorist doesn't mean "Muslim", or "Middle Eastern". Terrorism is the use of violence and fear of same as a political tool.

[manic expression]

37. "Terrorist" has come to mean that

ask ten ordinary Americans to name five terrorist organizations...I doubt anything but al Qaida will come out of their mouths.

We should stop using the term if it evokes thoughts of 9/11 instead of describing the actual act.

Also, if we use "terrorist", let's keep to it, and call US Military actions terrorism if they do use 'violence and fear of same as a political tool'.

[Totally Committed]

7. When the MSM in a country is not in collusion with the governemnt...

to scare the ever-lovin' bejeezus out of the people, "bombers" would be used instead of "terrorists", if only to keep from "terrorizing" the people.

TC

[truebrit71]

8. I have to side with the Beeb on this one...

...the word "terrorist" has been bandied about far too freely this last five years....

Until such time as there can be a firm link established between the murderous fucks that did this, and a real terror group, 'suicide bombers' seems not only appropriate, but absolutely accurate...

[moggie]

11. Is it Fox who use "homicide bomber"?

Ah yes, here we are:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230006

This is to distinguish them from bombers who just want to cause cuts and grazes, I suppose. Why can't the BBC be more like Fox? :sarcasm:

[Benbow]

13. Accuracy and honesty - and why Fox News is beneath contempt

By Roger Mosey, head of BBC Television News

Finally, we are never immune from accusations of bias. It goes without saying that there is nothing more sensitive than matters of life and death, and the BBC's audience response has been massively supportive and understanding about the dilemmas we face in reporting terror. There have been two main exceptions. From a smattering of radical websites comes the argument that we are being hypocritical in mourning the dead of London when we allegedly gloried in civilian deaths in Iraq.

This utterly misrepresents the BBC's reporting of Iraq, where we have always sought to portray the whole picture of events in that country. The second exception is principally Fox News in the United States. A contributor to Fox said after the London bombings that "the BBC almost operates as a foreign registered agent of Hezbollah and some of the other jihadist groups". On the Fox website today there is an opinion piece, "How Jane Fonda and the BBC put you in danger". I am writing this in a building which was bombed by Irish terrorists. My colleagues and I are living in a city recovering from the wounds inflicted last week. If I may leave our customary impartiality aside for a moment, the comments made on Fox News are beneath contempt.

Then there has been a controversy about our use of language - particularly the question of whether the BBC banned the word "terrorist". There is no ban. It's true the word is contentious in some contexts on our international services, hence the recommendation that it be employed with care. But we have used and will continue to use the words terror, terrorism and terrorist - as we did in all our flagship bulletins from Thursday.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1527063,00.html

[moggie]

19. So the "ban" is yet more lies from the right

I'm shocked, shocked to find that a right-wing source would make shit up about the BBC!

[earth mom]

9. Good for the BBC. They have some common sense which is more

than can be said for the corporate-aka terrorist-media we have here!

[AX10]

17. The term "terrorist" needs to be used very judiciously.

In this case, the term "terrorist" is justified.

I disagree with the BBC on this one but I still have the utmost respect for them.

[GracieM]

18. My main problem is

If these "bombers" aren't "terrorists", then what is a "terrorist"?

I think the only way to maintain logic in their argument is to say there is no such thing as a "terrorist". Of course, maybe that is the proper way. Maybe we should call them jihadists (insert your favorite word here) instead of terrorists.

I think this points out the problem with any label. Even when the label seems to accurately describe the labelee, the extra meaning added to the label is not always fair.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. 'Bomber' is a lot more precise

If you look at the BBC site, there are plenty of mentions of 'terror', 'terrorism' and 'terrorist(s)'. But they are talking about the groups and their tactics in general. They are refering to these particular men as bombers - as opposed to 'gunmen', say, or 'bomb maker', both categories which would also come under 'terrorists'.

It's a bit like referring to the members of the US Army in Iraq as 'soldiers' rather than 'Americans'.

[GracieM]

41. If precision is the goal

why not say terrorist bomber or American soldier?

[Pepperbelly]

29. who can say? maybe it was personal or business.

Odder things have happened.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wetzelbill]

40. Welcome to DU, rc

[ceebs]

43. Due to UK Law

the BBC is often noncommital about extreme acts, as it does not wish to be shown to be predjudicing any future trials.