Watch my comments explode

Forget anonymous sources, off-the-record briefings and even plagiarism. There is probably no single more vexing issue in journalism today than the use of the word ''terrorism'' to describe the murder of unarmed (and usually unsuspecting) civilians in the name of politics, nationalism, religion and/or ideology.

When I columnized about this last fall, I was subject to an astro-turfing, thanks to the folks at media watchdog groups such as Honest Reporting, which I prefer to think of as One-Sided Reporting.

Anyhow ...

In the wake of this month's bombings in London, a bit of a media scuffle broke out over the word because the BBC, which avoids it unless attributed in a quote, briefly employed it before opting for other terms.

And so The National Post, which has a record of inserting the word in wire copy, has been obsessed with this issue, again.  It's been an ongoing fixation, especially when it comes to the taxpayer-funded CBC. Today the Post ran a story (sub. req'd., although you can also read it here) about CBC's policy on the matter:

Norman Spector, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel and commentator on security issues, said the broadcaster is refusing to "call a spade a spade.

"The decision not to use the word is taking sides," he said. "'Genocide' is a very emotionally laden word as well ... but they use it.

" 'Terrorism' seems to be the only word they don't want to use."

The story points to an internal CBC memo on the matter republished on the editorial page:

'Terrorist' and 'terrorism': Exercise extreme caution before using either word.

Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web).

(SNIP)

Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label ("terrorist" or "terrorism") when news breaks, try describing what happened.

For example, "A suicide bomber blew up a bus full of unarmed civilians early Monday, killing at least two dozen people." The details of these tragedies give our audience the information they need to form their own conclusions about what type of attack it was.

Rather than calling assailants "terrorists," we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun.

You can bet this will set off an avalanche of anti-CBC mail which the Post will gleefully print.

UPPITY DATE: Skippy the Amazing Wonderdog takes a killer bite out of this debate, which is raging all over the Canadian rightwing blogosphere today.

Comments

[NPS]

"You can bet this will set off an avalanche of anti-CBC mail which the Post will gleefully print."

Could be but I shan't see them cause I don't read the National Post, never did, not now and never will. Not because of a so called "right wing" tilt (again I wouldn't know cause I don't read it not even the free Post papers in the hotels). Somebody told me who reads the Post feels it is always negative, always something wrong, and never positive and never has a good thing to say about anything.

[kenny]

hey antonia. congrats on the blog. a friend here linked me to this article (which i see is also on the mighty LGF linked to CBC watch). the arguments and double standards over the CBC's non-use of the T word have been made many times and in many places (and, as you know, by me here: http://ca.geocities.com/kennysilverman@rogers.com/cbcbias.htm ). it's especially entertaining to read the CBC talking about neutrality. that said, i suspect from reading the article that this is the part most pro-israeli people will find as offensive as CBC's middle east coverage:

**

By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren’t faced with the problem of calling one incident a “terrorist act” (e.g., the destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as, say, a mere “bombing” (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping mall in the Middle East).

**

first, the obvious point: using a word with a clearly defined meaning is not taking sides; not using it is. second: the "problem" example in the above paragraph implies that, according to CBC's bias, bombing a shopping mall in the middle east (which i can only take to mean israel) is not terrorism. it's unclear to me how that example makes any sense unless you assume that according to the CBC, 9/11 is terrorism but blowing up jews in a mall is "a mere bombing" - if both acts are terrorism, what would be the "problem"?

it seems to me that the problem is that CBC's double standard would be more obvious to the casual observer and that this whole scheme is in place to make sure that terrorism perpetrated against israelis is not called terrorism.

i guess if the CBC was less of a joke, i would actually care a bit more. but anyway...

good luck with the blog!

[Brampton Pete]

"...because the BBC... briefly employed it before opting for other terms."

Much of the outrage (most of mine, at any rate) wasn't because the BBC later "opt[ed] for other terms" but because the Beeb went back in time and purged the word from already published, widely disseminated reporting. We dastardly, mustaches-twirling right wingers had been pleasantly surprised that the BBC finally found the stones to call a spade a spade, at least in those first few hours - of course, when it's your own countrymen being blown up by terrorists, I can understand how the Beeb's PC mask slipped. I guess a few memos came down from on high, and the nasty word was consigned to an Orwellian memory hole. After all, the BBC has that "international market share" to protect, right?

As for the milquetoast CBC, doesn't this bit just say it all:

"gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group)"

Otherwise, they'd be gunpersons, right? Oy vey!

[Robert McClelland]

I fail to see how these people, who have nothing better to do than complain about the media's choice of wording, don't see how the rest of us are all laughing at them. This absurd jihad against the media by the right whingers is conclusive proof that they should be kept as far away from power as possible. I mean, how can you trust people to run a country when they rant and rail about scare quotes.

[Brampton Pete]

I prefer those who speak without scare quotes, "Robert".

[Civitatensis]

Raging? Why would you associate that words with my post? That's just mean! (;

re: CBC policy on the use of judgemental terms in reports:

I really like it when reporters report and editors edit (and editorialize on the editorial page). When reporters make judgements and/or editorialize, the news goes wonky, because then no one is doing the reporting and, as a result, I have more difficulty forming an opinion. When that happens regularly, I avoid that reporting, as I have come over the past few years to avoid Rosie D., queen of the personal comment, in The Star. I do not care whether the subject is P.Bernardo, 911, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, or Mr. Dithers goes to Washington. When reporters make judgements, the news value of what they write is lessened. When this happens, the fault should be shared by reporter and editor: the first for commission, the second for negligence.

Sometimes, it is difficult to stick to policy when friends are being killed down the street, but that is only human, and forgivable as such, as long as it does not pervert a basically good policy over the long term.

[fan of zerbisias not]

For a few days the BBC had a link to the Anti-terrorist hotline. But I guess they decided that since there are no terrorists there can't be an Anti-terrorist hotline.

[MWW]

I once thought that the CBC was more dishonest than the National Post. I was disabused of that notion after Jonathan Kay or some whacko in the editor room made one of those famous "We the Editors" comments about my stance on the First Nations Governance Act.

They consciously and deliberately lied about my take on that horrific legislation.

Now... I had once thought that only the hacks at the CBC were capable of this kind of dishonesty....

But the reality is... my experiences with the CBC, while not appreciating the bias... I never had a CBC reporter or producer tell lies about me. They skewed the truth, they presented the facts in ways that tended to underscore their own biases...

But they didn't actually tell any out-and-out falsehoods.

It was a pretty devestating thing to realize that a publication which I used to have a great deal of respect for had less integrity than the CBC.

[TonyGuitar]

Not a bad idea to use the term bombing instead of *Terrorist* bombing, however long debate should be on ideas to help reduce and minimize these actions.

We seem to be spending too much time on splitting terminology hairs when ways to insulate and secure against the offensive are vastly more important topics to debate. 73s TG

Please, try not to be offended, just a neutral observation.

[wonderdog]

Well, Tony, that be true. That was one of the points I made in the post the Zerb kindly linked to above: it doesn't really matter what you call it.

So, I mean, with that in mind, maybe you can fill us in on why Canada's right thinks it's so important to split these hairs?

[NottheMSM]

Why is Honest Reporting referred to as "One Sided Reporting"? If they are able to find that the MSM relying on stringers misreports stories, such as the murder of a Palestinian youth, that was blamed on Israelis but actually committed by Palestinians, why is that a bad thing? Perhaps, the MainStreamMedia which relies upon stringers who are members of the Palestinians media organization and have been advised not to report on Hamas and PA fighting because it is harmful to the Palestinian cause needs these media watchdogs to police what is going on.

[Canadian Headhunter]

I can see why media organizations want to steer clear of the passions associated with the word "terrorist".

But in a case like the London bombings there is no question in anyone's mind that that's what these
"militants"/"actvists" were.

Some people approve of it (in these circumstances) and others don't but to use a euphemism when the truth is so obvious seems dishonest.

[20/20]

Since when is the term "bomber" or "suicide bomber" a euphemism?

[Canadian Headhunter]

Re bomber being euphemism. a) I was thinking more of the term "militant". And b) even if they use bomber, you know they are avoiding the word "terrorist" which a London bomber undeniably is.