Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

There are those who argue that the use of the term "terrorist" is itself an inaccuracy and a barrier to understanding of the causality behind terrorist attacks. The BBC is apparently among the organizations that have attempted to avoid this term in the past. Here is an account of the interesting double-reversal of that policy in the hours surrounding the bombing attacks.

Not sure what to make of this, except to note that the immediate, visceral reaction even of journalists was not the same as the longstanding policy or that which prevailed upon reflection. Discussion?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

I agree that defining a political actor by the methods that they use and not by their aims is detrimental, but what exactly would the BBC have us call members of our, ... opposition in this ... struggle?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Well, that's kinda the thing. They apparently refer to them as "bombers", which kinda defines them by their method. One could argue that this is the journalistically responsible thing to do, as it refers to the core fact of the action without making unprovable assertions about motives or tactics. I can't say that the labeling itself bugs me that much; it's the REVERSAL and RE-REVERSAL of said policy that I find most intriguing. Not to mention the failure of the BBC to explicitly acknowledge the post-release changes, which obviously is in itself a reversal of standard policy.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 7538

ever noticed how they never say 'Last thursdays terrific attacks'

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: b0ulder
Posts: 5128

How about something like extremists, or really mad guys intent on changing the world through violence?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: b0ulder
Posts: 5128

Terrorific attacks

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

Last Thursday's transit hiccup?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

Remember when the American media took to saying "homicide bombers" for like a week?

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 1265

yeah well todays paper started to refer to iraqi fighters as 'rebels' today.... right on schedule.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

Since 'terrorist' has become almost a catch-all for 'bad people', as used by politicians (not an American invention, although Bush has hardly shirked his role), it seems to me that it conveys less meaning and should be avoided more even than it was. You're bound to miss the mark by some people's way of thinking, of course.

'Homicide bombers' was really pretty hilarious. Does FOXNEWS still refer to them as that, or did they give up in the face of ridicule?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35658

My personal taste would be that they should be described in news reporting as 'bombers' or now 'suicide bombers' as they appear to be. Anyone not intelligent enough to work out whether or not they believe those people to be terrorists is really pretty stupid. So, the journalists' early reaction was wrong by my lights, and if it was an emotional reaction then that is no surprise, as emotion is a poor guide for reason.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

I've noticed the BBC are very different in their approach dependent on the medium, on tv and radio they certainly do still say terrorist. Incidentally, there was a pretty swift denial from the BBC when this story appeared in the traditionally anti-bbc press. The real problem the BBC has is that it's a public broadcaster bound by guidelines which require it to report things as impartailly as possible... ever since the Hutton Report that has meant that they have been very careful and guided with their choice of words and also with their verification of stories. Take for example last Thursday where they were behind everyone with detail. This was because they now have a formal policy not to report anything without double verification. They have been told to stop chasing the exclusives.

The only people that have a problem with the BBC are those that thing that it doesn't servce their agenda. As I say though, the BBC is a not meant to have a political agenda which is why - rightly or wrongly - it can sometimes seem to be taking odd decisions about the use of language. It's job is to report the news not to make value judgements on it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: US
Posts: 3547

"It's particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty and Africa"

Tony Blair
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/...don/4659093.stm

that can be taken the wrong way

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

The entire concept of "terrorism" is flawed, actually. It has a purpose, but it is inconsistent and contradictory when explored further. One can only be comfortable using the term and its derivatives if they haven't really explored the full implications of the notion. It's a pejorative term that doesn't really serve a purpose other than to make the target of the term look really bad. It accomplishes this purpose splendidly in many cases but at the cost of obscuring the facts on the ground as often as not.

I don't see much reason why we would be forced to talk about any kind of incident without resorting to the use of the word "terrorism" or "terrorist". There isn't anything exclusive about those words' ability to describe the action; not using them wouldn't stop us from fulling discussing events. Using those terms only makes them look worse (and such scorn is often deserved, I agree). But using such politicized language doesn't help advance the discussion much. At all.

Anything else is just a toned down version of the idiotic tripe that bursts force from President Bush every time he talks about "evildoers".

I find it sad that the article CHiPsJr linked to mentioend "the hope [that] the BBC ... had finally come to its senses and would henceforth call terror by its proper name...". Proper name for terrorism? What a joke! There isn't a single definition of terrorism that I have found that can be logically and consistently employed in evaluating a (threat of) violent attack. Every definition is subjective in extreme ways. Either they arbitrarily draw the lines between groups that are permitted behavior (when this group does it, it IS terrorism, but when this group does it, it ISN'T) or between reasons (It's okay when >insert violent act< happens for >insert arbitrarily and self-biased reason< but not okay for >insert arbitrary and self-biased reason

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Still Orygun
Posts: 10445

a couple of pieces about this: (BBC edits the word 'terror' . . .)

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...7/12/nbbc12.xml

(this was linked at blogpulse)

http://thepowersthatbe.blogspot.com...-t-word_13.html

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 16306

I read both of thise. I could criticize each of them easily, and legitimately.

However, I really take exception to one point in the second article, which questions the legitimacy of suicide bombers attacks as a tactic of war. Who defines what constitutes legitimate? The US drops bombs from aircraft and calls it a legitimate tactic of war. Some muslims see it as legitimate to strap bombs to themselves and blow up their targets. Who decides on legitmacy?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Still Orygun
Posts: 10445

speaking of which, an article on the logic of suicide terrorism

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Beringia
Posts: 5262

Good article. It leaves me with one question. Suicide bombing completely changes the nature of the exchange in a violent conflict. It's like adding a new word to the vocabulary. One day only a couple of black guys are saying, the next the whitest, blondest kid in the world is using it. I mean doesn't it seem logical, that if suicide bombing IS a good strategy and provides a pathway to victory, that once said victory is achieved, the victors themselves can look forward to enduring the same sort of attacks from the newly defeated?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

Eh, I believe Simon said it best. A suicide bomber is a bomber pilot without an aircraft. Can you honestly find fault in their lack of war material?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Beringia
Posts: 5262

Who is finding fault?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

quote:

---

Originally posted by SimpleSimon
Who decides on legitmacy?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2004
Location: south afrika
Posts: 16803

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nutrimentia
We don't need to call people terrorists, except it makes us feel better and gives us a way of explaining why they'd do such horrible things. Unfortunately, there is a better explanation if we are willing to look at it, but it often involves a kernel of legitimacy that is generally unpalatable. Thus it's easier to just consider them "cold blooded evildoer killers" than to actually explore why they are doing what they are doing.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

And people whose kids get blown up usually aren't the most rational actors either.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Insatiation
Posts: 9026

Why not just term them sociopaths? Doh, wait, folks will confuse them with politicians.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged