When are terrorists called terrorists?

monument

As late as a year or two ago this used to be on Reuters' Editorial Policy on their website...

"Why don't you describe terrorists as terrorists?

As part of a long-standing policy to avoid the use of emotive words, we do not use terms like ‘terrorist' and ‘freedom fighter' unless they are in a direct quote or are otherwise attributable to a third party. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity and background so that readers can make their own decisions based on the facts."

Not only is news not the place for words like "terrorist", other emotive terms such as "freedom fighter" are also wrong.

Jackie laughlin

I tried to take part in a iscussion of the use of the term terrorist in another forum. I would like to apply it in very specific cases but people generally were outraged by the suggestion and wanted to maintain it as a term of handy abuse.

More to the point of your thread, your quotation is part of the "news from no point of view" school of nonsense. All terms, all coverage, all presentation, all agenda setting is political.

flogen

Just as a comment from a moderator point of view; I'd rather not get into specific discussions here about when the use of the word terrorist or freedom fighter etc. is acceptable; I don't think the point of the OP's post was to actually decide if certain groups were one or the other, but rather to discuss if the media should use these words at all, and what the words really reflect about people (and their potential to bias).

I think it is an interesting discussion; didn't the BBC get a lot of stick for avoiding terms like 'terrorist' too?
I suppose the fact is that terrorist and freedom fighter are both subjective words and they both paint their own emotive picture; one of a depraved lunatic who kills without mercy and the other of a romantic hero, striving to liberate his or her people.
It can be expected that local or national outlets would use either term to endear itself to the local people; take the microcosm of Northern Ireland as an example, and the descriptions used of the IRA or UDF when discussed in the News Letter compared to the Irish News, or more recently the Daily Ireland etc.
However a media outlet that strives to have international gravitas should avoid these terms, and I feel the the Reuters justification above is completely valid. It should not be the job of the news media to tell its readers which group fits into which category but instead tell them of the full truth; why these people are fighting, what they believe they are fighting for, how they fight (with the same detail being given to the other side of the conflict).
News outlets are bound to be criticised for not calling Hezbullah, the IRA, Al-Quaida etc. terrorists but this criticism comes from people who seem to assume that the media exists to decide rather than inform; if the three groups named above are indeed committing acts of terror then any reader with a hint of intelligence would not need to have this obvious fact blatently pointed out to them.

Flukey

A terrorist is one who causes terror. It doesn't matter where they come from, what cause they are fighting for and who they belong to or if they are wearing a nice uniform provided by their government. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter as they say. In the current context, the bombs dropped on Lebanon provided just as much terror as the rockets fired at places like Haifa. For those on the ground, they experienced terror, no matter where they were and what the source was.

joebhoy1916

Isn't a terrorist someone who kill's someone for a political aim as in what America is doing and Israel.

"Why don't you describe terrorists as terrorists?"

Well you see that all depends on what news it is.

For example Syria isn't going to say Hizbollah are terrorist's either is Iran or even is Russia. (Hizbollah are not terrorists in Russia's eyes) Just incase you didn't know along with alot of other country's.

monument

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I would like to apply it in very specific cases but people generally were outraged by the suggestion and wanted to maintain it as a term of handy abuse.

If the term was apply in very specific cases, ie ‘acts of terrorism’, (rather then painting one group or another as “terrorists”) then that may be less emotive and subjective, but the overwhelming use of the term ‘terrorists’ may have disallowed any real fair use of ‘act/s of terrorism’.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

More to the point of your thread, your quotation is part of the "news from no point of view" school of nonsense. All terms, all coverage, all presentation, all agenda setting is political.

Actual news and news feature reporting includes the reporting of facts, the reporting of the views of involved people etc, when apparent news descends into the reporter or sub-editor etc using their own emotive and subjective words the apparent news has turned into ‘news/comment’.

If that’s what a media outlet wants to do then that’s fine. But it’s not news. It’s news mingled together with personal comment based on the writers/outlets views or ‘agenda’ (that is apposed to fair/independent commentary solely adding context, historical or otherwise).

A half-decent outlet will, at the very least, contain emotive and subjective content to the comment sections or to writers’ columns etc.

There are a few good examples of what you call “"news from no point of view" school of nonsense”. The Guardian, and the Economist, comes to mind. Their news and other reporting is often notably respected by people who don’t necessarily hold the line as the publications’ editorial pages.

(Excuse the wording with my usual focus on media that uses the written word)

flogen wrote:

but rather to discuss if the media should use these words at all, and what the words really reflect about people (and their potential to bias).

Yes, and additionally a journalist’s personal opinion doesn’t belong in news reporting. It also goes beyond just terrorist and freedom fighter; no emotive wording belongs in news.

flogen wrote:

However a media outlet that strives to have international gravitas should avoid these terms,

The “no emotive wording belongs in news” line deepens here. In Ireland, it is nearly acceptable to a point of a given that regional newspapers have more slack here then nationals before they are branded as tabloid like. When what in fact may be happening is the newspaper is seen as a rag with people turning to it nevertheless as it’s the only place to keep up with the local courts briefs (which ironically makes up the best journalism in many locals) and local news.

flogen wrote:

News outlets are bound to be criticised for not calling Hezbullah, the IRA, Al-Quaida etc. terrorists but this criticism comes from people who seem to assume that the media exists to decide rather than inform; if the three groups named above are indeed committing acts of terror then any reader with a hint of intelligence would not need to have this obvious fact blatently pointed out to them.

People who make such assumptions usually either don’t give people credit for their intelligence or want the media to exist for their agenda, leaving no space for independence in news.

Flukey wrote:

A terrorist is one who causes terror.

Is it far to call the US terrorists because they cause terror? No it’s not. And it’s not even the correct question.

Your term of “one who causes terror” is at best highly broad. It’s pretty much a given in any kind of war/conflict a certain amount of terror is going to end up on both sides as well as third parties, a certain amount is going to be created by both sides. So if we’re not willing to call everyone who uses or threats force a terrorist we’re going into subjective areas.

Flukey

Yes, but to the person on the ground after such an act, they are not going to define whether they were terrorised or not based on who carried out the act. To those subjected to it, it is an act of terror, no matter who is responsible.

Jackie laughlin

I accept that there are good journalists and bad journalists and much in between. I accept that there is sometimes naked bias and sometimes genuine, professional effort to report dispassionately. However, political perspective/ideology cannot be purged from news. The very choice of story is a political act and all aspects of its presentation are political.

Listen to RTE reports struggle as they move between "kiiled", "murdered" and "executed" when trying to cover the search for IRA victims' bodies.

banaman

All reprting carries certain biases, assumptions and the like.
The dangerous ones are those which purport to be "neutral".
At least if I am aware of the leanings of a particular journo or news outlet i can decide what weight to give the piece in question.

A Dub in Glasgo

When are terrorists called terrorists?

When we do not agree with them

flogen

monument wrote:

Yes, and additionally a journalist’s personal opinion doesn’t belong in news reporting. It also goes beyond just terrorist and freedom fighter; no emotive wording belongs in news.

I agree.

The “no emotive wording belongs in news” line deepens here. In Ireland, it is nearly acceptable to a point of a given that regional newspapers have more slack here then nationals before they are branded as tabloid like. When what in fact may be happening is the newspaper is seen as a rag with people turning to it nevertheless as it’s the only place to keep up with the local courts briefs (which ironically makes up the best journalism in many locals) and local news.

I certainly don't think much is expected of local newspapers in Ireland, and the ones in my area are often a bit trashy in the way they report things; frankly they're really just glorified catalogues though

People who make such assumptions usually either don’t give people credit for their intelligence or want the media to exist for their agenda, leaving no space for independence in news.

again, I agree.

Flukey

Compared to some media RTE tends to be generally quite balanced. You get to hear all sides, even when there is a slight leaning towards one. For some media, the other side doesn't exist.

Jackie laughlin

I certainly didn't mean to cite RTE as a bad example. That would be grossly unfair. What I meant was watch EVEN RTE - who are professional and well-intentioned - struggle to find the impossible: a word completely without bias.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

quite simple realy...
a terrorist is somebody, anybody of any nationality who does not agree with America, Israel or the UK.

FlutterinBantam

Does that make Robert Fisk a terrorist?????

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Does that make Robert Fisk a terrorist?????

well concerning he is slated in the US and even John Malkovich once said that he would like to shoot him... i would say yes... he is considered a terrorist sympathizer.

monument

Forgot to get back to this…

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I accept that there are good journalists and bad journalists and much in between. I accept that there is sometimes naked bias and sometimes genuine, professional effort to report dispassionately.

I for one can accept that some journalist cannot comprehend the word ‘objective’, and others simply ignore it for whatever reason.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

However, political perspective/ideology cannot be purged from news. The very choice of story is a political act and all aspects of its presentation are political.

Yes, it can. At least to a massive extent. It’s why, as citied above, that some from the “left” can admire and trust the Economist’s reporting, and some from the “right” can trust the hard news in the Guardian.

In the vast majority of cases it’s not the choice of story which leads down the wrong road, but how ends up being presented. Even if a story is chosen as “a political act”, if the good journalism practise is followed the story should end up objective, and fair to the facts not factions.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Listen to RTE reports struggle as they move between "kiiled", "murdered" and "executed" when trying to cover the search for IRA victims' bodies.

I’ll help you here – murder is a legal term which should not be used unless some one has being committed of murder or is being charged with murder etc. An execution is where some one was deliberately targeted for something they are accused of (in the IRA’s case

banaman wrote:

All reprting carries certain biases, assumptions and the like.

No, it doesn’t. Unless you only read the tabloids. But even that is unfair, even the red tops have some reporting without “biases, assumptions and the like”.

banaman wrote:

The dangerous ones are those which purport to be "neutral".
At least if I am aware of the leanings of a particular journo or news outlet i can decide what weight to give the piece in question.

So, in your view the “dangerous ones” are the outlets who report fact and context and – god forbid – allow the reader to form their own bloody opinion?