[Swprograms] [semantics] The Beeb decides whether to use the dreaded "T" word

[Joel Rubin <jmrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.forward.com/articles/3779

The Dreaded 'T-Word'
August 5, 2005

At least no one can say that someone at the British Broadcasting
Corporation, better known as the BBC, isn't consistent. After being
criticized for years for its refusal to use the word "terrorists" to
describe those folks who, generally of the Islamic persuasion, make a
habit of doing things like flying airplanes into the Twin Towers or
blowing up buses and cafés in Israel, the BBC is now in the throes of
an inner debate over whether this also applies to the suicide bombers
who killed more than 50 people in the London underground several weeks
ago.

The story was picked up first by the British Web site Harry's Place
(hurryupharry.bloghouse.net), which pointed out that on July 7, the
day of the underground blasts, the BBC ran a news item with the
following sentence: "A bus passenger says he may have seen one of
those responsible for the terrorists' bomb attacks in London." By the
following day, however, this had been amended to: "A bus passenger
says he may have seen one of those responsible for the bomb attacks in
London."

Nor was this the only example of such a flip-flop. Again on July 8, a
BBC journalist reporting on live television began by announcing:
"Being stuck in a tunnel for 40 minutes is not an unusual occurrence
in the London underground. But on the morning after the worst
terrorist atrocity Britain has seen, even the most routine-sounding
announcements took on a more sinister aspect." Yet when this was
released four hours later as a print item it read: "Being stuck in a
tunnel for 40 minutes is not an unusual occurrence on the London
underground. But on the morning after the worst peacetime bomb attacks
Britain has seen...."

"Obviously," a blogger at Harry's Place wrote, "someone at Bush House
[which is the BBC's London headquarters, not the residence of George
W. Bush] sent down the word to stop using the dread 'T-word.'"

It must have been a true man or woman of principle. In the past, the
BBC has been joined by other media in the United Kingdom in referring
to perpetrators of indiscriminate, politically motivated killings in
various parts of the world as "militants," "activists," "guerrillas,"
"resistance fighters" and other euphemisms. Now that it's happened,
however, not in benighted Americans or barbaric Israel, but in good
old England, even the left-wing newspaper The Guardian ? as Jerusalem
Post columnist Tom Gross recently observed ? "seemed suddenly to
discover the words 'terrorism' and 'terrorist.'" There's nothing like
getting it on your own chin to find out that it hurts. It even
happened at the BBC ? until that "someone at Bush house" thought
better of it.

That one man's "terrorist" can be another's "resistance fighter" or
even "freedom fighter" is of course commonplace. Indeed, this is the
reason given by media organizations like the BBC for avoiding the
"T-word" entirely. Since using it in some cases and not in others, the
argument goes, would mean playing political favorites and losing all
objectivity, the only fair solution is to use it in no cases at all ?
even when the T-act occurs in your own backyard.

"Well, then," the counterargument goes, "why not use the T-word in all
cases? Let's have no more 'militants' or 'resistance fighters' when
innocent lives are being deliberately targeted, whether it's in
America, Israel, Chechnya, Egypt, Northern Ireland, Iraq or wherever.
It doesn't matter if we're sympathetic to the causes involved or not.
We may think that the Americans should leave Iraq, or that the
Palestinians should have their own state, but if Iraqis randomly blow
up other Iraqis, or Palestinians do the same to Israelis, they should
be labeled terrorists, nonetheless."

"Ah!" goes the counter-counterargument. "But what about the countries
that these so-called terrorists are fighting against? When American
airplanes bomb wedding parties in Iraq, or Israeli helicopters rocket
innocent people in Gaza, shouldn't the Americans and the Israelis be
called terrorists, too? And what about the British carpet-bombing of
Dresden in World War II, or the U.S. nuking of Hiroshima, which caused
tens of thousands of innocent deaths: Isn't that terrorism on a scale
far dwarfing even the Twin Towers?"

Indeed it is, which is why in the opinion of this language columnist
there is nothing wrong in referring to the "terror bombing" of Dresden
or Hiroshima, since sowing mass terror in Germany and Japan, however
justified this may have been in terms of hastening the war's end and
reducing Allied casualties, was what these attacks were calculated to
achieve. Yet this was not the aim of the American pilots who
mistakenly hit a wrong target in Iraq, or of Israeli attempts to kill
Palestinian combatants in Gaza that resulted in the deaths of innocent
bystanders.

Surely in any definition of terrorism or terror, the question of
intention is crucial. If I purposely set out to kill innocent
non-combatants, I am a terrorist or a perpetrator of terror; if I
don't, I am not. Even the BBC should be able to get that straight.

Questions for Philologos can be sent to philologos@xxxxxxxxxxxx



_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.