I know that others, particularly in the UK, have written about this at length viz the BBC, but it's still infuriating.
"Terrorist" is the most accurate term available to describe the WTC and Underground attacks. "Bombing" could be The Blitz, angry ex-boyfriend with a chemistry kit, etc.; i.e., not very accurate. In fact, to call something a "bombing attack," as I've read a few times recently, is redundant. A bombing tends to be an attack.
The cbc and other news organizations are sacrificing accuracy--what should be their first principle--for "sensitivity." And for that, they should be pilloried.
A marvelous moment on CBC Newsworld just after 1230. The host was interviewing Shahid Malik, a young Labour MP from Yorkshire, about the meeting PM Blair had this morning with Mulim leaders (which Mr Malik had attended). Towards the end of the interview Mr Malik said (as accurately as I could write it down), in response to a question about whether the UK's actions in Iraq helped prompt the London mass murder:
"We deal with these issues in this country through discourse, debate and democracy. If you don't believe in that you shouldn't be in this country."
The Newsworld host, a bit taken aback, responded:
"You seem to be singing from Tony Blair's songbook."
Mr Malik: "He's singing from my songbook."
God bless Mr Malik. Same old CBC.
Mark
Ottawa
BlogThis also has an article ([External Link]
and "Julie" in the comments there points to a couple of other interesting links.
The problem with using the words bombing or attack, to describe an act of terrorism, isn't that they are inaccurate, but that they are imprecise – the same as conflating victims and murderers in describing how many people were killed. This ambiguity is not typical of other areas of journalism. For example, the word pollute also has negative connotations, but is routinely used in environmental reporting.
Posted at 2005-07-19 12:13:11 [PermaLink]On the one hand, it's good news practice to say what happened rather than just use a label that comes quickly to hand.
'Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label ("terrorist" or "terrorism") when news breaks, try describing what happened.'
That's OK, as far as it goes. Mind you, when what comes quickly to hand is the old lib-left vocabulary of "militants" and "activists" -- and at the CBC, those labels do -- we're not much further ahead.
Me, I'd like to hear the occasional "detestable mudering scumbags" reference on The World at Six.
I wonder if Don Cherry will say anything about this on the first Hockey Night In Canada of the season.
Posted at 2005-07-19 18:50:25 [PermaLink]The US media are guilty of this kind of double standard all the time. For example, the New York Times never refers to the IRA as "terrorists" or a "terrorist organization", they are always "freedom fighters", "paramilitaries" or a "private army". Maybe the editor should have listened to "ex"-IRA members (now "legitimate" politicians) on TV in the US on the day of the bombing -- arguing that terrorism, including the killing of "innocent civilians", is a legitimate tool for poltical change.
Posted at 2005-07-20 10:27:05 [PermaLink]