« Nice Shooting Rex! | Main | I am John Kerry »
September 09, 2004
And.. words...
Terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
So? Well then. That means they're terrorists, not activists, not militants, not freedom fighters. They commit murder, not executions.
Why does the media not understand this simple fact? Why do they continue to refer to terrorists as anything other than what they are.
I find it an outrage and I know I am not alone in this. Daniel Pipes speaks out about this once again:
"I know it when I see it" was the famous response by a U.S. Supreme Court justice to the vexed problem of defining pornography. Terrorism may be no less difficult to define, but the wanton killing of schoolchildren, of mourners at a funeral, or workers at their desks in skyscrapers surely fits the know-it-when-I-see-it definition.
Even after 9/11, Spain, and Bali, the media continues to pay homage to the terrorists of Beslan whose brutality will live in our nightmares for generations to come.
Even after the atrocities committed against innocent children, the press still manages to avoid calling the murderers responsible what they are, terrorists:
The press, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms. Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on September 3. Journalists have delved deep into their thesauruses, finding at least twenty euphemisms for terrorists:
- Assailants - National Public Radio.
- Attackers – the Economist.
- Bombers – the Guardian.
- Captors – the Associated Press.
- Commandos – Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."
- Criminals - the Times (London).
- Extremists – United Press International.
- Fighters – the Washington Post.
- Group – the Australian.
- Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial.
- Gunmen – Reuters.
- Hostage-takers - the Los Angeles Times.
- Insurgents – in a New York Times headline.
- Kidnappers – the Observer (London).
- Militants – the Chicago Tribune.
- Perpetrators – the New York Times.
- Radicals – the BBC.
- Rebels – in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.
- Separatists – the Christian Science Monitor.And get this:
- Activists – the Pakistan Times.
Now. Isn't that special. All that effort to change the face of who they are, what they did and why they did it. This is a deliberate attempt to give terrorists credibility for their deeds, to justify the rape of children, the brutal murder and atrocities visited upon the innocent.
Pipes believes that the avoidance of using "terrorism" comes from the Arab/Israeli conflict and I agree with him:
The origins of this unwillingness to name terrorists seems to lie in the Arab-Israeli conflict, prompted by an odd combination of sympathy in the press for the Palestinian Arabs and intimidation by them. The sympathy is well known; the intimidation less so. Reuters' Nidal al-Mughrabi made the latter explicit in advice for fellow reporters in Gaza to avoid trouble on the Web site www.newssafety.com, where one tip reads: "Never use the word terrorist or terrorism in describing Palestinian gunmen and militants; people consider them heroes of the conflict."
Pipes notes that ever popular term "militants" is now the industry-standard euphemism for "terrorists".
Politically-correct news organizations undermine their credibility with such subterfuges. How can one trust what one reads, hears, or sees when the self-evident fact of terrorism is being semi-denied?
Worse, the multiple euphemisms for terrorist obstruct a clear understanding of the violent threats confronting the civilized world. It is bad enough that only one of five articles discussing the Beslan atrocity mentions its Islamist origins; worse is the miasma of words that insulates the public from the evil of terrorism.
Yeah well. I know terrorism when I see it. I know murder when I see it. I know what an atrocity is. And I know what the media is too.
Posted by LindaSoG at September 9, 2004 08:30 AM