Now its official for that 'terrorist' word

[steevo]

"Careful use of the word 'terrorist' is essential if the BBC is to maintain its reputation for standards of accuracy and especially impartiality ... that does not mean we should emasculate our reporting or otherwise avoid conveying the reality and horror of what has occurred; but we should consider the impact our use of language may have on our reputation for objective journalism amongst our many audiences ... we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit - and unwarranted - value judgement."

The edict reminds BBC staff of the existing BBC editorial policy, which states: "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them."

"We should not adopt other people's language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like 'liberate', 'court martial' or 'execute' in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacking', 'gunman', 'kidnapper' 'insurgent' and 'militant'."

BBC warns staff over 'terrorism' (registration required)

[Teddy Bear]

I don't have a problem with the BBC wanting to be the 'impartial' voice of the world, even though it has a clear agenda which is anything but impartial. I just mind them doing it while getting paid by our own society.

"we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit - and unwarranted - value judgement."

Fact is, our society has certain values, which we judge good and bad with. It is at odds with other societies, who for example, still see domination and suppression of women or free thought, as good. No doubt the BBC sees their continuing to receive the licence fee as good, and here is the starting point for which they cannot continue to claim 'impartiality' as the excuse for biased and shoddy reporting.

"but we should consider the impact our use of language may have on our reputation for objective journalism amongst our many audiences"
There is only one audience they need to consider, the one who pays for them. All the rest is their own desire to be 'the world media organisation'.