Post by Teddy Bear on Oct 16, 2006 16:17:48 GMT
Honest Reporting has sent out the following article:
I don't find a barrier at all to understanding the word 'terrorist'. For me, it differs greatly from 'freedom fighters' or 'militants', as first these imply that all diplomatic avenues to achieve their ends have been exhausted. Likewise, I can understand the difference between the word gangster, somebody who uses crime to further their lifestyle,and the person who steals to feed their family after being laid off from their job with no other lawful means available.
In the case of terrorists, these are beings who use terror as part of a greater strategy to achieve their ends. Since they know their ends will never be accepted by a lawful AND FREE society, they seek to undermine and bring down that society.
Apparently the BBC worries about being seen to represent a lawful society for fear it will ostracize those who want to bring it down. If I didn't see their immoral and heinous purpose for doing so I might think they were over liberalised, instead of just using liberalism as their vehicle.
The BBC has published an abbreviated version of its journalists' guide to facts and terminology, as recommended by the BBC Governors' independent report into BBC coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Commenting on this development, BBC Jerusalem bureau chief Simon Wilson says:
It may not immediately look like it, but the style guide on Israeli/Palestinian coverage which we're publishing on the website for the first time today is the fruit of hours and hours of hard work by some of the BBC's most experienced Middle East specialists.
The aim is not to be proscriptive, but to give colleagues who can't reasonably be expected to follow every twist and turn of the conflict some suggestions to deal with the more contentious topics.
In many cases, it's about being careful not to adopt, even inadvertently, the language of one side or the other, which may give an impression of bias.
Of course, this assumes that each side carries a moral equivalence. Thus, in the BBC's world, Israeli counter-terror measures are no different from Palestinian attacks, while the word "terrorist" is reduced to "militant" in order not to adopt an "Israeli narrative". As stated in the style guide, under the heading of "Terrorists":
Note the BBC producer guidelines which state: "We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. We should not adopt other people's language as our own. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution.
HonestReporting UK invites subscribers to read this guide and judge for themselves. Comments can be posted on the BBC's blog at the bottom of Simon Wilson's article.
I don't find a barrier at all to understanding the word 'terrorist'. For me, it differs greatly from 'freedom fighters' or 'militants', as first these imply that all diplomatic avenues to achieve their ends have been exhausted. Likewise, I can understand the difference between the word gangster, somebody who uses crime to further their lifestyle,and the person who steals to feed their family after being laid off from their job with no other lawful means available.
In the case of terrorists, these are beings who use terror as part of a greater strategy to achieve their ends. Since they know their ends will never be accepted by a lawful AND FREE society, they seek to undermine and bring down that society.
Apparently the BBC worries about being seen to represent a lawful society for fear it will ostracize those who want to bring it down. If I didn't see their immoral and heinous purpose for doing so I might think they were over liberalised, instead of just using liberalism as their vehicle.