Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Issue No. 35 October 14 - 20, 2001 Quezon City, Philippines |
Media Spin Revolves Around the Word "Terrorist" BY
NORMAN SOLOMON
Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index During
the first two days of this month, CNN's website displayed an odd little
announcement. "There have been false reports that CNN has not used the word
'terrorist' to refer to those who attacked the World Trade Center and
Pentagon," the notice said. "In fact, CNN has consistently and
repeatedly referred to the attackers and hijackers as terrorists, and it will
continue to do so." The
CNN disclaimer was accurate -- and, by conventional media standards, reassuring.
But it bypassed a basic question that festers beneath America's overwhelming
media coverage of recent weeks: Exactly what qualifies as "terrorism"? For
this country's mainstream journalists, that's a non-question about a no-brainer.
More than ever, the proper function of the "terrorist" label seems
obvious. "A group of people commandeered airliners and used them as guided
missiles against thousands of people," says NBC News executive Bill
Wheatley. "If that doesn't fit the definition of terrorism, what
does?" True
enough. At the same time, it's notable that American news outlets routinely
define terrorism the same way that U.S. government officials do. Usually,
editors assume that reporters don't need any formal directive because the
appropriate usage is simply understood. The
Wall Street Journal does provide some guidelines, telling its staff that the
word terrorist "should be used carefully, and specifically, to describe
those people and nongovernmental organizations that plan and execute acts of
violence against civilian or noncombatant targets." In newsrooms across the
United States, media professionals would agree. But
-- in sharp contrast -- Reuters has stuck to a distinctive approach for decades.
"As part of a policy to avoid the use of emotive words," the global
news service says, "we do not use terms like 'terrorist' and 'freedom
fighter' unless they are in a direct quote or are otherwise attributable to a
third party. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead
report their actions, identity and background so that readers can make their own
decisions based on the facts." Since
mid-September, the Reuters management has taken a lot of heat for maintaining
this policy -- and for reiterating it in an internal memo, which included the
observation that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter." In a clarifying statement, released on Oct. 2, the top execs at
Reuters explained: "Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and
not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately
and fairly." Reuters
reports from 160 countries, and the "terrorist" label is highly
contentious in quite a few of them. Behind the scenes, many governments have
pressured Reuters to flatly describe their enemies as terrorists in news
dispatches. From
the vantage point of government leaders in Ankara or Jerusalem or Moscow, for
example, journalists shouldn't hesitate to describe their violent foes as
terrorists. But why should reporters oblige by pinning that tag on Kurdish
combatants in Turkey, or Palestinian militants in occupied territories, or
rebels in Chechnya? Unless
we buy into the absurd pretense that governments don't engage in
"terrorism," the circumscribed use of the term by U.S. media makes no
sense. Turkish military forces have certainly terrorized and killed many
civilians; the same is true of Israeli forces and Russian troops. As a result,
plenty of Kurds, Palestinians and Chechens are grieving. American
reporters could plausibly expand their working definition of terrorism to
include all organized acts of terror and murder committed against civilians. But
such consistency would meet with fierce opposition in high Washington places. During
the 1980s, with a non-evasive standard for terrorism, news accounts would have
routinely referred to the Nicaraguan contra guerrillas -- in addition to the
Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments -- as U.S.-backed "terrorists."
Today, for instance, such a standard would require news coverage of terrorism in
the Middle East to include the Israeli assaults with bullets and missiles that
take the lives of Palestinian children and other civilians. Evenhanded
use of the "terrorist" label would mean sometimes affixing it directly
on the U.S. government. During the past decade, from Iraq to Sudan to
Yugoslavia, the Pentagon's missiles have destroyed the lives of civilians just
as innocent as those who perished on Sept. 11. If journalists dare not call that
"terrorism," then perhaps the word should be retired from the media
lexicon. It's
entirely appropriate for news outlets to describe the Sept. 11 hijackers as
"terrorists" -- if those outlets are willing to use the
"terrorist" label with integrity across the board. But as long as news
organizations are not willing to do so, the Reuters policy is the only
principled journalistic alternative. There
is no credible reason to believe that mainstream U.S. media will jump off Uncle
Sam's propaganda merry-go-round about "terrorism." And the problem
goes far beyond the deeply hypocritical routine of condemning some murderously
explosive actions against civilians while applauding or even implementing
others. More
than five years have passed since Madeleine Albright, then secretary of state,
appeared on the CBS program "60 Minutes" and explained her lack of
concern about the deaths resulting from U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq. In a
broadcast that aired on May 12, 1996, the CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl asked
Albright: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean,
that's more children than died when -- in -- in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know,
is the price worth it?" "I
think this is a very hard choice," Albright replied, "but the price --
we think the price is worth it." Since
then, by continuing to impose sanctions on Iraq, the U.S. government has killed
hundreds of thousands more children. Of course such present-day policies did not
stop Albright's successor from immediately claiming the high moral ground on
Sept. 11. Responding to the tragic events that day, Colin Powell denounced
"people who feel that with the destruction of buildings, with the murder of
people, they can somehow achieve a political purpose." Obviously, top U.S. officials still believe that they can "somehow achieve a political purpose" with sanctions that are killing several thousand Iraqi children every month. While standing on that policy platform, the officials fervently deplore terrorism. Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index We want to know what you think of this article.
|