What is the problem that the BBC has with using the term “terrorist”? Take this report headed “1970’s radical freed from jail”. It concerns a woman who spent 24 years on the run before pleading guilty to a 1975 attempted police car bombing, and who has been released after a seven-year jail term. Sara Jane Olson, formerly known as Kathleen Soliah, was a member of the terrorist group the so-called Symbionese Liberation Army. The group became famous for kidnapping newspaper heiress Patty Hearst in 1974. Olson also pleaded guilty to the second degree murder of a woman during a 1975 bank raid. This woman is NOT radical, she is a terrorist. Would the BBC please explain WHY the euphemism “radical” is employed rather than than the correct term “terrorist”? Moral relativism got their tongues?
A RADICAL VOCABULARY.
Bookmark the permalink.
Threaten to plant a bomb in the name of the BNP and you’ll soon find out what a ‘terrorist’ is.
Year 7 comprehension test, March 21, 2008
Write on one side of the paper only
Before answering, read the BBC report “1970’s Radical freed”.
1. After reading the BBC story, do you think Sarah Jane Olsen is:
a. The People’s Princess
b. Florence Nightingale
c. Lady Bountiful
d. A murderer and bomber.
2. Do the LA Police like her?
a. A lot
b. With all their hearts
c. Not at all, and why isn’t she still in jail?
3. Did she:
a. Arrange Flowers in her local chapel?
b. Tend to distressed kittens?
c. Help old ladies across the road?
d. Murder a woman, try to bomb the police and join a gang of kidnappers, murderers and thieves?
4. Were the Symbionese Liberation Army:
a. conservative?
b. guarding Buckingham Palace in bearskins?
c. Banging tambourines and helping needy kids?
d. deluded radicals prepared to kill, kidnap and terrorise in the name of their cause?
Now read Mr Vance’s commentary on this. Are his comments:
a. conservative
b. radical
c. whingeing
d. desperate, but it is a bank holiday, so hey-ho
.
“This woman is NOT radical, she is a terrorist.”
Ah, I suppose she’s one of those moderate terrorists you hear so much about these days.
Never heard of the Symbionese Liberation Army before, but looks as if they are i) criminal gang ii) a dangerous cult and iii) a violent paramilitary organisation targeting civilians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army
The group committed bank robberies, two murders and other acts of violence between 1973 and 1975.
Alex: “Ah, I suppose she’s one of those moderate terrorists you hear so much about these days.”
All terrorists are radicals, but not all radicals are terrorists. Does that help?
So how is it inaccurate to call her a radical, as The Fury was suggesting?
In much the same way as it is inaccurate to describe Stalin as a left-wing politician.
What about “a left-wing politician who organised forced famines, tortured and killed suspected political rivals and was behind acts of mass-murder that could quite easily be considered genocide”? That seems fair enough.
So calling this woman a ‘radical’ in an article that lists her and her organisation’s various crimes is hardly whitewashing terror.
Slightly off topic, but since we are on semantics and it has dropped off, here’s an article on the Iranian elections.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10880525
They have more of an issue about which type of conservatives they are, rather than whether they are conservatives at all. Indeed it is the conservatives who see themselves as being “men of principle” instead.
Is this still seen as evidence towards BBC bias against the Conservative party and conservatism?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, haven’t we been here before….
“A left-wing politician who organised forced famines, tortured and killed suspected political rivals…”
Yes, quite right. Not odd at all.
Incidentally, doesn’t a group become “infamous” for kidnapping and brainwashing an heiress rather than famous?
Anyway, I’m off. Got to walk my animal.
Joel:
haven’t we been here before….
Indeed, but it’s never stopped the B-BBCers repeating their morose fantasies time and again.
Let’s lighten things up with a battle of the bands-style contest.
In the pinko corner, that ill-tempered radical rag, the Economist:
So although a real political competition is taking place in the majlis, this is no longer between conservatives and reformers, as it was in the 1990s. Iranian voters are nowadays allowed to choose only between different flavours of conservatism.
In the Blue Corner, that sensible and never anything but sane sage, Mr Vance:
It’s as if the BBC staff-writers have set themselves the objective of labelling the biggest Islamofascists around as “conservatives” in some puerile attempt to demonise that very term. The radical Islamist regime that pollutes Iran can be called many things but as I said yesterday, and as I repeat today, it is in no way conservative.
Let’s have a vote on it…
Joel,
If we have been here before then bet on us beinh here again. The BBC’s moral bankruptcy is evident in their repeated failure to use the “t” word. Like their sweethearts in the UN who cannot even agree on a definition of a terrorist, the BBC shows serial failure in this regard. Why should we let them away with it? Maybe they think a terrorist is just a friend you haven’t met yet?
What is a terrorist then?
What is a terrorist then?
Alex | Homepage | 21.03.08 – 4:52 pm |
How fatuous.
You mean you don’t know? Hell, the BBC has done a good job on you, Alex.
Google’s got this cool thing where you can type “define:” into the search box and then put the word don’t know. When you press search it comes up with a list of definitions available on the Internet.
Hope that helps.
Disinterested Bystander,
Snap.
Bryan | 21.03.08 – 5:25 pm |
😉
Time’s limited today so can only spend a couple of minutes here.
Interesting to observe the number of postings on this thread alone from the la-la crew.
David, I thought you were going to have a cull of some of the more radical posters.
I’m serious. Everybody knows roughly what a terrorist is: bad person, kills innocent people on purpose, scary, also on purpose, usually but not necessarily a non-state actor, often has a beard and a funny accent, likes bombs and automatic rifles. And of course Madame Guillotine is in there somewhere.
But what concrete definition of ‘terrorist’ does David Vance expect the BBC to go on when applying the term? As I have pointed out, an American study found 109 different definitions of the word. Which one does David favour? Why should the BBC pick that one over the other 108? If British, American or Israeli actions happen to fall within that definition, or Al-Qaeda happen to fall without it, should the BBC revise or suspend that definition temporarily?
‘Terrorist’ is a very vague word and if B-BBC is to demand its application you should all be more specific as to when and where.
Is the definition of radical very much clearer then? Fatuous is right.
Instead of asking ‘why oh why?’ on this one, and instead of smart alec remarks, wouldn’t it be more constructive to address the BBC’s published guidelines on this subject?
Here are the main operative parts. Which bits don’t you agree with and why?
The Guidelines do not ban the use of the word. However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word “terrorist” to describe the perpetrators. And there are a number of important editorial factors that must be considered before its use to describe individuals or a given group can be justified :
* Value judgements
The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words “terrorist” or “terrorist group” can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality. For example, the bombing of a bus in London was carried out by “terrorists”, but the bombing of a bus in Israel was perpetrated by a “suicide bomber”. Or again, “terrorists” in London bombed a tube train, but “insurgents” in Iraq have “assassinated” the Egyptian ambassador. The use of the words can imply judgement where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups.
Have we assessed the merits of the different perpetrators’ cause, the acts of the different Governments against the perpetrators, or even the value of civilian lives further from home? We must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit -and unwarranted – value judgement.
Some will argue that certain events are so evidently acts of terror (and, therefore, perpetrated by “terrorists”) that those descriptions are reasonable, and non-judgemental. However, the language we choose to use in reporting one incident cannot be considered in isolation from our reporting of other stories. So to use the word in incidents which we may consider obvious creates difficulties for less clear-cut incidents.
As David Spaull, then-Editor of World Service News wrote in 1988:
“Accepting that there are some actions which most people would recognise as a terrorist act- the hand grenade thrown into a crèche, the airport queue machine-gunned – we should still avoid the word. In the first place, our audience is as perceptive as we are, and can make up their own minds without being provided with labels. In the second place, there are actions which are not quite so clearly terrorism, and we should not be forced into the position of having to make value judgements on each event”.[2]
On a breaking news story, ask yourself, first of all, is the use of the word “terrorist” accurate? Do we know, or do we suspect? It may be better to talk about an apparent act of terror or terrorism than label individuals or a group.
As the facts become clearer we will also wish to describe what has happened as accurately and as clearly as possible. Give as much information as possible. “Bomb attack” conveys more information more quickly than “terrorist attack”, similarly “suicide bomber”, “bomber”, “assassin”, “gun man” help fill in the picture.
We also need to ask ourselves whether by using “terrorist” we are taking a political position, or certainly one that may be seen as such.
Unfortunately, there is no agreed or universal consensus on what constitutes a terrorist, or a terrorist attack. Dictionaries may offer definitions but the United Nations has again just failed to reach agreement. The obvious reason is that terrorism is regarded through a political prism.
Our policy is about achieving consistency and accuracy in our journalism. We recognise the existence and the reality of terrorism – at this point in the twenty first century we could hardly do otherwise. Moreover, we don’t change the word “terrorist” when quoting other people, but we try to avoid the word ourselves; not because we are morally neutral towards terrorism, nor because we have any sympathy for the perpetrators of the inhuman atrocities which all too often we have to report, but because terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones.
We also need to ensure that when we report acts of terror, we do so consistently in the stories we report across our services. We have learnt from the experience of covering such events in Northern Ireland as much as in Israel, Spain, Russia, Southern Africa or the many other places where violence divides communities, and where we seek to be seen as objective by all sides, that labels applied to groups can sometimes hinder rather than help.
As the guideline makes clear, careful use of the word “terrorist” is essential if the BBC is to maintain its reputation for standards of accuracy and especially impartiality. This is especially true when we use the word to describe a person or a group as opposed to an action or event (“the terrorist group”, say, as opposed “an act of terror” or “terrorist tactics” or “terrorism”). 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.
John Reith, you can bank on all you like about BBC ‘guidelines’, however, your ‘guidelines’ are as much in need of reform as the BBC itself.
If the BBC had the guts they would commisson a poll of the British public and ask the following:
What would you call someone who blows himself/herself up along with other (innocent) people?.
1, Radical
2, Freedom fighter
3, Insurgent
4, Terrorist
I guarantee that 90% of the public would say ‘TERRORIST’.
Joe (The Netherlands) | 21.03.08 – 6:49 pm
You offer a typically B-BBC specious and tendentious scenario.
Given the option, close to 100% would say ‘suicide bomber’, which is the term the BBC would use in the circumstances you describe.
John Reith,
I offered you one of your very own specious and emotive scenarios.
Just like the BBC I have limited the options to the choices that I feel will best fix the result.
Also just the like the BBC these are my guidelines and if you wish to add a fifth option then unlucky, I gave you four options so pick one of them.
Have we assessed the merits of the different perpetrators’ cause, the acts of the different Governments against the perpetrators, or even the value of civilian lives further from home? We must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit -and unwarranted – value judgement……………The use of the words can imply judgement where there is no clear consensus about the legitimacy of militant political groups.
This is a strawman argument. The words terrorism and terrorist are descriptive of the act and do not carry any implications of the legitimacy or otherwise of the cause in whose name the action was undertaken.
Terrorism consists of actions whose objective is to terrorise the civilian population so that they put pressure on their government to aceed to the demands of the terrorists.
If it follows its own logic about using loaded words when the motivation is unknown or unclear then the BBC will also have to resile on the words blackmail, fraud, theft assault and many others which desribe actions without implying motivation.
It is also fatuous in the light of this guidance to substitute words such as ‘radical’ or ‘insurgent’ or even ‘militant’ since these carry considerable motivational meaning in their own right.
we don’t change the word “terrorist” when quoting other people I am sorry but you do and have been caught out on numerous occasions
Given the option, close to 100% would say ‘suicide bomber’, which is the term the BBC would use in the circumstances you describe
Fascinating, so how would the BBC differentiate between someone who detonated themselves in the middle of a crowded market place (which I would call a terrorist act) and someone who detonated themselves alongside a US Warship at sea (which I would call a suicide mission, but not a terrorist act.)
Note we didn’t call kami-kazi pilots terrorists in WWII, because they weren’t.
Arthur Dent:
Given the option, close to 100% would say ‘suicide bomber’, which is the term the BBC would use in the circumstances you describe
Arthur, this shows the mindset of the typical BBC employee, even though 90% of the public would call someone who blows themself and everyone around them up a terrorist, the BBC thinks that we would prefer to use the term ‘Suicide Bomber’.
Arthur Dent | 21.03.08 – 7:04 pm
someone who detonated themselves alongside a US Warship at sea (which I would call a suicide mission, but not a terrorist act.)
Interesting.
Why is it not a terrorist act?
Would you describe the IRA’s many attacks on British servicemen as terrorist or not?
Was the WTC al-Qaeda attack terrorism, but the Pentagon attack okay in your book?
Joe (The Netherlands) | 21.03.08 – 7:11 pm
Frankly, you are making the case for the BBC guidelines.
If the BBC simply reported that a ‘terrorist’ killed x many people – we wouldn’t know if they were shot or killed by an explosion. Nor would we know the fate of the perp.
By contrast ‘suicide bomber’ packs in a whole lot of info on methodology and outcome.
The only reason you prefer ‘terrorist’ seems to be because you want to insult or condemn the perp – precisely the kind of value judgment/loaded language the BBC is charter-bound to avoid.
Alex | Homepage | 21.03.08 – 5:50 pm
You are the only one here who doesn’t seem to know what a terrorist is, Alex, so why don’t you give the definition a shot. It’s actually quite simple. I’ll give you some pointers:
*It’s got nothing to do with British, American or Israeli actions but if you are looking for state actors scout around for a start to the north and east of Israel, where you will find a rich field for exploration.
*The BBC gives us a clue with its mangling of the English language by commonly misusing a very different word or two to describe what we are talking about.
*A Philosophy 101 or Sociology 101 credit is not required for this task, just a touch of common sense.
we don’t change the word “terrorist” when quoting other people I am sorry but you do and have been caught out on numerous occasions
Arthur Dent | 21.03.08 – 7:00 pm
100% correct. I have noticed plenty of instances of BBC hacks putting the word “militant” in the mouths of Israeli spokespeople who have distinctly said “terrorist.” And on the rare instances that they do use the dreaded word in quotes they go through extraordinary contortions to distance themselves from it, even sacrificing good grammar: “He said, ‘terrorists,’ as he described them,” and so on and so forth.
If it weren’t so serious it would be comical watching the BBC approach the dreaded T-word with a very long pole.
Arthur Dent has it right @ 21.03.08 – 7:00 pm
John Reith,
I would not call the suicide boat bombers who attacked the USS Cole “terrorists” because in that case the target was military. It’s only “terrorism” if the targets are civilians. Soldiers don’t get “terrorized” as being targets is part of the job. And before you ask, I’ll state that I think it’s a little melodramatic whenever someone in the military or a Republican speaks of a terrorist attack on a military target. The attackers may be terrorists elsewhere but, the act of attacking a military target should not be considered terrorism, no matter the method. There are plenty of other negative terms to use there.
I realize it is difficult to apply the term “terrorist” to violent acts on which the BBC is reporting. After all, if the reporter uses any form of the “T” word to accurately describe (in Arthur Dent’s definition, which I agree with) someone or someone’s action, then supporters of the terrorist in question will see that as a judgment call on their beliefs. Unless, of course, the reporter immediately adds like a disclaimer – “The BBC defines terrorism thus and so for these reasons, we don’t mean to judge the ideology behind the attack, etc.” – which would get ridiculous. So the BBC is basically in the position of not calling a spade a spade because of the difficulty of appearing to take sides on whatever issue is involved in the terrorist act.
But Arthur Dent’s definition of terrorism is impartial, and rightly so. There shouldn’t be any reason for the BBC to conflate civilian with military targets, which they do when they dodge the “T” word.
Surely if the BBC is able to speak out against or cast its harsh glare upon various other unpleasant things, then there must be some way to let it be known that a specific kind of act is monstrous in a way that does not automatically condemn the actor’s motivation or ideology or whatever.
‘Instead of asking ‘why oh why?’ on this one, and instead of smart alec remarks, wouldn’t it be more constructive to address the BBC’s published guidelines on this subject?,
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 6:32 pm |
jr you are in grave danger of being as asinine as young smart alec.
The BBC might think it runs everything, but thankfully their editorial policy unit have not yet taken over from the more reputable definition sources.
By the way, how are you, you old charlatan? Keeping well I hope.
Have to say I found myself, somewhat, and I stress the somewhat, in agreement with you on something.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8705390639560111183/?a=43738#390787
Must off to the mall with little one soon. Will communicate later.
“Is the definition of radical very much clearer then? Fatuous is right.”
Of course not. But ‘terrorist’ is the word we are discussing and unlike ‘radical’ is never used in self-description and has a very strong value-judgement inherent to it. Radical can be Pol Pot or George Washington.
“What would you call someone who blows himself/herself up along with other (innocent) people??”
I find it odd that ‘innocent’ was in brackets, as this is a key factor, and that you deliberately included a suicide aspect, which is basically irrelevant to terrorism. But to answer your question, if the entirely accurate ‘suicide bomber’ isn’t available, then any combination of the four, depending on various other factors.
“1, Radical”
This depends on the ideology behind the attack.
“2, Freedom fighter”
Again, this depends on whether these (innocent?) people are being blown up in the hope of advancing the progress of freedom, and whether I agree that this particular kind of ‘freedom’ really is freedom.
“3, Insurgent”
It depends whether they are blowing themself up for or against the occupying power.
“4, Terrorist”
It depends firstly on whether the targets are civilians or soldiers, and secondly whether the attack is designed to cause terror among the population.
“I guarantee that 90% of the public would say ‘TERRORIST’.”
Could be. What’s really interesting is how that percentage changes if the perpetrator is a soldier, or a Muslim, or an unlikely suspect such as an Israeli, or a heroic all-American pilot flying into the alien mothership and so on.
“It’s actually quite simple.”
No it isn’t. 109 remember.
“I’ll give you some pointers: It’s got nothing to do with British, American or Israeli actions”
Never said it did. I was wondering how you would react if something Britain, America or Israel did, entirely hypothetically, ended up fitting the pre-agreed definition of ‘terror’. Would it be alright to report it as such?
“Fascinating, so how would the BBC differentiate between someone who detonated themselves in the middle of a crowded market place…and someone who detonated themselves alongside a US Warship at sea?”
Does the BBC necessarily have to distinguish? Should the BBC wade into the argument of what is and is not a morally valid target? Would it not be sufficient to give the straight facts – “eleven people were killed and over fifty injured, all of them civilians” or “over thirty soldiers were killed” and let the reader insert their own value judgement and moral outrage?
David Preiser (USA):
Nice post.
“The Guidelines do not ban the use of the word. However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word “terrorist” to describe the perpetrators. And there are a number of important editorial factors that must be considered before its use to describe individuals or a given group can be justified”.
The Red Queen argument,no pun intended,.”A word means what I say it does”.
Not entirely sure what the problem is here. They use one word in a headline (which David complains about), but expand on that in detail within the story.
The only way that would be of concern would be if someone only took a cursory view of the headline, and didn’t read the story before making up their mind about it.
…
Ah. I see where I’ve gone wrong there. I forgot that the blog poster has previous.
The Guidelines quoted are a wonderful insight into the post-modernist mindset which appears to dominate the modern BBC and may well be the ultimate cause of its downfall. A post-modernist world view accepts neither the concept of objective truth nor the legitimacy of a morality. Where there is no concept of objective truth , you cannot serve the cause of truth. Instead you have to serve various groups and their accompanying narratives. And where there is no morality to guide you, any value judgement is clearly inappropriate . These guidelines appear to reflect that mindset. Thus journalists are encouraged to report an act not from the perspective of truth but in a manner which is likely to be perceived as acceptable (objective) by all sides. The BBC journalists are encouraged to report incidents as anything other than acts of terror because to use the term implies an underlying truth. Moreover a terrorist is not a terrorist because to label them as such is too imply a value judgement and a value judgement cannot be made from a post modernist amoral universe. Sad to watch a once well respected broadcaster slowly implode.
Glad to engage in a discussion with you Mr Reith:
Why is it not a terrorist act?
A suicide attack on a US Warship in open waters does not fulfil the fundamental condition for terrorism, i.e. the aim is to terrorise the civilian population. A warship is a ‘legitimate’ target, we can argue about the legitimacy of the attackers and if this is an act of war etc. etc but it isn’t terrorism since the aim was to destroy the military not subvert the citizenry.
I am surprised that you do not see the difference nor the need to be able to differentiate the two events.
Would you describe the IRA’s many attacks on British servicemen as terrorist or not?
I would not consider such attacks to be terrorism, anymore than the attacks by the maquis on the German army in occupied France in 1940 were terrorist or the attacks by Hamas on the IDF are terrorism. However the attacks by the IRA on civilian targets and financial targets in the City of London definitely were acts of terrorism.
Terrorism is a methodology not an ideology, if the criteria for that method is not followed it’s not terrorism. As I said in a previous post Terrorism consists of actions whose objective is to terrorise the civilian population so that they put pressure on their government to acceed to the demands of the terrorists.
Words in the English language have meanings, the BBC should not abuse them. The BBC is not Humpty Dumpty.
Was the WTC al-Qaeda attack terrorism, but the Pentagon attack okay in your book?
I can see why you ask, in that the Pentagon could be said to be a military target. However, the common factor in 9/II was not the targets but the use for the first time of hijacked civil airliners as flying bombs. The aim was to cause terror in the civilian population. It was an enormous success, which is why air travel suffered such a downturn in the months that followed and why the civil population continues to suffer from the enhanced security measures even now.
It seems to me that the underlying problem with the BBC guideline is that whoever wrote it is starting form the premise that some terrorist acts are ‘legitimate’ and that since it is difficult to always correctly differentiate these ‘lrgitimate’ events from those that are not legitimate it is better to avoid the word itself.
However, I (and possible others reading this site) believe that no terrorist action is ever legitimate and thus this particular problem does not exist. If the BBC believed that some acts of blackmail were ‘legitimate’ it would have the same problem with descibing people as blackmailers.
I would be interested in your comments
Never said it did. I was wondering how you would react if something Britain, America or Israel did, entirely hypothetically, ended up fitting the pre-agreed definition of ‘terror’. Would it be alright to report it as such?
Alex what a strange comment. Of course it would be alright to report it as such. Just because ‘our side’ did it does not change anything and before any one asks Governments can also be guilty of terrorism.
It is the anniversary of the My Lai massacre perpretrated by the US Army in the VietNam war, that was aimed at terrorising a civilian population and was an act of terrorism for which the US is rightly ashamed. Saddam Husseins gassing of the Kurdish villagers in Halabja was a terrorist act. King Herods slaughter of the first born in Bethlehem etc etc.
The really insidious aspect to this report is how it uses the state* as a deflector to this woman’s worst crimes. Being party to the killing of a mother of four in a heist is hardly “fighting…an oppressive governmental regime”. Maybe the BBC considers kicking a pregnant woman – who later miscarriages – in the gut part of the noble fight against an oppressive regime?
*As mentioned a few months ago by a commentariat here the BBC frames stories between good parts of the state (scoolz’n’awspitalz) and bad (police and military). If this woman had bombed a school or hospital she may have been referred to as a ‘militant’!
Moreover a terrorist is not a terrorist because to label them as such is too imply a value judgement and a value judgement cannot be made from a post modernist amoral universe. Sad to watch a once well respected broadcaster slowly implode.
Gordon Neil | 21.03.08 – 11:06 pm |
Well, of course, that also recursively depends of your own cultural narrative 🙂 If you are a disciple of Edward Said’s lunacy, then BBC descent into moral equivalence idiocy is the ultimate achievement. An example of Russell’s paradox, really.
However, it earns BBC respect at Guardianista dinner parties and that is the only thing that matters to them.
The BBC has over-intellectualised this problem and in the process made itself ridiculous.
BBC GUIDELINES
Value judgments … blah blah blah … doubts about impartiality … blah blah blah … language cannot be used in isolation … blah blah blah
[Approx 1000 words]
TRUMPETER’S GUIDELINES
Words should be given their ordinary meaning. [7 words]
‘As David Spaull, then-Editor of World Service News wrote in 1988
“Accepting that there are some actions which most people would recognise as a terrorist act-….’
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 6:32 pm |
I had heard of David Spaull, but unlike the denizens of the BBC I had little knowledge of the man.
Curiosity aroused, I looked him up and, by all accounts I’ve seen, he was a formidable intellect, but then again so was my uncle and he was a member of Mosley’s black shirts.
Admittedly these accounts were from the lefty pinko contingent, but one in particular caught my eye, his obituary in the Independent.
Ian Hoare writes:
‘Most memorably, he wrote a policy note in 1988 on the importance of searching out neutral language and the damage that could be done to the BBC’s credibility through a thoughtless and inconsistent use of the term “terrorism”……..Just the week before he died, Spaull told a former colleague that some parts of his paper probably needed a rethink in the light of the events of 11 September.’
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20011023/ai_n14422922
So if the policy writer for the BBC’s guidelines on what constitutes a terrorist was having second thoughts where should the BBC look to update its opinions.
I could suggest here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_1.htm
Terrorism Act 2000. Part I Introductory
1 Terrorism: interpretation
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4) In this section—
(a) “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
This is legislation framed by the legislature of the United Kingdom. There is no ambiguity in it and it is international in its scope.
David
Here is the good news.
In a few years time. The BBC will become so out of touch with the electorate of its host country it will only be listened to hardly anyone and trusted by even fewer. The rest of the world is a different matter, and an much more serious one.
The population of these isles will treat it with the same level of respect as the people of Russia did their establishments broadcaster in the past, and still do now, if they have any sense
It is the Polly Toynbee of British politics. It no longer has any real influence over the people, especially those who can no longer pay the bills or feed their children properly. Or pay most of the taxes. If has become complacent and how now become identified by the mass of the population with our current dis-functional failing government.
The BBC does not ever listened to the ordinary people and so has no evolved method by which it can start now.
I have said before and repeat again. It represents no one but the interests of the ESTABLISHMENT. It cares about the future of the Labour Party as much as TB and GB do. Which is not one tiny little bit.
As long as it can promote a party which seems to be a radical one, it could just as well be called the BNP.
It promotes divide and rule.
Turns man against women, child against parent, worker against boss, sane against insane, religion against religion, ideology against ideology, straight against gay, black against white, brown against brown, rich against not so rich, not so rich against poor, and on and on and on.
(The BBC would of course be boring if it did not promote debate, but the BBC has long since been far to much on one side of it.)
The BBC clearly does these things, as we surly can all see. What I do not understand is why so many seem to believe it does this, because of some kind of accident, or mental deficiency.
Atlas shrugged | 22.03.08 – 3:22 am |
it’s past your bed time
John Reith: I’m a bit late coming to this, I see, but I can’t help feeling the guidelines would have been better just telling journalists to be careful with the word because the description can be contentious. I think the results would have been better.
It claims not to ban the word. However, where a hand grenade is thrown into a crèche (which it accepts would generally be accepted as terrorism) the word should still be avoided, it suggests. What conclusion is the reader meant to make? It goes well beyond just urging care with the word’s use.
The result is that even where it’s not terribly contentious and there’s no easy alternative, your journalists end up using torturous constructions to avoid it. And in doing so, as I’m sure has been pointed out above, you make a value judgement: you suggest they might have some legitimacy by reflecting a reluctance in some quarters to describe them as terrorists.
You might defend this as simply an example of impartiality – the BBC just leaving the question of legitimacy open. However, if having read this you… No, let’s push the boat out… if Alex says, ‘You might have a point’, that’s not a neutral position. It shifts the terms of the debate by challenging the generally held assumption among you chaps that I’m always wrong. In other words, my battle’s half won.
I’d add also that the word “terrorism” has negative connotations for a good reason: it’s generally understood to refer to attacks on non military targets for political ends (and I’d be happy for it to be restricted to that). If groups or individuals are prepared to employ such methods, no matter how legitimate their arguments, it is not unreasonable to expect them to pay a price in PR terms for doing so. If it is appropriate, the journalist will generally have the opportunity to give context explaining their cause. And as you said, the audience can then make up their own minds about whether such tactics are justified.
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 6:32 pm
How about a link to those “guidelines”, Reith. I want to see if you are omitting anything that doesn’t suit your bias. That said, what you have posted gives a pretty clear indication of how the BBC has developed into a weak-kneed and hypocritical apologist for Islamic terror:
The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words “terrorist” …can raise doubts about our impartiality.
But no doubts are raised about BBC “impartiality” when it acts as a propaganda arm of Hezbollah and Hamas, mocks American Christians and ignores British troops returning from Afghanistan?
Unfortunately, there is no agreed or universal consensus on what constitutes a terrorist, or a terrorist attack.
Why “unfortunately?” I would have thought the BBC would be delighted that its hero, the UN, can’t or wont agree on a definition. It gives the BBC a wonderful excuse to shrink from the word. But that’s the UN, with its significant proportion of terrorist states. The general public in civilised societies knows what terrorism is – especially those societies that have experienced it.
…terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones.
If everyone had this pathetic attitude to their profession, doctors would not treat serious diseases, teachers would not teach unruly classes and firemen would not put out fires.
We aren’t fooled. The BBC’s avoidance of the T-word is part and parcel of its dhimmi submission to Islamic terror.
…The only way that would be of concern would be if someone only took a cursory view of the headline, and didn’t read the story before making up their mind about it.
Scott | Homepage | 21.03.08 – 9:55 pm
And this obviously happens frequently. Who has the time or inclination to click on every headline link they see on a main page and read the article?
The bland substitution of meaningless words for terrorist in headlines is part of the BBC’s propaganda package. Even in Israel, where Jews have been under terrorist attack since before the establishment of the state, people who should know better, like news editors, sometimes use the word militant when they mean terrorist. The BBC’s detrimental influence on the English language is widespread, as is the pernicious influence of the BBC’s lack of a moral compass.
Normal people understand very clearly what is and what is not terrorism.
9/11: terrorism
7/7: terrorism
hamas fires rocket at Israeli tank: not terrorism
hamas fires rocket at Israeli city: terrorism
animal rights activist attacks lab worker: terrorism
All very easy and clear cut.
Maybe some of the beebers or trolls could come up with some “difficult” examples where it could be controversial or difficult to decide what is and what is not terrorism ?
If there is a lot of terrorism happening then the word needs to be used a lot.