BBC: Terrorism Gets Mantle of Respect

Willy Shake might be interested in this one.

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labeling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.

Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Hint to the BBC: Look up "terrorism" in any dictionary. Here is what I got: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Sounds like our "bombers" are terrorists to me.

The only even remotely valid reasons not to use the term "terrorist" here would be (1) if there were some doubt that the bombings were acts of terrorism, in which case, "murderers" would have been a more acceptable term than bombers (Murder: "The unlawful killing of one human by another"), or (2) if there was some doubt that the "bombers" intended to set the charges off in the first place and were merely transporting explosives rigged up with timers on a subway for some innocent reason. Neither applies here.

Just how the hell "careful" does one have to be to call an obvious terrorist attack ... a terrorist attack? What the hell other reason is there to set off a bomb in a crowded subway, let alone several that have been synchronized beforehand?

A thing is what it is. The London bombings were terrorist acts, and the perpetrators were terrorists. Period. As a news organization, the BBC is failing to report the facts when it refers to terrorists as anything other than terrorists. This is not objectivity: It is a willful whitewashing of a barbarous act excused by an overbearing and even sanctimonious moral agnosticism.

Don't believe me? Think that the BBC has a point? Okay. Let's take them at their word for a moment....

The BBC would certainly lose credibility if it, as a matter of course, bandied about emotionally-loaded terms for no good reason. Why? Because its audience is there to find out what's going on in the world, not to have their emotions manipulated. But it is also true that its audience is composed of sentient human beings who will make their own moral judgements and experience their own emotions upon hearing certain kinds of news. In some situations, BBC might have a case for avoiding certain kinds of terms. This situation is not one of them. Why?

How will BBC's audience react to the use of the term terrorism (or even the news about it, despite the BBC's arrogance in openly pretending that what just happened did not)? Westerners and other civilized men will be appalled. Islamofascist barbarians will celebrate. How does either reaction affect BBC's credibility even one jot if the correct term, "terrorists," is used to describe the "bombers"? That is, how would members of its audience feel manipulated were the proper term for these individuals used?

More importantly, why would someone react one way or another to these mass executions? Because one either regards human life as sacrosanct or expendable. It is this latter group of people that BBC is afraid might think their coverage is "biased" if they go on using horrible terms like "terrorist" to describe -- um -- terrorists.

In other words, the BBC has edited its news stories to cater to the sensitivities of barbarians, not to avoid appearing to be biased.

But that's not the end of it. The news story goes on to say, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding." This is a slap in the face to those in the audience who were rightly appalled by what happened in London. What the hell is there to "understand" that the word "terrorist" gets in the way of? The only relevant fact about terrorists is that their own minds are "barriers to understanding" and that they want to kill or enslave everyone else. If anything, not calling them "terrorists" hides this vital fact.

So, on top of tiptoeing around the feelings of savages, the BBC would protect them from what might happen were Westerners to know their heroes as what they are: terrorists. And what's the worst that might happen? Oh! The same thing that did happen thanks to the "bombers" we are now to take pains to "understand". Who, objectively, needs protection from whom here?

For the sake of consistencey, might I suggest the BBC edit a few other words with emotional or normative baggage from a few other past stories. The following list is by no means exhaustive.

• First, might I suggest going whole-hog on the "bomber" stories. You have failed to recognize the glory of the accomplishments of these soldiers of Allah you so dismissively call "bombers". The term "bombers" unjustly draws attention from the fact that infidels died in the blasts, and merely focuses on the blasts themselves. In fact, since these great heroes apparently died in the blasts, you can even call them "martyrs" now!
  
• Second, and I am sure the "martyrs" would agree with this. What's with the term "Nazi war criminal" in stories like this? First off, this man was a German, not an American prison guard at Guantanamo, and so he hardly deserves the pejorative label "Nazi". And yes, he was in a war, but really, "criminal"? So he ordered some people to take a few train rides. Jeez! Even the London martyrs didn't make the infidels board the subway cars. I recommend that all references to Klaus Barbie as a "Nazi war criminal" be purged and replaced with "German mass transit official." Much less manipulative.
  
• And I'm sure that many of the same readers who would become angry at your London martyrs being called "terrorists" might want you to choose your words a bit more carefully in this story. "Holocaust"? "Death" camp? This story hits the unsuspecting reader with one "value judgement" after another! Instead, you should focus on the fact that Germany was big on long-haul mass transit and free public housing during World War II. It would be "careless" to make hay about all the people who happened to die after availing themselves of the largesse of the Third Reich. One day, after Michael Moore makes a movie about the Third Reich, and shows kids flying kites at Auschwitz, you'll thank me.
  
• Come to think of it, "murder" is a pretty loaded term, but eliminating it might be a pretty tall order. Perhaps you could cut the work load down by editing only those stories where the "life endpoint facilitator" thought he had good reasons for what he did. After all, others in your audience might agree with him, and you know what that might do to your "credibility". You might start here. "Mohammed Bouyeri, 27, said he acted out of his religious beliefs and that he would do 'exactly the same' if he were ever set free." Notice that "Mr" Bouyeri and other Islamofascists might not regard this killing as a "murder". Quick! Call the editors! Your bias is showing! You'll have to ask "Mister" Bouyeri what the correct Islamic term for what he did is since, unfortunately, he did not achieve what he would call "martyrdom".
  

The decision by the BBC to fail to call the London bombers "terrorists" is, objectively, an injustice on the same magnitude as making the same changes listed above would be. It is a heinous concession to the idea that human life is expendable. Furthermore, since the terrorist gives the civilized man the "choice" of killing him or being killed, pleas to use language to foster greater "understanding" of terrorists and their sympathizers are ludicrous at their ill-advised best.

To the BBC (really, this time): Call a spade a spade. To do otherwise in this case is to grant the premise of the terrorists the mantle of respect. This is the last thing the terrorists, their victims, or your civilized audience deserve. It is also, incidentally (and for the identical reason), a kick in the teeth to your credibility.

-- CAV

PS: Via James Taranto, I have learned of a list of specific examples of the Ministry of Truth's BBC's journalistic integrity.

Updates

Today: Added PS.