Terrorists

Further to this post at Normblog - and the constant reference to this subject at Biased BBC - here's Don Wycliff, the Chicago Tribune's "public editor," defending their decision not to use the T word in their Beslan coverage (at the WSJ Opinion Journal):

One other facet of the Russian hostage story also provoked considerable reader response: It was the Tribune's use of the words "militant" or "rebel," but not "terrorist," to refer to the hostage-takers in news stories.

"How can you . . . describe these folks as anything but 'terrorists'?" asked Jim Ihlenfeld of Aurora, in one of the more temperate such messages.

Our eschewal of the word "terrorist" was in keeping with a stylebook policy adopted several years ago, a policy that is in keeping with the journalistic purpose of the news pages: to provide as complete, thorough and unbiased an account as possible of the important news of the day.

No intellectually honest person can deny that "terrorist" is a word freighted with negative judgment and bias. So we sought terms that carried no such judgment.

It's an extraordinary admission: the requirements of objectivity apparently mean that news reports should be compiled in a moral vacuum.

Comments

[Clay]

Wycliff and his sort would like to avoid the term "terrorist" because it implies a judgment, but the word has negative connotations only because it precisely defines those who perpetrate events such as Beslan. He might as well stop using the word "murderer" for the same reason. Clumsy passive expressions like "eschewal" and "freighted" point to a mind that isn't willing to see things for what they are. So much for objectivity. Wycliff seems to think he can eliminate ugliness by calling it something else, but he doesn't realize that words change meaning because they follow the truth, and ultimately he will only have given "rebels" and "militants" a bad name.

[john b]

If the Chicago Tribune style guide is like any style guide I've ever used, then I suspect it's issued a blanket ban on the word to prevent journalists from using it in more ambiguous situations.

As a parallel, I think there are certain historical contexts in which using the word 'nigger' would be appropriate - but if I were writing a corporate style guide, I might well include it on the 'words not to use' list anyway.

In situations where it would be appropriate, journalists would have to find another word. This wouldn't do anyone any major harm.

[Clay]

John,

I don't understand your point. Can you give me an example of a "historical context" where using the word "nigger" would be appropriate? There is, of course, a big difference between quoting a historical instance and using the word in the present.

[DaninVan]

The Big Lie at work. I was starting to doubt my own understanding of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist". If anyone has any empathy for Mr. Wycliff's response, I humbly suggest that they pull out their trusty old Webster's or Oxford Dictionary; the guy's a weasel of the worst kind.