Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that's their business. We also run interviews with guests and quote contributors who describe Hamas as terrorists.
The key point is that we don't say it in our voice. Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds.
As it happens, of course, many of the people who've attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it's not as though we're hiding the truth in any way - far from it.
Any reasonable person would be appalled by the kind of thing we've seen. It's perfectly reasonable to call the incidents that have occurred "atrocities", because that's exactly what they are.
No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.
Is terror defined by the application or by the reaction? They could be called Terrorists, Militants, Freedom Fighters, Patriots, Defenders, Liberators, or a host of other things. I think one of the things that makes a news source reliable is - as written here - a telling of the facts. That lack of passion is a feature rather than a bug. It lets us hear the propagandists - all propagandists - for who they are by the inciteful rhetoric they use. A teller's level of vitriol is generally inversely proportional to how much you can trust their account of what is happening.
There's a difference in strategy though, to make something noteworthy and newsworthy though being shocking rather then tactically significant. Should we not talk about that?
If you need to make something shocking then you're just advertising / pandering to a base. News may or may not be noteworthy/newsworthy; whether it is groundbreaking or simply pedestrian is clear in the reading. And just because something is pedestrian doesn't mean it's not interesting. Needing things to be shocking in news is like asking for every item of food to be intensely sweet, or salty, or sour. It dulls the sense to meaningful news which isn't sensationalist and ultimately makes us less aware and inquisitive.
Terrorist's absolutely use horrific acts to advertise. They can get their name out there and drum up support.
I'm taking about what the news usually is, rather than what it should be. I agree it'd be better your way, but a border skirmish won't get covered nearly as much as a massacre.
What's your argument?
That if terrorists do it, news outlets should too?
Imagine setting and maintaining a high bar rather than lowering it every time you get an excuse to do so.
My argument is that terrorists have a grewsome way of getting publicity. They focus on what will be picked up by the (imperfect and sensational) news outlets and conversations. That is different than normal armies, who would focus on degrading the war fighting potential of the other side though tactical strikes on the units actually fighting.