Anything but the "T" Word
Tags:
update Backspin has an example of the moral bankruptcy behind such name games, at the Chicago Tribune.
update Crooked Timber rebuts Pipes and accuses him of "cherry-picking" his examples.
Daniel Pipes has a roundup of the top 20 terms used by the media to describe the terrorists in Beslan who surrounded a thousand kids and teachers with explosives in a sweltering gym:
- Assailants – National Public Radio.
- Attackers – the Economist.
- Bombers – the Guardian.
- Captors – the Associated Press.
- Commandos – Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."
- Criminals – the Times (London).
- Extremists – United Press International.
- Fighters – the Washington Post.
- Group – the Australian.
- Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial.
- Gunmen – Reuters.
- Hostage-takers – the Los Angeles Times.
- Insurgents – in a New York Times headline.
- Kidnappers – the Observer (London).
- Militants – the Chicago Tribune.
- Perpetrators – the New York Times.
- Radicals – the BBC.
- Rebels – in a Sydney Morning Herald headline.
- Separatists – the Christian Science Monitor.
And my favorite:
- Activists – the Pakistan Times.
Nice activism:
About half these body bags contain children:
The "terrorism" label certainly fits. I wonder if the press are avoding the term because Chechnya is a 'domestic' problem, internal to one country. With the current "war on terror", to call it terrorism puts a moral load on the whole world to demonise not just the terrorists, but the cause the terrorists were supporting. Putin certainly wants the label slapped on, hard and fast:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/09/ce476827-01ec-417f-a41c-44b2019e125f.html
Here is an article by Gwynne Dyer, printed in the Melbourne Age (reg reqd) that uses the T-word.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/07/1094530608641.html?oneclick=true
(ps: I'm not sure I agree with the point Dyer tries to make.)
Not a funny event, but that is hilarious that the Pakistan Times called them "activists."
I still stand by my belief that it was popular among the media and gov to bash the sloppy fighting with Chechens back before 9/11/01, and now they don't want anyone to say, "hey, you guys sympathised with terrorits!."
Posted by: O'dell on September 7, 2004 7:14 PM | permalinkO'dell:
I'd also say that, conversely, Russia has gotten a real green-light to fuck up the Chechens, both from the US, who doesn't want to set a precedent for scrutinizing anti-terrorism, and foreign media, who focus on the US and Israel as the big abusers of Muslims.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on September 7, 2004 7:41 PM | permalinkI'm really digging the gruesome photos of late.
Posted by: ChuckJerry on September 7, 2004 11:49 PM | permalinkI saw Secretary of State Colin Powell on the Today show this morning and he used the term "terrorists" to describe them.
Posted by: Doug Moore on September 8, 2004 10:15 AM | permalinkI think you should do more than 'update' this post - Pipes has been manipulating the truth to make a political point.
Posted by: Ian on September 8, 2004 1:40 PM | permalinkNo, Ian, I think an update suffices.
The AP and Reuters, the two main news wires, are as guilty as Pipes portrays.
Whether it's Chechens, Palestinians or the 9/11 hijackers, they deliberately avoid the word "terrorist".
I credit Pipes for pointing out this disturbing aspect of their reporting, even if he overstated his case with this incident.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on September 8, 2004 1:55 PM | permalinkThe bias is definitely there. If someone were to compare all stories like that, the "rebel/assailaint" stories would greatly outnumber ones that say "terrorist."
Posted by: O'dell on September 8, 2004 6:00 PM | permalinkBut then, look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/international/middleeast/09arabiya.html?hp
So it's this and the chaos in Gaza and...
There seems to be a pattern of Arabs starting to do some introspection and realize that they are, more often than not, the perpetrators of terror in the world and that that's a "pathetic record". What's weird and ironic is that high profile Muslims will call the Chechen thugs 'terrorists' but the American media has trouble with it. Another thing that's ironic is that the general manager of al Arabiya says:
"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," [sounds like an annoying GRE logic question]
Imagine if Bush said that? Holy shit. It's definitely an in-group thing.
No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.