Hi, Arthur,
This is a quite remarkable memo. Is it
clear that it is authentic?
Cheers,
Lawry
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005
10:12 AM
To: FUTUREWORK (E-mail)
Subject: [Futurework] use of word
"terror"
'Terrorism'? Who's to say?: Informed sources
National Post
July 19, 2005
What follows is a memo distributed to CBC
staff describing the CBC policy on use of the word 'terrorism.'
'Terrorist' and 'terrorism': Exercise extreme caution before using either word.
Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist
act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote
on the Web). For instance, we should refer to the deadly blast at that
nightclub in Bali in October 2002 as an
"attack," not as a "terrorist attack." The same applies to
the Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005 and the attacks against the United States
in 2001, which the CBC prefers to call "the Sept. 11 attacks" or some
similar _expression_. (The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)
Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political,
religious or some other ideological reason. But it's a highly controversial
term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.
By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren't faced with the problem
of calling one incident a "terrorist act" (e.g., the destruction of the
World Trade
Center) while classifying another as,
say, a mere "bombing" (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping
mall in the Middle East).
Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label
("terrorist" or "terrorism") when news breaks, try
describing what happened.
For example, "A suicide bomber blew up a bus full of unarmed civilians
early Monday, killing at least two dozen people." The details of these
tragedies give our audience the information they need to form their own
conclusions about what type of attack it was.
Rather than calling assailants "terrorists," we can refer to them as
bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we're sure no women were in the group),
militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun.
It's not practical to draft a list of all contexts in which the words
"terrorist" and "terrorism" are appropriate in news
stories. For instance, we might write that Canada
and other countries have passed "anti-terrorism" legislation, or that
intelligence agencies have lists of groups that they consider
"terrorist" organizations, or that the U.S. government has issued another
warning about an increased risk of "terrorist attacks" in the next
few weeks, or that certain people have been charged with acts of
"terrorism." Use common sense.
The guiding principle should be that we don't judge specific acts as
"terrorism" or people as "terrorists." Such labels must be
attributed.
As CBC News editor-in-chief Tony Burman has pointed out: "Our preference
is to describe the act or individual, and let the viewer or listener or
political representatives make their own judgment."
|