Below is an analysis of the uses, and misuses, of the word 'terrorism.' The analysis focuses on a recent exchange between the Star Tribune and MAT (Minnesotans Against Terrorism).
Here is MAT's web address: http://www.minnesotansagainstterrorism.org/ It is worth remembering that more than 300 Israelis and 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since the current Intifada began in September 2000 (Boston Globe, 3/31/02). So, if MAT wants to label Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists, what is it going to label the Israeli military? Terrorists times four? M. Franklin Minneapolis, MN >From: "FAIR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "FAIR-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Terrorism Is a Term that Requires Consistency >Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:37:14 -0500 > > FAIR-L > Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting > Media analysis, critiques and activism > >MEDIA ADVISORY: > >"Terrorism" Is a Term that Requires Consistency: >Newspaper and its critics both show a double standard on "terror" > >April 8, 2002 > >A group called Minnesotans Against Terrorism (MAT)-- which includes Gov. >Jesse Ventura, Sen. Paul Wellstone and other prominent political figures-- >has condemned the Minneapolis Star Tribune for what it calls a "double >standard" on the use of the word "terrorism." But in fact, neither the >newspaper nor the organization applies the term "terrorism" in a >consistent way-- a problem that is widespread throughout U.S. media. > >The organization's grievance against the Star Tribune is that the paper >says it avoids using the term "terrorist" in its reports on the Mideast >conflict. As the paper's assistant managing editor, Roger Buoen, explained >in a comment to the paper's ombudsman (2/3/02): > >"Our practice is to stay away from characterizing the subjects of news >articles but instead describe their actions, background and identity as >fully as possible, allowing readers to come to their own judgments about >individuals and organizations. > >"In the case of the term 'terrorist,' other words-- 'gunman,' 'separatist' >and 'rebel,' for example-- may be more precise and less likely to be >viewed as judgmental. Because of that we often prefer these more specific >words. > >"We also take extra care to avoid the term 'terrorist' in articles about >the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because of the emotional and heated >nature of that dispute." > >This policy of avoiding the term "terrorism" in favor of more specific >descriptions is a defensible policy-- so long as it is applied >consistently. But Buoen went on to acknowledge that the paper does make >exceptions: > >"However, in some circumstances in which non-governmental groups carry out >attacks on civilians, the term is permitted. For example, Al Qaeda is >frequently referred to by the Star Tribune and other news organizations as >a 'terrorist network,' in part because its members have been convicted of >terrorist acts and because it has been identified by the United States and >other countries as a terrorist organization." > >Here the paper is making distinctions that are not defensible. First, to >limit "terrorism" to "nongovernmental groups" is an illogical restriction. >Does a plane being blown up stop being terrorism if it turns out that some >nation's intelligence agency secretly ordered its destruction? To make >such an arbitrary distinction over the use of a word with such powerful >connotations certainly doesn't sound like "allowing readers to come to >their own judgments." (The Star Tribune's ombudsman noted that the >Associated Press also reserves the word "terrorist" for non-governmental >groups.) > >Similarly, to decide that it is all right to label Al Qaeda as a >"terrorist network," not because its specific actions fit a definition of >terrorism, but because the U.S. government has used that label in public >statements or in legal actions, is not allowing readers to make up their >minds but letting the state make up their minds for them. > >Furthermore, the September 11 attacks are certainly an "emotional and >heated" subject-- probably more so than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict >for most of the Star Tribune's readers. Since the reasons the paper cites >for calling Al Qaeda "terrorist" also apply to the Palestinian >organization Hamas, one can't help but wonder if the Star Tribune's >different treatment of these groups has to do with the greater degree of >outrage its readers would feel if the paper declined to use the term in Al >Qaeda's case. > >So MAT has a point when it charges the paper with a double standard. But >the organization itself has a similar double standard when it comes to its >definition of terrorism. "Calling the targeted killing of innocent >civilians anything but terrorism is completely unconscionable," says Marc >Grossfield, the group's co-founder, in a press release (4/2/02). But do >they really mean it? > >FAIR asked Grossfield if his organization would refer to the bombing of >Hiroshima as a terrorist act. "No, we would not," he responded. Yet it >would seem to fit MAT's definition precisely: Hiroshima was targeted >precisely because the city, lacking significant military targets, had >escaped previous bombing damage, so its destruction by a single bomb would >send the starkest possible message to Japan about the price the nation >would pay if it refused to surrender. So why isn't that targeting of >civilians, who died on a scale undreamed of by any suicide bomber, >considered to be terrorism? > >"The use of weapons of mass destruction in WWII against an evil force who >had engaged in genocide is not something that this organization is willing >to judge," was MAT's official response. > >So targeting civilians stops being terrorism when it's done to combat an >"evil force." Of course, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who >targeted civilians anywhere who did not consider the force they were >fighting to be "evil." This is a definition of terrorism that hinges on >whether or not one agrees with the reasons for killing civilians. > >In fact, the only consistent definition of terrorism is based on the >deliberate killing of civilians to achieve political goals-- not on >whether the killers are backed by a state or not, and certainly not on the >methods they choose to use to kill their victims. A consistent definition, >however, is one that virtually no news organization would be willing to >use. > >They would have to refer to the "terrorist" bombings of Hiroshima and >Nagasaki, to U.S. support for "terrorist" governments in Central America >that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, to the U.S.'s "terrorist" >attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iraq and Yugoslavia. (The attacks on >water treatment facilities in Iraq alone have certainly-- and >deliberately-- killed more civilians than any Palestinian group; see The >Progressive, 9/01.) > >And they would have to use the word "terrorism" to describe actions by >both sides in the Israeli-Palestian conflict. Consider a May 1996 report >from Human Rights Watch on Israel's tactics in Lebanon earlier that year: > >"In significant areas in southern Lebanon whole populations-- indeed >anyone who failed to flee by a certain time-- were targeted as if they >were combatants.... The intention of the warnings that were broadcast and >subsequent shelling is likely to have been to cause terror among the >civilian population.... The IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] also executed >what appear to have been calculated direct attacks on purely civilian >targets.... The IDF at times hindered and even attacked ambulances and >vehicles of relief organizations, and carried out a number of attacks on >persons attempting to flee the area." > >If news organizations are prepared to describe such tactics as terrorism, >then they should consistently apply the same term to non-governmental >groups that target civilians. If media are unwilling or unable to be >consistent, then they should, indeed, avoid the use of the word >"terrorism," instead describing specific activities and letting readers >make up their own minds what they should be called. > > ---------- > >Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). We can't reply to >everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate >documented example of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of >your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] . > >FAIR ON THE AIR: FAIR's founder Jeff Cohen is a regular panelist on the Fox >News Channel's "Fox News Watch," which airs which airs Saturdays at 6:30 pm >and Sundays at 11 pm (Eastern Standard Time). Check your local listings. > >FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations >in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit >http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html . > >Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra! For >more information, go to: http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call >1-800-847-3993. > >FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New >York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see: >http://www.fair.org/internships.html > >You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our >subscriber list is kept confidential. > FAIR > (212) 633-6700 > http://www.fair.org/ > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >--- >You are currently subscribed to fair-l as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To unsubscribe send a blank email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
