[Futurework] use of word terror
'Terrorism'? Who's to say?: Informed sourcesNational Post July 19, 2005What 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."
___
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] use of word terror
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. ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] use of word terror
Committees have a hard time finding a definition of terrorism that doesN'T include state terrorism. Indeed there's hardly a difference (even who did it isn't a reliable difference in Reichstag fire events). Chris ___From Funk Wagnall's Standard Dictionary___ (International Edition, New York 1960) Terrorize (also Brit. terrorise): 1. To reduce to a state of terror. 2. To coerce through intimidation. Terrorism: 1. The act of terrorizing. 2. A system of government that seeks to rule by intimidation. 3. Unlawful acts of violence committed in an organised attempt to overthrow a government. SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword igve. ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] Nature Therapy: a new cure for ADHD?
Nature Deficit By Richard Louv, Orion Magazine, July/August 2005 Asanyparentorteacherprobablyknows, the number of children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has skyrocketedby 33 percent from 1997 to 2002. Prescriptions of stimulant medications such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamines (Dexedrine) have risen as well, especially for preschoolers. From 2000 to 2003, spending on ADHD drugs for children under five rose 369 percent. Scientists have yet to definitively explain the trend. Some critics say the reporting might be skewedthat ADHD may have been with us all the time but called by other names or missed entirely. Another theory is that the disorder might be over diagnosed; pharmaceutical companies have intensely marketed medications, and school officials often urge parents to seek treatment for disruptive children. Still, the disorder is real. One suspected cause of ADHD symptoms is over stimulation, especially from television viewing. But another significant factor in the ADHD phenomenonand a potential treatmentcould be as close as our own backyards. Children diagnosed with ADHD have trouble paying attention, listening, following directions, and focusing on tasks. They may also be aggressive, antisocial, and susceptible to academic failure. Based on high-tech images of the brain, some scientists report that ADHD children show altered levels of some neurotransmitters and slight shrinking in the part of the cerebral cortex that governs attention and impulse control. But scientists are not clear whether those differences indicate a cause for the disorder, perhaps due to a genetic defect, or are simply manifestations of another cause or causes. In ongoing studies by the Human-Environment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, researchers have discovered tantalizing evidence for a new view of the syndrome. In a 2004 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, the laboratory found that children as young as five showed a significant reduction in ADHD symptoms when they engaged with nature. Researchers have found that engagement with nature buffers against life stresses, which otherwise could aggravate ADHD Parents and guardians were asked to identify after-school or weekend activities that left their children functioning particularly well or poorly. The study measured responses to two types of activities: those in green landscapessuch as grassy backyards, parks, and farmlandand those in indoor playgrounds and paved recreation areas. The researchers designed the study to account for any effects of physical exercise so they could measure only the influence of green settings. They also factored out age, gender, family income, geographic region, size of community, and the severity of diagnosis. In fifty-four of fifty-six cases, outdoor activities in more natural settings led to a greater reduction in ADHD symptoms than activities in less natural areas. The only instances when symptoms worsened occurred in the artificial environments. In a related experiment, the laboratory found that children could focus on specific tasks better in green settings. Other researchers have found that engagement with nature buffers against life stresses, which otherwise could aggravate ADHD. Although most of their studies focus on adults, an increasing number gauge the impact of green settings on children. A 2003 Cornell University study reported that the more nature a child encountered at homeincluding exposure to indoor plants and window views of natural settingsthe less he or she was affected by negative stresses. A 2003 study by researchers at the New York State College of Human Ecology reached similar conclusions. Nancy Wells, the lead researcher, said that exposure to nature resulted in profound differences in children's attention capacities and that green spaces may enable children to think more clearly and cope more effectively with life stress. That, in turn, could strengthen a child's attention and potentially decrease the symptoms of ADHD. It's not clear why exposure to nature would have such an apparently powerful influence on brain functions related to attention. One theory is that the experience simply engages a child mentally and physically in a natural way, consistent with how humans have evolved. In an earlier hunting and gathering or agricultural societywhich is to say, during most of humankind's historyyoung people were more likely to engage in physically demanding, mentally relaxing activities that immersed most of their sensory receptors: climbing, hunting small animals, baling hay, splashing in the swimming hole. As recently as the 1950s, most U.S. youngsters still had some kind of agricultural connection. Even in towns or cities, kids played ball in sandlots or spent hours building forts in tangled and wild vacant lots. Their unregimented play was steeped in nature. That kind of exposure to nature has faded
[Futurework] Is free speech compromised in the name of global profits?
Is China the only censoring government? kwc Let a Thousand Filters Bloom By Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, Wednesday, July 20, 2005; A23 See http://www.anneapplebaum.com/ In 1949, when George Orwell wrote his dystopian novel 1984, he gave its hero, Winston, a job at the Ministry of Truth. All day long, Winston clips politically unacceptable facts, stuffs them into little pneumatic tubes, and then pushes the tubes down a chute. Beside him sits a woman in charge of finding and erasing the names of people who have been vaporized. And their office, Orwell wrote, with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department. It's odd to read 1984 in 2005, because the politics of Orwell's vision aren't outdated. There are still plenty of governments in the world that go to extraordinary lengths to shape what their citizens read, think and say, just like Orwell's Big Brother. But the technology envisioned in 1984 is so -- well, 1980s. Paper? Pneumatic tubes? Workers in cubicles? Nowadays, none of that is necessary: It can all be done electronically, especially if, like the Chinese government, you seek the cooperation of large American companies. Without question, China's Internet filtering regime is the most sophisticated effort of its kind in the world, in the words of a recent report by Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. The system involves the censorship of Web logs, search engines, chat rooms and e-mail by thousands of public and private personnel. It also involves Microsoft Inc., as Chinese bloggers discovered last month. Since early June, Chinese bloggers who post messages containing a forbidden word -- Dalai Lama, for example, or democracy -- receive a warning: This message contains a banned _expression_, please delete. It seems Microsoft has altered the Chinese version of its blog tool, MSN Spaces, at the behest of Chinese government. Bill Gates, so eloquent on the subject of African poverty, is less worried about Chinese free speech. But he isn't alone: Because Yahoo Inc. is one of several companies that have signed a public pledge on self-discipline, a Yahoo search in China doesn't turn up all of the (politically sensitive) results. Cisco Systems Inc., another U.S. company, has also sold hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment to China, including technology that blocks traffic not only to banned Web sites, but even to particular pages within an otherwise accessible site. Until now, most of these companies have defended themselves on the grounds that there are side benefits -- a Microsoft spokesman has said that we're helping millions of people communicate, share stories, share photographs and build relationships -- or on the grounds that they can't control technology anyway. A Cisco spokesman told me that this is the same equipment technology that your local library uses to block pornography, and besides, we're not doing anything illegal. But as U.S. companies become more deeply involved in China, and as technology itself progresses, those lines may begin to sound weaker. Over the past couple of years, Harry Wu, a Chinese human rights activist and former political prisoner, has carefully tracked Western corporate cooperation with Chinese police and internal security, and in particular with a Chinese project called Golden Shield, a high-tech surveillance system that has been under construction for the past five years. Although the company won't confirm it, Wu says, Cisco representatives in China have told him that the company has contracts to provide technology to the police departments of at least 31 provinces. Some of that technology may be similar to what the writer and former businessman Ethan Gutmann describes in his recent book, Losing the New China: A Story of American Commerce, Desire and Betrayal. Gutmann -- whose account is also bitterly disputed by Cisco (He's getting a lot of press out of this, complained the spokesman) -- claims to have visited a Shanghai trade fair where Cisco was advertising its ability to integrate judicial networks, border security, and vertical police networks and more generally its willingness to build Golden Shield. If this isn't illegal, maybe it should be. After the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the United States passed a law prohibiting U.S. firms from selling crime control and detection equipment to the Chinese. But in 1989, the definition of police equipment ran to truncheons, handcuffs and riot gear. Has it been updated? We may soon find out: A few days ago, Rep. Dan Burton of the House Foreign Relations Committee wrote a letter to the Commerce Department asking exactly that. In any case, it's time to have this debate again. There could be other solutions -- such as flooding the Chinese Internet with filter-breaking technology. Beyond legality, of course, there's morality. And here the judgment of history will prove more
