On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 21:34, ss <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > The other is to narrow the meaning of terrorism down to such a fine point that > the word is used only when convenient. MJ Akbar has written a fine article > in today's Deccan Herald about this - but the site is offline (perhaps > because of cut undersea cables) > > But I have scanned the article and uploaded it here > http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/cybersurg/terror-mja.jpg
The article is online here: <http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Dec222008/editpage20081221108056.asp> While I can understand the emotions behind Akbar's reasoning, he hasn't done enough research for his article and he is wrong when he says that: """ It would be interesting to find out if the BBC called the destruction of the twin towers of New York the work of "gunmen" or "killers" or "airplane bombers," or whether it called them terrorists. Did the BBC consider the men who killed innocents on London's trains and buses "bombers" in search of a little private excitement? I am not sure about the nature of the coverage. """ He shouldn't be writing this if he's not sure about the BBC's coverage on those events. It takes very little work to find out using Google. It's quite clearly stated in BBC's editorial guidelines: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/war/mandatoryreferr.shtml> """ The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them. """ They did not use it during 9/11 and had to justify it with a detailed explanation: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1555265.stm> And ditto for the London bombings: <http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/media/article/484439/bbc-edits-word-terrorist-early-coverage-london-bombings/> ~ash
