"Terrorism" Is a Term That Requires Consistency:
People sometimes show a double standard on "terror"

Read more!
Modou

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.




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~