Should the media refrain from using the term "terrorist" for the sake of objectivity and neutrality?

Yes

1 of 2

by Joost Steffensen

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The media should always be careful about the designations it uses. In recent times we have seen how changing or creating new designations for people not only changes how they are perceived but even their standing under the law. After all it is only necessary for somebody to be designated an enemy combatant for this person to suddenly lose nearly all their protections under the law.

A good journalist should not refer to any group as a terrorist organization. It is not the job of the media to decide who are terrorists. Rather it is their job to draw an accurate picture of the group they are describing and to let the public themselves decide from the description whether or not they perceive these people as terrorists.

Of course the media should not neglect to mention that certain groups are designated by the government as being terrorist. However governments have very different opinions about who qualifies. Most western politicians see the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader. China sees him as a terrorist. It is the media's job to point out these contradictions and to provide the public with enough information to make up its own mind.

The importance of this is made clear when we look at some media outlets in the Middle east who often refer to suicide bombers as martyrs. Most people in the west would agree that this is not an objective observation but rather a judgment on the character of the action.

Conversely referring to the same activity as the act of a terrorist is also a judgment simply made from the opposite side. A good journalist would not only highlight the terrorist connotation, but would also comment on the way this act is perceived by different sides.

To some extent the use of the word terrorist is a short cut for the journalist an easy way to describe a situation, but unfortunately this is exactly why it is wrong from a reporting perspective. By using a stereotype to describe the situation it leaves out a lot of information. Describing something as a terrorist act allows journalists to ignore the uniqueness of each situation. Who were these "terrorists", who were their victims, what were the motivations, what will the results be. Those are the questions a journalist should be trying to answer.

As I mentioned the word terrorist is a stereotype. It originally indicated a person committing an act that was meant to cause terror or fear. However nowadays the stereotype connected to the word terrorist has changed. For many people the word terrorist conjures up bloodthirsty monsters usually of Arab descent. This stereotype narrows the definition of terrorism and confines it to Arab or Islamic terrorism alone.

That this is incorrect is easily understood when we consider that the broader definition of Terrorism includes any act in which terror and fear are the main goals of an attack rather than gaining a strategic advantage. Acts like the Allied bombing of Dresden or the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima would be considered terrorism under this definition. The bombing of Dresden was in retrospect of little value to the war effort, The bombing of Hiroshima ended the war. Both acts of Terror with differing results.

How incorrect usage hollows out the debate is also easily demonstrated by President Bush's designation of the struggle against the Al Qaeda terror network as the war against terrorism. By using such a broad term the President has made it almost impossible to define the war or the enemy. Under this definition anybody referred to as a terrorist is the enemy. However in reality the war is against one specific terrorist organization and its allies.

Also the broad definition paints the war as one against a group with only one goal in mind, causing terror. However this ignores the fact that causing terror is only a means to an end. Al Qaeda has specific policy goals which it would like to achieve. By using the term terrorist not only as a designation, but also as an explanation we achieve blissful ignorant simplification.

Wrong : terrorist causes havoc in marketplace

(lack of information, use of stereotypes, vague description of events)

Right: Suicide bomber blows up himself in Baghdad marketplace, five other people lightly injured. Terrorist ties suspected.

(precise description of events, correct terminology, acknowledgment of possible terrorist connection,no premature conclusion).

Journali sts need to be a conduit of information, the more accurately they describe events the more accurate our picture of the world becomes They are our sixth sense the one with which we perceive what happens far away. A journalist that can only cast the world in terms of good or bad is like a tongue that only distinguishes between salt and sour. A real reporter also gives us the bitter and the sweet.

Learn more about this author, Joost Steffensen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.