By Brigitte L. Nacos
Initial news reports about the killing of Shamil Basayev by Russian security forces demonstrate once again that the U.S. media avoid calling a terrorist what he or she is--a terrorist. Instead, in Basayev's case, he is characterized as rebel and warlord (see AP dispatch in the Washington Post). If we recognize that terrorism is political violence deliberately committed against civilians, Basayev was by definition a terrorists--one of the most brutal of our times and just like al-Zawahiri and his idol bin Laden. Yet, whereas reporters, editors, producers, and other news personnel have no qualms to attach the t-word to America's enemies in the post-9/11 "war on terrorism," they remain otherwise reluctant to call a spade a spade or, better, a terrorist a terrorist.There are a few blog who tell it how it is--see counterterrorism blog post.
Following 9/11, some news organizations came under attack for avoiding the terms terrorism. Reuters in particular was criticized for prohibiting its reporters and editors from using the 't" word even in the context of 9/11 because, as member of Reuter's management explained in a memo to the staff and in interviews, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist... We are trying to treat everyone on a level playing field, however tragic it's been and however aweful and cataclysmic for the American people."
As it turned out, the news agency's decision had other motives as well. As one of the wire service's executives explained, "We don't want to jeopardize the safety of our staff--in Gaza, the West Bank, and Afghanistan,."
More than two years after 9/11, Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler defended the newspaper's linguistic choices in response to readers' complaints about bias in the newspaper's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Getler explained that "[t]errorism and terrorist can be useful words, but they are labels. Like all labels, they do not convey much hard information. We should rely first on specific facts, not characterization." Getler also explained what the Post considered distinctions between different organizations according to their activities and goals as he rejected attempts to equate the "U.S. battle against al Qaeda with the Israeli battle against Hamas." "News organizations should not back away from using the word terrorism when it is the proper term. But as a rule, strong, descriptive, factual reporting is better than labels."
Well, yes. We want the facts. We want good reporting. There is no doubt that the terms terrorist and terrorism have negative connotations. Terrorists themselves, with few exceptions, reject the t-word. The media need to do a better job in defining what terrorism is and what it is not and then apply the t-word even-handedly. Otherwise this boils down to bias.
Returning to the killing of Chechnya's Shamil Basayev, whatever the media call him, he was a terrorist who proudly claimed responsibility for two of the most lethal terrist deeds: the 2004 take-over of a school in Beslan that ended with the death of 331 persons--most of them children and the 2002 seizure of a Moscow theater that resulted in the death of dozens of hostages and hostage-takers. If that did not make Basayev a terrorist, what would?
Comments