The BBC Closes Its Eyes

by Cliopatria

On a day when a group of Palestinian militants murdered an Israeli hostage in the West Bank, the Jerusalem Postprovided a useful reminder of how BBC's leadership continues to defend its policy of not using the word"terrorist" to describe the deliberate killing of civilians.

In May, an independent panel argued that BBC coverage of Middle Eastern affairs featured"gaps in coverage, analysis, context and perspective" and failed to"maintain consistently the BBC's own established editorial standards, including on language." The latter included the policy of refusing to use the word"terrorist" to describe perpatrators of attacks deliberately designed to kill civilians.

The BBC's response, according to the Post?

Using the word"terrorist" in the manner defined by the panel, BBC management argued,"would exclude attacks on soldiers" and would make"the very value judgments" the Editorial Guidelines"ask us to avoid."

Fair and balanced, British-style.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

E. Simon - 7/1/2006

Which collective groups of civilian noncombattants has Israel deliberately targetted with lethal attacks?

Reading carefully might not help your position, but it helps clarify the thought processes used by those interested in meaningful debate. Just an FYI.

Adam Kotsko - 6/29/2006

I suspect they don't use it in Iraq because the US lost the last guerilla war that it fought. Negative associations.

David M Fahey - 6/29/2006

Attacking noncombatants for the sake of demoralizing a society seems to be the core definition for terrorism. Arguably assassination is different in that it is directed at a particular person, but historically the term terrorist has been assigned to some assassins (for instance, in 19th-century Russia). I often find it difficult to distinguish guerilla warfare from terrorism. By the way, am I the only one to find it odd that word guerilla is rarely used in reporting the Israel/Palestine conflict and that in Iraq?

Oscar Chamberlain - 6/29/2006

I see your objection to the BBC policy. I am on the edge of agreeing with you. However, they have a point, too. The line betwen terrorism and legitimate killing is not so clear.

1. Many attacks on solicers are not in the "heat of battle." Is blowing up soldiers on leave terrorism? If they were alone, we might say "no." If they were with loved ones, we might say yes.

2. If yes, does that mean that bombing terrorists in a civilian area and taking out a few civilians with them is terrorism? Our military claims not, but it is awfully hard to distinguish the two. The BBC has decided not to try.

I do think the BBC should use the term when the attack is clearly and solely directed at civilians.

Jacob paul segal - 6/29/2006

Is KC Johnson trying to suggest that these comments provde the conservative argument that the BBC is biased against Israel?

In fact the report states that there is "no evidence of "systematic" bias within the corporation" and "the report notes stronger evidence of pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian coverage by the BBC, while concluding there was no overall, systematic bias one way or the other."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1765866,00.html

Also, as Kotsko asks: what do you call the policy of terminating electrity for a million odd people as a response to the kidnapping of a single soldier? Don't people die without electrityl?

Adam Kotsko - 6/29/2006

They would have to call Israeli collective punishment of Palestinians "terrorism," too.