The CBC has a nice example of how journalists will twist themselves into knots trying to count the number of objective angels on a pin.
In a memo, an editor at CBC goes on at ridiculous lengths explaining that the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” are not neutral terms and that they should be avoided by CBC reporters where possible. According to the memo,
Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it’s a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.
By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren’t faced with the problem of calling one incident a “terrorist act” (e.g., the destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as, say, a mere “bombing” (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping mall in the Middle East).
Why wouldn’t they call the intentional destruction of a shopping mall a terrorist act?
Anyway, the problem that the CBC editor doesn’t notice is that pretty much all language that isn’t stiltingly clinical entails value judgements. Consider the CBC’s advice on alternatives to “terrorist,”
Use specific descriptions. Instead of reaching for a label (“terrorist” or “terrorism”) when news breaks, try describing what happened.
For example, “A suicide bomber blew up a bus full of unarmed civilians early Monday, killing at least two dozen people.” The details of these tragedies give our audience the information they need to form their own conclusions about what type of attack it was.
Rather than calling assailants “terrorists,” we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we’re sure no women were in the group), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun.
But almost all of those examples would also be disputed by different sides of conflicts. A Palestinian who blows himself up clearly sees himself as a brave soldier and martyr, and might object to the term “suicide bomber,” just as some in the U.S. object that it should properly be called a “homicide bomber.”
“Militants” and “extremists” are obviously loaded words. Were the 9/11 terrorists “extremists”? That depends on who you’re asking — presumably the Taliban didn’t think so. Isn’t referring to the 9/11 terrorists as “extremists” just another way of taking sides in a conflict?
Even something as seemingly non-biased as “attackers” is not so obvious on further inspection. A Palestinian who blows himself up on an Israeli bus might argue that he is simply defending his culture and people from aggression.
The whole affair is made even more bizarre by CBC’s mischaracterization of the role of words like “terrorist”. Calling a Palestinian suicide bomber a terrorist no more takes sides in that conflict than calling an Israeli who shoots up a mosque a terrorist does. The real conflict is non-ideological in that sense, and rather is between those who believe on the one hand that intentionally killing unarmed civilians is wrong, and those on the other hand who think that it is a perfectly wonderful way to spend the afternoon.
Leave it to the CBC to say that its devotion to “objective” journalism means it is impermissible to take a side even in that conflict.
