|
When's a terrorist not a terrorist?
By Robert Leikind
Boston Regional Director
Anti-Defamation League
This op-ed originally appeared in the October 3 - 9, 2003 issue of The Boston Jewish Advocate.
Posted: October 10, 2003
Recently, the Boston Globe published an op-ed, "Who should wear the label 'terrorist'?" (Sept. 8, 2003) by Christine Chinlund, the newspaper's ombudsman, to explain the standard governing when the Globe uses the attribution "terrorism" or "terrorist." Given the heated political currents that often swirl around discussions of terrorism, it was a reasonable thing for the Globe to do. What followed, however, was anything but reasonable.
Chinlund contended that: "A suicide bombing on a crowded bus is clearly an act of terrorism and should be so labeled." However, she then made a distinction between "acts of terror" and the organizations that recruit, educate, train, finance, plan and logistically support the people who commit them. These organizations, she contended, should not be called terrorist organizations. Even the fact that these very same organizations often claim responsibility for specific "acts of terror" that result in the murder and maiming of scores of people, celebrate these killings and the person who commit them and then provide financial support to the families of the person who committed the "act of terror" is not enough to earn them the label terrorist.
How does the Globe justify a standard that so clearly defies common sense? Chinlund argued that the word terrorism is such "a powerfully negative label" that its use "banishes its holder from the political arena." Perhaps so, but if a deed so deeply offends peoples' sensibilities, is it the job of a newspaper to find ways to preserve the integrity of the organization that perpetrates it?
In fact, that is exactly what the Globe does when it replaces the label "terrorist" with the far more benign label "militant" in describing various organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. This points to one of the great ironies of the Globe's posture. Chinlund contended that "to label any group in the Middle East as terrorist is to take sides, or at least appear to." In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. By avoiding the use of accurate labels the Globe is not only distorting peoples' understanding of terrorism, but effectively protecting the reputation of organizations that by any rational standard are actively involved in the business of terrorism.
The Globe's last line of defense is to claim that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter." Undoubtedly, this is true. It is also irrelevant.
Terrorism is not something that derives its meaning only from the cause that it is meant to serve. Rather, terrorism is a method that is used by some organizations to advance their goals. People who fashion themselves to be "freedom fighters" can be terrorists as can drug dealers. When a person decides to blow himself up on a crowded bus some may conceive of him as a "freedom fighter," but what is clear beyond any doubt is that this person is also a "terrorist" engaged in an "act of terrorism" that is (in most instances) being sponsored by a "terrorist organization" that in virtually every respect made their murderous action possible.
So why does the Globe persist in a position that is so transparently indefensible? Some might leap to the conclusion that the Globe is hostile to Israel. Clearly, there have been issues with their reporting over the years. It is equally clear, however, that the Globe has made serious efforts to be fair and balanced. And that may be the problem we are facing.
The Globe along with many other leading newspapers and media outlets, such as The Washington Post, recognize how potent the word terrorism has become for most Americans in the post-Sept. 11 age. As a result, they have become more circumspect in its use lest they inflame their readership and appear unbalanced in the eyes of some critics. In doing so, however, they have left the world of journalism and entered into the world of politics.
It is the job of a newspaper to present the truth as accurately as it can be depicted. This means that if the word terrorist can be fairly applied to an organization, then it is the job of the newspaper to use it. It is unimportant whether the organization being labeled represents the interests of Muslims, Jews, Tamals, Irish, Serbians or Chechens. Nor is it of importance what the cause is that motivates the act. What matters is the act itself.
As we all know, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a pretty good bet that it is a duck. So let's call it that.
Back to Top
|
|
|
|
|
