Using the Term "Terrorist"

After 9/11, many media outlets adopted a policy of not using the term "terrorist" to describe terrorists. Instead, terms like "militant" were used. The idea behind this was that "terrorism" is a subjective term. The BBC's guidelines are

We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.

We should not adopt other people's language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like "liberate", "court martial" or "execute" in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent, and "militant". Our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.

After yesterday's bombings in London, the BBC headlined an article "London rocked by terror attacks" in apparent violation of their guidelines. Needless to say, many people, typically conservatives, never approved of these guidelines. Mediacrity sarcastically takes the BBC to task for using the word.

Here's the thing. It really is a subjective term. What is terrorism? The dictionary definition is

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Secretary Rumsfeld said

Terrorism, of course, has a lot of definitions and people have different views as to what it means precisely. For myself, I think of the word as meaning an act whereby innocent people are involved and killed.

By these definitions, what is the most spectacular terrorist attack in history? The US bombing of Hiroshima. We bombed a civilian target, killing a huge number of people, for the purpose of intimidating the Japanese government into surrender. The US military makes bin Laden look like an amateur, especially when one includes the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi, etc.

But do Americans typically think of that as a terrorist act? Of course not. If someone wrote an article on the Hiroshima bombing and used the word "terrorist" to describe the crew of the Enola Gay, would that not be misleading and confusing to the reader? Absolutely. The term has a bias built into it that does not belong in nominally objective reporting. It's ironic that convervatives, who often complain about bias and slant in the media, will complain about a policy that attempts to remove bias and slant from their coverage. Agreeing with the bias and slant does not make it acceptable, any more than liberals agreeing with the bias in the LA Times makes it acceptable.